[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[vartan]

The falx had its AP removed so as to underpower the units that use it. Any falx-wielding units that still have AP simply mean there are inconsistencies in the EDU and that gg2 has yet to remove AP from those units. It's simply a move that was taken to underpower them. I could argue that AP be removed from maces and axes, especially axes. But when we look at non-blade weaponry, we see why AP is necessary. The falx is a blade, and this is one of the biggest obstacles in understanding it as AP-worthy, but if you consider how devastating the falx was, it doesn't matter if it didn't cut through armor, it still deserves AP as a way of representing its devastating nature as a weapon of war.

TL;DR Falx translated into RTW terms should be AP. The EB team, though not flawless, had this point right the first time around.

[gamegeek2]

The falx had its AP removed so as to underpower the units that use it. Any falx-wielding units that still have AP simply mean there are inconsistencies in the EDU and that gg2 has yet to remove AP from those units. It's simply a move that was taken to underpower them. I could argue that AP be removed from maces and axes, especially axes. But when we look at non-blade weaponry, we see why AP is necessary. The falx is a blade, and this is one of the biggest obstacles in understanding it as AP-worthy, but if you consider how devastating the falx was, it doesn't matter if it didn't cut through armor, it still deserves AP as a way of representing its devastating nature as a weapon of war.

TL;DR Falx translated into RTW terms should be AP. The EB team, though not flawless, had this point right the first time around.

Vartan that's awfully low of you to misrepresent like that. But as I said it is under the microscope.

[vartan]

For all the confused out there, this was all a farce. Excuse this charade. We are truly working on the falx and have in the works a proposition that is going to be tested that, theoretically at least, looks quite promising as an alternative that will bring back AP for the falx while maintaining a desired level of balance. Thanks.

[antisocialmunky]

Trolls live in bridges and not under caves...

I think high lethality will serve it fine. It was a little OP against Romans back in Vanilla anyway.

[-Stormrage-]

Since were on the subject, i move we give back AP to Thracian peltestai and Indian Longbowmen. you could gice thracians peltatsts a cost boost like maybe 1800 and return AP to them , afterall werent you the ones always ranting on about historical accuracy, whenever something is suggested, " oh no htats not historicaly asccurate" . Moreover, Indian Longbowmen die like flies to anything that can shoot, get one persian archer it'll rip'em apart, so whhy take AP from them they arent overpowered, if u allow them to engage then thats your mistake.

Note: Why do bosphoran archers and other proffesional archers, only have 5 attack. I think you will agree most EB units alot have armour, AND EVEN the light units have armour. Why only 5, what do u want them to do shoot birds. i suggest +2 archer attack to all archers. heres the thing We have greatly Decreased accuracy of archers, I see no reason why we ccant increase their damage to balance the high decrease in accuracy.

[gamegeek2]

OK. I think it's a stretch giving the AP to the two-handed falx, so I'm inclined to say that it's a definite no to restoring AP to one of the most insanely overpowered units of vanilla EB, the Thracian Peltast. Not only did it was the peltast actually superior as an armor-piercing infantryman than Celtic Axemen - without a barbarian bonus to melee combat, he was also better armored and a better skirmisher. It was absurd and, from what I can tell, there was almost universal approval to its removal.

A cane longbow simply doesn't stack up to a composite bow in terms of range and power, and we don't have a levy indian archer unit anyways. Also, please propose how that small sword, wielded in two hands since they have no shield (that sword doesn't look long enough to be a proper two-handed weapon) that the Indian archers have will effectively bludgeon through a mail shirt, let along a muscled cuirass. It's an absurd proposition.

Stormrage, you've exhausted your credibility capital on the issue of archers. The system of how better quality archers achieve better shooting results has, I believe, been explained perfectly adequately. In fact, the new higher quality archers have a much more pronounced advantage over lower quality archers in doing damage, per man, but they have less men to do it with now. Their advantage is significantly more pronounced at longer range, and their armor reinforces this edge significantly.

Do recall that attack means the chance of an arrow killing if it hits its target. If a levy archer shoots a Roman and a Bosporan shoots him, their arrows will have the same penetration power as each other, assuming they use the same bows.

[antisocialmunky]

You could just make them more plentiful or something. You could just make them some sort of interesting 240 sized levy archer/machette unit. I mean, you have cheap plentiful parts and a lot of people able to use bows so it would make sense.

I always thought they had one of these: http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=1036

You could just stat it as a swinging sword with defense decrease since its not really made for parry/not dying.

[TheShakAttack]

A cane longbow simply doesn't stack up to a composite bow in terms of range and power, and we don't have a levy indian archer unit anyways. Also, please propose how that small sword, wielded in two hands since they have no shield (that sword doesn't look long enough to be a proper two-handed weapon) that the Indian archers have will effectively bludgeon through a mail shirt, let along a muscled cuirass. It's an absurd proposition.

...

Do recall that attack means the chance of an arrow killing if it hits its target. If a levy archer shoots a Roman and a Bosporan shoots him, their arrows will have the same penetration power as each other, assuming they use the same bows.

I disagree. Indian archery had a very long and historic tradition, much like the cultures that surrounded it. They can be roughly divided into two types of units, the common/levy type of soldiers that used bamboo longbows which used traditional arrows and when against cavalry/elephants, used iron arrows to increase piercing ability. The nobility used steel bows and steel head arrows ( to give arrows AP ability to be used more effectively against armoured elephants and cavalry).

The bamboo longbow was a very large weapon, longer than the person wielding it, and it was anchored on the ground using the toes of the foot. An average composite bow only offers a significant advantage against longbows/longbows in that they are compact and therefore well suited for mounted archery. For most practical (i.e. flight archery excluded) non-mounted archery purposes, composite construction offers no advantage. The English Longbow, though of superior construction to bamboo longbow, was not terribly dissimilar in concept, and demonstrates this principle. A composite bow was in fact, very expensive whereas the bamboo longbow was very cheap. So this should be addressed. Only the most expensive/well-made composite bows offered any considerable advantage when compared to longbows (for non-mounted purposes). These very well made composite bows would usually only be found in the hands of elites of steppe, west and central asia and further east (India, china, etc). The composite bows used by Cretans are unlikely to have been a match (esp in the EB time period). Bosphorans, I do not honestly know..it's likely given their location (though I'm not sure they would have had the high quality composite bows that offer adv over longbow/longbows).

On a side note, I think the prowess of Cretan archers has been overemphasised/powered in the game (and inconsistent with history), but that discussion is for another time.

I know the Indian Longbow unit is not finished so I cant comment on how they are right now. However, if you consider the Indian longbow unit respresnts the “common soldier/levy”, it should be very cheap and just as powerful as a elite composite bow user apart from perhaps persian heavy and bosphoran (who would have access to supeiror composite bow). If you consider it represents the nobility, then it should be one of the most expensive and best archer units in the game to reflect metal construction, certainly better than Cretans (though I do not think this is your intention so I will not discuss it further).

Heres a quote to end my discussion

“The Indian longbow was reputedly a powerful weapon capable of great range and penetration and provided an effective counter to invading horse archers. Iron shafts were used against armored elephants and fire arrows were also part of the bowmen's arsenal. India historically has had a prominent reputation for its steel weapons. One of these was the steel bow. Due to its high tensility, the steel bow was capable of long range and penetration of exceptionally thick armor. These were less common weapons than the bamboo design and found in the hands of noblemen rather than in the ranks.”

Also, please propose how that small sword, wielded in two hands since they have no shield (that sword doesn't look long enough to be a proper two-handed weapon) that the Indian archers have will effectively bludgeon through a mail shirt, let along a muscled cuirass. It's an absurd proposition.

Agree with Robin’s post. The region had access to one of the best ironworks during that time period so it is entirely possible that they would have cheaply constructed something similar to what Robin has suggested. Plus, they look awfully big in the game, I don't know where you got "that small sword" from.

Also, it’d be interesting to hear what your rationale is for giving AP to axe, mace, kopis/falcatta.

Do recall that attack means the chance of an arrow killing if it hits its target. If a levy archer shoots a Roman and a Bosporan shoots him, their arrows will have the same penetration power as each other, assuming they use the same bows.

Didn’t know that. So I am guessing that the only adv the Bosphoran would have over the levy unit using the same bow when firing at a Roman Legionary is that more of their arrows would hit the target when shooting from a distance?

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Since were on the subject, i move we give back AP to Thracian peltestai and Indian Longbowmen. you could gice thracians peltatsts a cost boost like maybe 1800 and return AP to them , afterall werent you the ones always ranting on about historical accuracy, whenever something is suggested, " oh no htats not historicaly asccurate" . Moreover, Indian Longbowmen die like flies to anything that can shoot, get one persian archer it'll rip'em apart, so whhy take AP from them they arent overpowered, if u allow them to engage then thats your mistake.

Note: Why do bosphoran archers and other proffesional archers, only have 5 attack. I think you will agree most EB units alot have armour, AND EVEN the light units have armour. Why only 5, what do u want them to do shoot birds. i suggest +2 archer attack to all archers. heres the thing We have greatly Decreased accuracy of archers, I see no reason why we ccant increase their damage to balance the high decrease in accuracy.

As far as archer attack, I think gamegeek is using the draw strength of various bow types in attack ratings, possibly factoring in arrow types as well. It is the accuracy that really matters though. If you hand a bow to a professional archer and someone off the streets who is relatively strong, there is little difference in the amount of damage the arrow would do if both hit their target. However, the professional will hit his target far more often so in this sense the accuracy changes make a lot of sense.

Thracian Peltasts should not get ap back. They use their blade single handed which wouldn't generate so much force and the blade is rather thin. However, weapons like the Indian sword wielded by the archers and the weapons of the Kluddargos and Lugii should get AP back instead. These are large, heavy weapons. Even though they do not have sweet spots like a mace or axe, the relative weight of the entire weapon along with it's two handed nature mean that a lot of force will be generated swinging one of these. I tend to think that two handed swords of this time frame were more crushing weapons than cutting weapons anyway. And obviously I feel that falxes should get AP back.

I would also appreciate your opinion gamegeek, on my idea of why more armor may have been added to counter the falx, since it seems to have been lost in the discussion.

[-Stormrage-]

As far as archer attack, I think gamegeek is using the draw strength of various bow types in attack ratings, possibly factoring in arrow types as well. It is the accuracy that really matters though. If you hand a bow to a professional archer and someone off the streets who is relatively strong, there is little difference in the amount of damage the arrow would do if both hit their target. However, the professional will hit his target far more often so in this sense the accuracy changes make a lot of sense.

Yes your right a proffesional archer wil hit his target more often then a levy archer, but my point is most eb units have armour around 10 even "light units" have armour, so even if the archer hits his target the armour of the "light" unit will stop it. not to mention all light units have sheilds 3 to 5. an increase in arrow attack will insure that when a light unit is hit he will die and his armour wont stop the bullet.

Another note: I think sword attack is too low. Lets take a common sowrd, for example we have a sword thats 11 attack. consider the enemy unit most unit have 8- 10 armour, + sheild + the defense skill. So add all those defense aspects then look at the attack value of a sword. It shows that the units are dying way way way too slowly.

Message to GG: If u want to have a light unit, here is what u can do u can give the light unit something like 4-5 armour, then give him 20-25 defense skill. that way you get a light unit archers can kill, but at the same time a light unit which doesnt die too fast in melee, thats my advice.

GG i found a problem, its either a stat error or a category error. Unit (Taxilan Agema )
category cavalry
class light
stat_pri_armour 12, 13, 2, leather (armour/defense skill/sheild)