[EB] Discussion about Standard Rules

[Galvanized Iron]

The godly nature of the RS II MP EDU notwithstanding, can we turn on arcade mode when playing online? I ask because I'm sure it would help that 24-way-rock-paper-scissors thing you have going on in the second-to-last paragraph.

Is this a question or are you trying to be ironic?

RS II MP is designed for competive play, playing on arcade mode would seriously tip the balance in favour of missile heavy factions, ie cataphract archers of death.

[Galvanized Iron]

Anyway I don't want to imply that EB MP is inferior, I just don't see why I should have designed RS II MP to be a clone of EB MP, what would be the point of having 2 different mods if they were both the same? EB MP has the advantage of having bigger unit selection and gives you more free hands since units are more confident if left unsupported whilst RS MP is more tactical and competive (RS units do stand and fight for a veeeery long time when close to the main battleline, but rout quickly if you send them alone on suicide missions. Some people have complained about the unit morale, but they all had in common that they were not properly supporting their units). Only problem I see with EB MP is that its easier to exploit spam tactics to win and thus apperently need these fairplay rules to stop phalanxes from trampling everything etc.

[vartan]

Is this a question or are you trying to be ironic?

My line was a critique of the seeming rock-paper-scissors nature of your approach to MP. I'm from those who don't believe all competition need be implemented in such a fashion, and that innate advantages and disadvantages and other nuances should underly gameplay.

Anyway I don't want to imply that EB MP is inferior, I just don't see why I should have designed RS II MP to be a clone of EB MP, what would be the point of having 2 different mods if they were both the same? EB MP has the advantage of having bigger unit selection and gives you more free hands since units are more confident if left unsupported whilst RS MP is more tactical and competive (RS units do stand and fight for a veeeery long time when close to the main battleline, but rout quickly if you send them alone on suicide missions. Some people have complained about the unit morale, but they all had in common that they were not properly supporting their units). Only problem I see with EB MP is that its easier to exploit spam tactics to win and thus apperently need these fairplay rules to stop phalanxes from trampling everything etc.

The discussion is regarding the "Standard Rules" and the EB MP EDU (which needs a re-haul; I admit this before Day 1 of EB Online). Not EB/RS parallels or lack thereof. I'm grateful LazyO brought you to share your insight, because a variety of thoughts are better than few.

Regarding your approach, would it entail a re-examining of all costs of the units in MP, or is it a matter of features (e.g., wedge formation), statistical changes (e.g., morale, atk/def) and rules? Thanks again for your input.

[Galvanized Iron]

My line was a critique of the seeming rock-paper-scissors nature of your approach to MP. I'm from those who don't believe all competition need be implemented in such a fashion, and that innate advantages and disadvantages and other nuances should underly gameplay.

All units don't fall under rock scissor, but yeah overall the MP follows a kind of rock scissor formula, though some units like hoplites don't fully fit into that, phalanx is also something of an exception that its more geared towards strong early push followed by dissolving and weakening as battle prolongs.

The discussion is regarding the "Standard Rules" and the EB MP EDU (which needs a re-haul; I admit this before Day 1 of EB Online). Not EB/RS parallels or lack thereof. I'm grateful LazyO brought you to share your insight, because a variety of thoughts are better than few.

Regarding your approach, would it entail a re-examining of all costs of the units in MP, or is it a matter of features (e.g., wedge formation), statistical changes (e.g., morale, atk/def) and rules? Thanks again for your input.

Well I had a couple of game with LazyO and the mod was enjoyable as such, though the mod strongly seems to favour large blocks of infantry, was very easy to field armies that have unbreakable morale that way.

One good thing that I implemented in RS was that I greatly boosted the lethality of their primary attack whilst strongly diminishing their defense skill and secondary attack, that way the spears themselves act as a strong defense whilst the formation becomes almost impotent against units attacking where the spears are not pointing. This is also counter-acts boxing since if you press on a corner the phalanx will quickly be forced into using secondary attacks and so will reinforcing units do to the chaos.

Wedge formation as such is a very exploitive formation that even at minimal lethality are able to wipe battle lines in one charge as such its for the better that it is not in the mod. However the EB cavalry may need some sort of boosting, but wedge is not the solution. Its a bit awkward right now that the secondary lethality of the cavalry is so much lower than the primary, I know the secondary instead have higher attack speed and better hit chance, but overall cavalry using the primary attack seem to win over cavalry using the secondary attack.

Lowering morale would increase use of flank manouvers, aggressive tactics and such, but in a way I like the suicidal morale as it gives some variations from my games in RS and especially instant rout vanilla. No need to make every mod the same!

[vartan]

That's interesting that you mention that, modifying statistical values to make flanking more effective and meaningful in battle. Also it's good you bring up the efficiency of the primary attack of cavalry (lancers in particular) compared to the secondary. I've always wished it weren't so; melee combat with melee weaponry is sadly not encouraged in the current state of EB.

[Galvanized Iron]

That's interesting that you mention that, modifying statistical values to make flanking more effective and meaningful in battle. Also it's good you bring up the efficiency of the primary attack of cavalry (lancers in particular) compared to the secondary. I've always wished it weren't so; melee combat with melee weaponry is sadly not encouraged in the current state of EB.

Yeah well in RS I solved it by having both primary and secondary attack having same lethality, it works becuase even though cavalry appears to have superior stats it compensated by them being vurnable to more angles of attack than infantry and their weakness to spearmen.

Example of RS II cavalry unit:

type cimbri noble cavalry
dictionary cimbri_noble_cavalry
category cavalry
class heavy
voice_type Heavy_1,
soldier cimbri_noble_cavalry, 60, 0, 1
mount horse celtic
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, very_hardy, command, power_charge
formation 1.5, 4, 3, 6, 4, square
stat_health 1, 9
stat_pri 14, 35, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25, 0.361
stat_pri_attr no,
stat_sec 14, 35, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, axe, 25, 0.361
stat_sec_attr ap,
stat_pri_armour 12, 5, 7, metal
stat_sec_armour 12, 1, flesh
stat_heat 2,
stat_ground 0, -2, -2, 2
stat_mental 11, normal, trained
stat_charge_dist 43,
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 0, 650, 245, 52, 78, 1050
ownership slave, germans

Comparison between legionary and phalanx stats:

type legio iii augusta first
dictionary legio_iii_augusta_first
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type Medium_1
soldier gallica_iii_augusta, 60, 0, 1.316, 0.3
officer roman_early_centurion
officer roman_eagle
officer roman_cornicean_foot
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, very_hardy, command
formation 1, 1.66, 2, 3.33, 5, square, testudo
stat_health 1, 5
stat_pri 12, 10, pilum_early 50, 2, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 25, 1
stat_pri_attr prec, ap
stat_sec 12, 10, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, piercing, sword, 25, 0.2
stat_sec_attr no,
stat_pri_armour 10, 19, 7, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 1, flesh
stat_heat 2,
stat_ground 0, 0, -1, -1
stat_mental 10, normal, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30,
stat_fire_delay 0,
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 6812, 1680, 26, 39, 520
ownership slave, romans_brutii

type pezhetairoi pikeman
dictionary pezhetairoi_pikeman
category infantry
class spearmen
voice_type Heavy_1
soldier pezhetairoi_successors_pikeman, 60, 0, 0.842
officer pezhetairoi_successors_pikeman
officer greek_officer
officer greek_flutist,
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, hardy
formation 0.9, 1, 2.4, 2, 10, square, phalanx
stat_health 1, 5
stat_pri 19, 9, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25, 0.252
stat_pri_attr long_pike, spear, spear_bonus_8
stat_sec 5, 9, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 25, 0.2
stat_sec_attr no,
stat_pri_armour 7, 10, 3, leather
stat_sec_armour 0, 1, flesh
stat_heat 2,
stat_ground 0, 0, -6, -2
stat_mental 7, normal, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 1,
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 0, 2501, 731, 20, 30, 400
ownership slave, seleucid, egypt

[Galvanized Iron]

Another useful thing that could be done for the interface is making the anti-cavalry bonus of spearmen written out, as it is now its more or less a secret who got proper spears, so this is how I made spearmen in RS;

type roman triarii
dictionary roman_triarii,
category infantry
class spearmen,
voice_type Medium_1,
soldier roman_triarii, 50, 0, 1.278, 0.28
officer roman_early_centurion,
officer roman_signifier,
mount_effect horse +2
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, very_hardy
formation 1, 1, 2, 2, 5, square, shield_wall
stat_health 1, 5
stat_pri 14, 13, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, spear, 25, 0.2
stat_pri_attr light_spear, spear_bonus_4
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25, 1
stat_sec_attr no,
stat_pri_armour 10, 19, 7, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 1, flesh
stat_heat 2,
stat_ground 0, 0, -1, -1
stat_mental 9, normal, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30,
stat_fire_delay 0,
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 0, 2980, 863, 17, 25, 350
ownership slave, romans_brutii,

That way even units with "light_spear" gets their anti-cavalry bonus written out.