[EB] Discussion about Standard Rules

[Lazy O]

Rules.... Why dont we use normal CWB Rules for EB? I think it would fit very well with a 31k limit money?

For the uneducated

CWB

Max 6 of the Same unit

Max 2 Horse Archers (Needs adjustment, since EB HA are different)

Max 8 Archers


Max 8 Cavalry

Once you pick, you cannot change your faction.(To prevent endless faction switching)

Max 2 Berserkers (not needed)

No artillery ( who uses it anyway)

No Elephants (sohuld be changed or else Saba would die)

So whatcha think? Obviously this would mean many of the same unit types would need to be removed (e.g the x amount of batroas avaiable, should be changed to the batoras and milnaht or something else)

We could aslo do with specialied limits, like max x amount of x unit type. Like the many HA/Cata types available

Discuss


Also, DOnt shit me about making these up, these have been in practice for a good amount of years with 99% of all games using these.

Aleternately we also have TWPL rules. The main reason I say this is because most clans would scrap our existing rules.

[The Celtic Viking]

The rules we have work fine IMO, so I think it's only fair to ask why we should change. I'd especially like you to explain and justify this part:

Obviously this would mean many of the same unit types would need to be removed (e.g the x amount of batroas avaiable, should be changed to the batoras and milnaht or something else)

Are you by this saying that, for example, if I take 4 Bataroas... I can only take 2 Milnaht? That just makes no sense at all to me.

[Lazy O]

I mean the same units that are available in x different forms be removed. Im saying change since this will not work with the broader community and will fail epicly.

[Cute Wolf]

I mean the same units that are available in x different forms be removed. Im saying change since this will not work with the broader community and will fail epicly.

well, rules that was set for vanilla games are unsuitable for historical games...

I mean, how about nomad factions without massive HA?

[vartan]

Rules.... Why dont we use normal CWB Rules for EB? I think it would fit very well with a 31k limit money?

I think you meant to put a period at the end of the second phrase, not a question mark. Maybe it was a subconscious slip indicating self-doubt? Just playing. Here are my thoughts:

Once you pick, you cannot change your faction.(To prevent endless faction switching)

This is already in place.

No Elephants (sohuld be changed or else Saba would die)

Saba has extensive freedom in terms of rules due to its nature in EB.

We could aslo do with specialied limits, like max x amount of x unit type. Like the many HA/Cata types available

In this sense, would be more restrictive and over-regulated than what is already in place, as we don't distinguish between sub-species of units. It just happens to be fact that an armoured HA such as the Armenian variant is--needless to say--a heavily armed unit! Hence it's status as a Heavy Cav. You see, the issue came up more with what is heavy and what isn't, rather than diff. between similar unit types. This is because there was noticed a consistent issue with factions who could field many heavies and those who couldn't afford many heavy horses.

Also, DOnt shit me about making these up, these have been in practice for a good amount of years with 99% of all games using these.

Aleternately we also have TWPL rules. The main reason I say this is because most clans would scrap our existing rules.

Most clans have not played EB and need time to learn the difference between an arcade game and an honorable effort at a strategy game (that is, the diff. between RTW and EB). Different purpose and different dynamics call for different approaches. Consider things relevant. Black lesbian women and white middle class heterosexual women. Are white feminists justified in calling conferences and only fielding a tiny fraction of the members as representatives of the black community (and we're not even at the lesbian women yet)? This is what was happening all the time, even up through the 80s. It took intelligent people to make others aware that the fallacy of unity needs to be dropped and differences need to stop being used as excuses for discrimination and they need to be acknowledged and used actively as forces for change and progress. I say this to you as one who has seen earlier days of playing EB with other people as if it were just another game of Rome: Total War. Thanks to the great work done by the development team, we realized very soon after that our approach was mistaken.

The rules we have work fine IMO, so I think it's only fair to ask why we should change.

The good thing is that rules are flexible. And, for anyone who manages replay archives, a lifesaver because changing rules doesn't screw up your replay viewing experience, changing the EDU does. But I think it's always good to be open to change (else we wouldn't have come to where we are). Sometimes I wonder how a "CWB Modified Rules" game in RTW would turn out--don't want to get nostalgic about RTW now!

I mean the same units that are available in x different forms be removed. Im saying change since this will not work with the broader community and will fail epicly.

Ah, ah, ah! No presumptions. One is better off in life going for something rather than always wondering what it would have been like. Try and fail; don't try and keep wondering.

well, rules that was set for vanilla games are unsuitable for historical games

I'd agree if this said "well, rules that were set for vanilla are unsuitable for EB," as I don't see merit in generalizing that far.

[Lazy O]

Correction Vartan, that was not a presumtion. It has already failed epicly. Theres not a single reply at the post I made about EBonline. While RS2, which MP was crafted by a clannie, GalvanizedIron got alot of popularity.