[EB] Introducing alternate rules (to make LazyO happy)

[Lazy O]

Although Higher money than 15k was a big nono in vanilla, 40-41-42 k can probably apply very well. Due to many factions being extremely limited in their choices on low money.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Although Higher money than 15k was a big nono in vanilla, 40-41-42 k can probably apply very well. Due to many factions being extremely limited in their choices on low money.

I don't play competitively online in Vanilla, just for fun, but low money units are often incredibly effective. Standard archers cost what, 190 and are incredibly OP IMO with a base attack of 7 in a game where armor values rarely go above 6-9. In EB Sotoroas who are more or less useless as archers and only have 60 men per unit on large cost 411 or something similar. I like 40k a little more since you don't have to rely on levies and can build more or less professional style armies, but if 36k has been agreed and tested with, I can't argue.

That being said, Roman infantry is still too cheap. This was a consideration by the EB team to represent readily available manpower, not combat effectiveness as MP should be based.

[Lazy O]

When did I mention Archers? 0_o?? . Yes they are IMO the most cost effective unit in the whole game.

[vartan]

That being said, Roman infantry is still too cheap. This was a consideration by the EB team to represent readily available manpower, not combat effectiveness as MP should be based.

I was conferring on precisely this issue yesterday with my colleagues. They agreed with me and you Brave Sir that although the Single Player values may--nay, they indeed do--represent corresponding real-life phenomena such as Rome's manpower reserves, the Multiplayer scene is a completely different ballgame. For firmer competition, one would ideally have similar price ranges for similarly functioning units (i.e., the various classes and sub-classes of infantry and cavalry). In fact, we were considering the mid 1st-century BCE, during which time Rome and Armenia were the strongest empires on EB's map. I don't know how many men Rome ruled over, but Armenia ruled over a population of over 20 million people. That considered, it didn't make sense to us why in online play, costs should remain the same as in SP, such that an Armenian company of swordsmen, armoured, should cost some couple hundred mnai more than the corresponding Post-Marian cohort of Roman infantry (and considering that the Roman cohort has 25% more men than the Armenian company!)

The primary issue in this case has always been the question of the re-adjustment of costs of all the hundreds of units in order to adapt them to MP scene. Who will do this? How will it be conducted? How long will it take to sufficiently test it long-term? Is it worth it?

And probably even more important in order to prevent a similar problem in EBII, will the EB development team consider this when making the sequel? Ideally, they would consider the MP EDU and give it the proper attention it deserves, setting aside a different adaptation of cost values for the MP scene, keeping in mind that MP is played for competitive enjoyment, not for the representation of some factions manpower reserves. Because, after all, each MP battle is a one-time, exclusive event. We look at them individually, not in light of centuries of kingdom or empire-running (hence the need for cost adaptation tailored to competition and balance, not historical trends).

P.S. Ludens could you pass this on to the development team?

[antisocialmunky]

Most of the light units are pretty good when they aren't fighting against heavily armored elites.

[VikingPower]

To give some picture of that what I would call an ideal army based upon different money setting then it is the following:

Carthage High:

4 Iberian assault infantry, 4 Elite African infantry, 4-5 Iberian medium spearmen, 3-4 Cretan archers and
1 Sacred Band cav, 3 Carthaginian citizen cav OR 2 Iberian heavy cavalry, 2 Carthaginian citizen cav

Carthage Medium:

4 Asturian axemen, 4 Celtiberian heavy infantry, 4-5 Iberian medium spearmen, 3-4 Numidian archers/Balearic slingers and
3 Liby-Pheonician cav OR 1 Livy-Pheonicanc cav, 3 Carthaginian citizen cav.

Carthage low:

4 Iberian light infantry/Balearic light inf, 4 Libyan heavy spearmen, 4-5 Maure infantry, 3-4 Celtic slingers and
4 Iberian medium cavalry/Gallic light cav

Rome Medium:

4 Gallic aux cavalry, 3-4 Cretan archers, 11-12 Post-Marian legionary cohorts.

Rome High:


4 Gallic aux cavalry, 3-4 Cretan archers, 8 Post-Marian legionary cohorts, 4 Elite Post-Marian legionary light inf (flankers)

Averni High:

4 Rhaetic axemen, 5 Gallic heavy swordsmen, 4 Iberian medium spearmen, 3-4 Rhodian slingers and
3 Brihentin/Belgae heavy cav or 2 Brihentin, 2 Gallic light cav

Averni Low:

4 Celtic axemen, 5 Northern Gallic swordsmen, 4 Celtic naked spearmen, 3-4 Celtic slingers, 1 Brihentin, 3 Gallic light cav


Averni Medium:

5 Alpine phalanx, 4-5, Belgae swordsmen, 4 Helveti Phalanx, 3-4 Rhodian slingers and 3 Gallic noble cavalry

[Lazy O]

Extremely restrictive.

[vartan]

Extremely restrictive.

Exactly. For more appropriate army compositions, I recommend viewing some (not all) of the armies in LDC's latest historical battles pack for EB. I think Zama's Carthage will show you precisely what an army should be like. History doesn't teach us about any clone wars, that's George Lucas' job, hence the need for diversity.