[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[antisocialmunky]

While it wasn't a cavalry tactic, there was an infantry tactic that was basically creating an infantry wedge with the heavily armored elite troops on the outside and less armored infantry on the inside to increase mass.

[Lazy O]

Lanceari and ambakaro epones are the other "western" cavalry which beat cataphracts.

[Lazy O]

And vartan, why does the site say SAC archer limit is 8?

[The Celtic Viking]

Not quite the right place to ask that.

[Lazy O]

There is no other place to ask that. Since he is offline and I will be going to sleep soon.

[The Celtic Viking]

There is no other place to ask that. Since he is offline and I will be going to sleep soon.

This forum does have private as well as profile messages, you know.

[vartan]

Lanceari and ambakaro epones are the other "western" cavalry which beat cataphracts.

There you go, more odd cases that continue to baffle.

And vartan, why does the site say SAC archer limit is 8?

Why not? It's the (now legacy) ruleset. Do you have a problem with it?

There is no other place to ask that. Since he is offline and I will be going to sleep soon.

You would do well to contain your...whatever the word is to describe your behavior...inside our Hamachi chatrooms. It's more than plenty there. Don't bring it here if you can prevent it (and you certainly can).

This forum does have private as well as profile messages, you know.

Thank you!

[Lazy O]

It was bumped to 10 in june, why has it been reverted?

[vartan]

It was bumped to 10 in june, why has it been reverted?

June was the first tournament this year. It was also the debut of EBO MP EDU Series 2. This is why certain rules were altered. July saw the use of 2.1, and enter 2.1.1 in August. Rules were changed more than a few times in order to complement the EDU changes. Regardless, it is all irrelevant now as Series 2, like Series 1, is now obsolete. Thanks for asking though.

[Lazy O]

Why. Sauro still get 10, why not the others?

[antisocialmunky]

Random question, how is the density stuff working out? I have some ideas that could make infantry infantry charges actually work.

[The Celtic Viking]

Why. Sauro still get 10, why not the others?

The reason why the Sauros got 10 was because at the time they didn't have any non-archer cav, and that put them at max 8 cav (which would also have meant no foot archers). As this has changed and they have Scythian Nobles now, they should no longer receive this special rule.

[vartan]

Why. Sauro still get 10, why not the others?

Sauros do not get ten. They get anything they want now. Stop asking questions that are completely irrelevant. Thank you.

Random question, how is the density stuff working out? I have some ideas that could make infantry infantry charges actually work.

GG2 hasn't informed me about any work on density. What are you offering? And do we really want infantry charges to work? I know I wouldn't, because as it is, cavalry charges are messed up half the time with lances not lowered. Would you want that with infantry?

The reason why the Sauros got 10 was because at the time they didn't have any non-archer cav, and that put them at max 8 cav (which would also have meant no foot archers). As this has changed and they have Scythian Nobles now, they should no longer receive this special rule.

Thank you.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Sauros do not get ten. They get anything they want now. Stop asking questions that are completely irrelevant. Thank you.

GG2 hasn't informed me about any work on density. What are you offering? And do we really want infantry charges to work? I know I wouldn't, because as it is, cavalry charges are messed up half the time with lances not lowered. Would you want that with infantry?

Thank you.

Cavalry only don't lower their lances if you don't position them properly before the charge. Its all about understanding the quirks of the engine.

[vartan]

Cavalry only don't lower their lances if you don't position them properly before the charge. Its all about understanding the quirks of the engine.

Clearly. But I'd like to fight for players who can't exploit the engine as much as some other players can. What I mean is something like this. If one of my cavalry if fighting one of yours, and you have one on standby nearby, one thing you can do to take advantage is to withdraw your fighting cavalry and charge with your standby. What this does is it makes my cavalry automatically pursue your fleeing cavalry and get charged like a car accident in which one car hits the side of another. What's more, even if I told my cavalry to attack the incoming cavalry, it would be highly unlikely for my cavalry to couch their lances due to the proximity of your charging cavalry. A similar case would arise with infantry if they work anything like cavalry do. By this I mean if they have to be executed at a certain distance, in a certain way, then there could be opened a whole can of worms, Pandora's Box, if you will, since there would be a whole chunk of online gaming technique which would be solely devoted to exploiting these (highly unfortunate) nuances of the engine in order to win.

EDIT: I really hope that makes sense. Let me know if I am mistaken in my reasoning. It's just what comes to mind when I think about this, and I've thought about this plenty and have been slightly disappointed that it's never been at the forefront of our decision making, with the EDU taking the lead role in that regard.

[antisocialmunky]

Weird engine bugs make professional starcraft the best game ever.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Weird engine bugs make professional starcraft the best game ever.

That's not really an engine bug. Cavalry can't suddenly change direction and absorb an incoming prepared charge. It's really just simple preparation. It is unfortunate that newer players have to learn these things by getting burned, but it happened (will happen) to us all. That's why we play so many practice matches.

Also, you can put your cavalry on guard mode if you don't want them to chase. Similarly, the cavalry battle is generally what most players micro and so if you see your opponent pull his cavalry back or see another unit charging in, pull your cavalry back as well.

[gamegeek2]

Actually I'd really like infantry charges to work. Please, offer your proposal!

I will not be available to chat except on Facebook until Monday, or even Tuesday, due to a hard drive failure.

Lazy is slightly misrepresenting: we found that the Pahlavan Zrehbaran and their identical armenian counterparts crush lanceari if they get one charge, and that the same is almost certainly true in the case of the Epones, which we did not test. The Sacred Band were about 50-50 with the cataphracts, but doubtless the cataphracts are more devastating to infantry.

[antisocialmunky]

Can you catch me online?

Also, can you increase drapnai to 120? They aren't very effective yet except making your cav hard to engage.

Also, did you apply factional price discounts?

[gamegeek2]

Can you catch me online?

Also, can you increase drapnai to 120? They aren't very effective yet except making your cav hard to engage.

Also, did you apply factional price discounts?

Yeah. Post-Marian romans don't have any though.

[Lazy O]

Regarding the rules; I dont get it, did the SAC rules get outdated or what?.

And cavalry charge distances, does not matter if you set it to half the map, you still need to know the quirks of the engine for it to work, you cannot avoid that.

@GG2; Yes but, the cataphracts also have 6 other cav for company so I guess our tests are irrelevant :D

[-Stormrage-]

1)Bosphoran archers have the same Defense skill as pontic heavy infantry. Since when did an archer get any sort of melee defense practice. Maybe he had karate lessons on the side. Archers should have beween 2-5 defense skill

2)infantry such as Drapanai have more charge Distance then Cavalry, Drapanai have 40 Cavalry are at 30. The increase of Cavalry Charge Distance would cause lances to lower earlier thus impale any men beween the cavalry and its target . thus the charge wont get messed up by fleeing archers or a tiny group of men who the cata happened to touch before lowering lance, thus messes up the formation.

3) I see Cataphracts have recieved +1 Sheild and Slingers as well as archers have recieved significant accuracy Decreases. That Is nerfing the use of slingers on cataphracts 2 fold one by lowering accuracy another by adding shield. I'm not a history fan boy but did Cataphracts historically have shields ? hmmm nice to know its not pick and choose which histroical fact to apply and which to disregard.

[Lazy O]

2.) No, that has no effect on combat whatsoever, the only thing important for charges is the way they are facing, if you about turn and then charge chances are they will never lower their lances.

[-Stormrage-]

yes or no question:

lazyo when u target a unit to chagre with your cavalry and your cavalry are positioned perfectly u charge, in beween u and the target there is a unit of archers in loose formation, before your cav lowers lances they hit the loose archers what will happen. If the lanes werent raised they will break formation and engage the archers, If the charge distance is big enough that they lower lanes before touching the archers they will stampede the archers and charge the target.

[-Stormrage-]

I urge you to edit the charge distance of the Griv in the EDu to 50, then go to custom battle and test the distance for your self, then test 30 charge distance. I tested it and distance at 30 is too close and may result in them lowering lances too late.

[Lazy O]

I dont know, my cavalry respect and fear me enough to know that they will most probably die like flies if they engage the archers... ;D


PRESS GUARD MODE IF THERE IS SOMETHING IN BETWEEN

[-Stormrage-]

Or the better option would be to scale Cavalry Charge distances to 40-50. I tested it and its Epic.



Edit: GG can you give the Saba Faction All rome units. It would be fun to have some Rome vs. Rome battles.

[vartan]

Regarding the rules; I dont get it, did the SAC rules get outdated or what?.

Don't look at the God-forsaken rules page. It's none of your business anymore. It does not concern you. It's there for reasons that pertain to me mainly regarding how I'm going to archive that and a bunch of stuff which is now obsolete. Stop bringing this up because "SAC rules" no longer exist. Get it. Got it? Good.

1)Bosphoran archers have the same Defense skill as pontic heavy infantry. Since when did an archer get any sort of melee defense practice. Maybe he had karate lessons on the side. Archers should have beween 2-5 defense skill

Haven't you seen the cost on the Bosphorans? It's no wonder they're so powerful.

2)infantry such as Drapanai have more charge Distance then Cavalry, Drapanai have 40 Cavalry are at 30. The increase of Cavalry Charge Distance would cause lances to lower earlier thus impale any men beween the cavalry and its target . thus the charge wont get messed up by fleeing archers or a tiny group of men who the cata happened to touch before lowering lance, thus messes up the formation.

That's no excuse. The person is playing smart by counter-charging. Besides, you can completely avoid this by walking instead of running your cavalry, if you really insist (even though the problem isn't really as you describe it since yours is an exaggeration).

3) I see Cataphracts have recieved +1 Sheild and Slingers as well as archers have recieved significant accuracy Decreases. That Is nerfing the use of slingers on cataphracts 2 fold one by lowering accuracy another by adding shield. I'm not a history fan boy but did Cataphracts historically have shields ? hmmm nice to know its not pick and choose which histroical fact to apply and which to disregard.

It's pretty clear you don't know precisely why missile accuracy was modified and cataphracts given an artificial shield point. That's fine. If it's in the documentation, you'll read all about it. If gamegeek2 has mentioned it (which he has), you'll read about it. If you're lucky, somebody will tell you about it. I'll let you figure it out since I'd like to tease you. It's a puzzle but an easy one. Just think about why someone would make those changes ;-)

yes or no question:

lazyo when u target a unit to chagre with your cavalry and your cavalry are positioned perfectly u charge, in beween u and the target there is a unit of archers in loose formation, before your cav lowers lances they hit the loose archers what will happen. If the lanes werent raised they will break formation and engage the archers, If the charge distance is big enough that they lower lanes before touching the archers they will stampede the archers and charge the target.

You don't charge a unit in front of which are a bunch of loose archers. That is retarded (literally), at least in our game, precisely because of the engagement mechanics. Your charge will become discoordinated and a real mess. Instead find a better charge to commit to, gg.

Or the better option would be to scale Cavalry Charge distances to 40-50. I tested it and its Epic.

Edit: GG can you give the Saba Faction All rome units. It would be fun to have some Rome vs. Rome battles.

It's not epic. It's stupid. Most lances don't even couch as it is. 50 would just ruin it for everybody. And giving Saba factional SPQR should only allow the opponent to pick factional SPQR (no mercs), but that's probably the smartest thing you've said for a long, long time. Well done.

[gamegeek2]

The only problem with stormrage's suggestion is that it would require a massive amount of editing to desr_model_battle so that Saba would have the necessary skins.

If we are to have any rules, Lazy, they would be these:

-Merc unit limit dependent on faction; some would get more than others (Rome, for example).
-Fair play rules
-Unit limitation based on costs, which you have proposed and I want you to outline in a post, because I think it is an excellent idea. It would prevent spamming of units like Lanceari, Cataphracts, and Scythian Nobles, and impose some fair historical limits, while allowing people plenty of options in army composition in terms of the numbers of missile troops, etc. they can bring.

[Lazy O]

I think it went something like this, though I forgot exact limits.

No limit for under (price)1000

Max 8 same of 1000-1500

Max 6 Same of 1000-2000

Max 4 same of 2000-2500

Max 2 same of 2500+