[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[gamegeek2]

Ideally we would have armies with four elephants on large, eight on huge.

[Lazy O]

It annoys me when you are posting on the forum yet cant come on hamachi :(

[Lazy O]

Triple post ftw, he might not admit it, but there was much more to his game than elephants.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Why? Who said you need to make the numbers proportionally realistic?

Yes no way to represent the fact that cavalry would not even go near elephants if the horses were unaccustomed to the sights, sounds, and smells of the beasts. The fair compromise is the unit size as is.

A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.

[vartan]

Triple post ftw, he might not admit it, but there was much more to his game than elephants.

Who are you to speak on his behalf? Do you always do this?

Yes no way to represent the fact that cavalry would not even go near elephants if the horses were unaccustomed to the sights, sounds, and smells of the beasts. The fair compromise is the unit size as is.

Basically. Cavalry are not supposed to come near. The engine fails, once again.

A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.

You'll need to ask the EB team about that.

[gamegeek2]

Yes no way to represent the fact that cavalry would not even go near elephants if the horses were unaccustomed to the sights, sounds, and smells of the beasts. The fair compromise is the unit size as is.

A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.

Except I am going to make the better quality Indians cost less than the towered Africans. Did you read the documentation at all? Oh wait, that's long and boring.

[Lazy O]

Who are you to prevent me from saying that he was better than you people think he was?

[The Celtic Viking]

Who are you to prevent me from saying that he was better than you people think he was?

What are you talking about? No one here has said a word, or even implied anything, about Mr Fred's skill. All we're saying is that the elephants are what won him that tournament. It shouldn't be such a controversial thing to say when by his own words he based his whole bloody tactic on those ellies! His army composition was made up of one elephant and 19 units to support it. Of course the elephants were instrumental to his success, and there's no reasonable way to deny that.

That's why I'm against giving elites eagles. Just cause one brings a suggestion up doesn't mean one is in favour of it.

True, but just because he who brought it up doesn't favour it himself doesn't mean that I can't give my reasons why I am against it, does it?

[vartan]

What are you talking about? No one here has said a word, or even implied anything, about Mr Fred's skill. All we're saying is that the elephants are what won him that tournament. It shouldn't be such a controversial thing to say when by his own words he based his whole bloody tactic on those ellies! His army composition was made up of one elephant and 19 units to support it. Of course the elephants were instrumental to his success, and there's no reasonable way to deny that.

Precisely. He even wrote on why he made the decisions he did with those beasts of war. Lazy is probably unaware of this, or does not wish to inform himself on the matter, as usual.

True, but just because he who brought it up doesn't favour it himself doesn't mean that I can't give my reasons why I am against it, does it?

True. I'm against it for the same reasons basically.

[vartan]

Except I am going to make the better quality Indians cost less than the towered Africans. Did you read the documentation at all? Oh wait, that's long and boring.

Why the unfortunate and unnecessary inconsistency in having better quality troops cost less?

Who are you to prevent me from saying that he was better than you people think he was?

You can't speak on his behalf. I'm just saying what he told me about his play. So zip it.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Except I am going to make the better quality Indians cost less than the towered Africans. Did you read the documentation at all? Oh wait, that's long and boring.

I did read the documentation but that was about a month ago so I forgot this part.

[Ludens]

This discussion is getting too heated. Everybody mind the tone, please.

[Lazy O]

What are you talking about? We dont do heated discussions, atleast not here :P