[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[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.

[Lazy O]

Please talk in large scale. And an Indian sword has a MUCH larger blade than that.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Good photo of Indian longbow sword, even compares it to celtic longsword. Its probably designed as a two handed weapon as it looks rather top heavy for a one handed blade.

[-Stormrage-]

Good photo of Indian longbow sword, even compares it to celtic longsword. Its probably designed as a two handed weapon as it looks rather top heavy for a one handed blade.

that thing should cut the naked in half.

[TheShakAttack]

that thing should cut the naked in half.

Unless it hits the "naked's" two spherical objects contained in a sac close to the pelvic region. In which case the sword should disintegrate and explode. Instantly killing the indian longbowmen and half his army while naked stands back and laughs.

[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?

[Lazy O]

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.”





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.



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?

I am quoting Shaks post again becuase of haters who have completely ignored it. But I really dont get what all the fuss is about, just learn to get 5 archers to the flanks. Auto win. LEARN TO PLAY

[LusitanianWolf]

Regarding Falxes and cia... Historically they were very effective agaisnt armour, sure, even more than falcatas, kopis and some axes... But here were not talking if they were or not, the question is how is the best way to represent them ingame and if they should have the AP attribute that halves enemy armour. Since it was a weapon so deadly they should have high attack and high lettality... So, what happens if you also had them AP? They'll probably become unrealisticly OP... So there is 3 points you need to manage: attack, letality and AP. Falcatas, axes and kopis, in the other way were also effective agaisnt armour (I've heard romans doubled their shields width because of iberian mercenairs falcatas during 1st punic war) but not so letal, so they should have lower attack and lettality and will need AP to still be effective. But with or without AP falxes can still be as very deadly (high attack and letallity). Not saing that that they should'nt have the attribute or that they are ballanced ingame, just that you can still represent their effectivness without the game attribute AP.


And about indians, In EBII preview archers are said to be part of the warrior class and have a very proud tradition, so they should be very good archers. The problem is that on EB1 you only have one archer unit to represent both levy and elites so you have to make either a choice or a ballance.. I expect in EBII to these nice steel bows to be represented by chariot crews or perhaps a new, shinny unit And that swords are nasty but they were clearly OP in vannilla so its the same as falxes..

[-Stormrage-]

OP ? if something is good at what it is supposed to do it is not OP. And i thought u ugys were all about Historical accuracy well the falx was historically good at doing what it does "OP" as u call it. everytime i suggest somehting someone tells me "oh no sotrmrage but that is not historically accurate we dont care if its good for gameplay its not historical" . you guys are all . History is NUMBER 1 historocal accuracy is NUMBER 1. Why are you now hiding behind the banner of "for gameplay puposes" . EB isnt about fair gameplay its about historical accuracy, according to you.

[LusitanianWolf]

OP ? if something is good at what it is supposed to do it is not OP. And i thought u ugys were all about Historical accuracy well the falx was historically good at doing what it does "OP" as u call it. everytime i suggest somehting someone tells me "oh no sotrmrage but that is not historically accurate we dont care if its good for gameplay its not historical" . you guys are all . History is NUMBER 1 historocal accuracy is NUMBER 1. Why are you now hiding behind the banner of "for gameplay puposes" . EB isnt about fair gameplay its about historical accuracy, according to you.

Eb is about both, its about making a game as historically accurate, ballanced and fun to play as is possible with the RTW engine. So you have to find a compromise. If you want to play a game that drop the historicaly accurate part, why dont you go play another mod, there's lot of good ones? I was saying that falxes being historically good agaisnt armour doesnt mean that you can't ballance them without the game attribute AP. That, for the sake of gameplay, game AP isnt the same as historicaly AP. Unless you want to decrase falx letallity? Indian archers in vanilla were OP in vanilla because they could kick the ass out even of catas!

[-Stormrage-]

Indian archers in vanilla were OP in vanilla because they could kick the ass out even of catas!

1)They die like flies before they reach the enemy lines.

2)Catas are not meant to fight in melee, they are hit and break hammer.

[TheShakAttack]

OP ? if something is good at what it is supposed to do it is not OP. And i thought u ugys were all about Historical accuracy well the falx was historically good at doing what it does "OP" as u call it. everytime i suggest somehting someone tells me "oh no sotrmrage but that is not historically accurate we dont care if its good for gameplay its not historical" . you guys are all . History is NUMBER 1 historocal accuracy is NUMBER 1. Why are you now hiding behind the banner of "for gameplay puposes" . EB isnt about fair gameplay its about historical accuracy, according to you.

Calm down buddy. I think what everyone is saying/thinks is that there needs to be some sort of a balance between the two. My only problem is that where this “line in the sand” is has not been made very clear. Historically, the legions were incredibly powerful and good at what they do. So were the elite successor phalanxes, catas, and horse archers. But if you represent they in a purely historical mindset, then the game becomes boring and loses its diversity. You have to have some balance between gameplay and history.

[antisocialmunky]

@Wolf

I guess I misremembered them. In Vanilla they were extremely good melee shock infantry that happened to have arrows. However as they are modelled, they should probably just be medium quality archers, cost ~1200, have no armor, and be good in melee.

@Stormrage

Well, he's talking about adding AP on to the current stats would be imbalanced and unrealistic so while you could model it with AP or without and still have an accurate representation.

[TheShakAttack]

@Wolf

I guess I misremembered them. In Vanilla they were extremely good melee shock infantry that happened to have arrows. However as they are modelled, they should probably just be medium quality archers, cost ~1200, have no armor, and be good in melee.

Lol, i wrote a rather large post as to why they should not be medium quality (in terms of missile attack/range/accuracy). Keep their armor low, that's no prob though.

[TheShakAttack]

Regarding Falxes and cia... Historically they were very effective agaisnt armour, sure, even more than falcatas, kopis and some axes... But here were not talking if they were or not, the question is how is the best way to represent them ingame and if they should have the AP attribute that halves enemy armour. Since it was a weapon so deadly they should have high attack and high lettality... So, what happens if you also had them AP? They'll probably become unrealisticly OP... So there is 3 points you need to manage: attack, letality and AP. Falcatas, axes and kopis, in the other way were also effective agaisnt armour (I've heard romans doubled their shields width because of iberian mercenairs falcatas during 1st punic war) but not so letal, so they should have lower attack and lettality and will need AP to still be effective. But with or without AP falxes can still be as very deadly (high attack and letallity). Not saing that that they should'nt have the attribute or that they are ballanced ingame, just that you can still represent their effectivness without the game attribute AP.


And about indians, In EBII preview archers are said to be part of the warrior class and have a very proud tradition, so they should be very good archers. The problem is that on EB1 you only have one archer unit to represent both levy and elites so you have to make either a choice or a ballance.. I expect in EBII to these nice steel bows to be represented by chariot crews or perhaps a new, shinny unit And that swords are nasty but they were clearly OP in vannilla so its the same as falxes..

Good post. This stat based explanation is a good explanation, though this is not the reasoning that was provided when explaining why falx is not AP. Gamegeek2 focused more on the actual ability of the falx to cut through armor. He did not forward the stat based explanation. I have 3 points in response to your post if indeed this is the reason why AP was taken away.

1) Keep falx as “low attack + AP” to make them anti-armor personnel. There are other ways to take down lightly armoured infantry. Making falx less effective against them, whilst very unrealistic, would be an acceptable sacrifice in my opinion. I get the feeling most ppl used them v heavy armor anyways. They won’t miss the effectiveness v light armor.
2) Taking away AP from falx, as I understand it, makes them less effective against highly armoured units. Even if u substitute high attack/lethality, it is unlikely to cover it unless you make them grossly overpowered.
3) Lastly, if falcattas remain AP, why not falx was my question. Surely falcattas would also be just as good v unarmored opponents. Deal with falx same way (if not more AP) as falcattas have been dealt with.

Re: Indians, you are very right they had a very proud tradition. In fact, in Hinduism, historically, the highest caste (or “group”) of people were Kryhstias (warrior caste); even more interestingly, a significant portion of Hindu mythology focuses on archery, and the main weapon of many of the primary gods is the bow (which might give some idea of how important they considered archery). If the Indian Longbow unit is to be representative of the region as a whole, it should be one of the more powerful (in terms of attack and accuracy; not necessarily armor), and yet cheap, units in the game for reasons I discussed in my earlier post (low cost weapon, highly populous region, rich tradition etc.)