[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[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)

[LusitanianWolf]

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)

EB units killing rate is already too high, historically speaking in the majority of battles there would be much less casualities and the majority of them during pursuit.


Bah, I'm eager to finish this work and get back to EB MP, the new EDU looks promissing!!!!

[-Stormrage-]

[QUOTE=LusitanianWolf;2053367961]EB units killing rate is already too high, historically speaking in the majority of battles there would be much less casualities and the majority of them during pursuit./QUOTE]

Historical battles lasted for hours, We cant spend hours on a single battle. This is wwhat historical accuracy has driven you too , oh people. You are now willing to make kill rates so slow to match the kill rates of real life. well you have to remmeber something, its a game not real life.

[LusitanianWolf]

[QUOTE=-Stormrage-;2053367967]

EB units killing rate is already too high, historically speaking in the majority of battles there would be much less casualities and the majority of them during pursuit. /QUOTE]

Historical battles lasted for hours, We cant spend hours on a single battle. This is wwhat historical accuracy has driven you too , oh people. You are now willing to make kill rates so slow to match the kill rates of real life. well you have to remmeber something, its a game not real life.

I'm not talking about the speed of killing but the number of people that would be killed... Alexander the Great in Guadamela was fighting a huge number of archers and peltasts and his infantry casualities are said to be 100-500 (acourding to wiki at least).

[-Stormrage-]

@Shak, I love yah man.

Till now ALL of your 11 posts have been posts of good reasoning, historical facts , and supported by resourses and jquotes. Best of all your supporting some ideas i agree with, and are putting them forth in a good case.

[TheShakAttack]

[QUOTE=LusitanianWolf;2053367970]

I'm not talking about the speed of killing but the number of people that would be killed... Alexander the Great in Guadamela was fighting a huge number of archers and peltasts and his infantry casualities are said to be 100-500 (acourding to wiki at least).

That is correct. Historically, archers were not terribly effective against armies that were well prepared for to receive fire from arrows. It's very easy to hide under shield or some sort of cover. Most archers were skirmishers and meant more to annoy, harass, distract, lower morale etc than deliver serious casualties. The psychological threat of being hit/maimed by a constant volley of arrows, seeing a few guys being hit around you, and the annoyance at not being able to retaliate was the desired effect. The only exception would be when the archers were well positioned and the units couldn't really turn around to face fire and duck under shields. Even in the battle of Carrhae, the HAs most useful purpose was to sap morale and continously harass the legions. They did not inflict tremendous casualties (in comparison to how long they were shooting/harassing for and the great shooting position they would have i.e. raised, and from flanks).

The logical exception of course would be units that were not prepared (didn't bring a sheild, or have decent armor)- this would have been more mobs than real armies. In EBO we play pitched battles, and in situations like this, it is hard to imagine that a unit would not even bring a shield or some sort of cover.

The exception of course are elite archers who functioned more as snipers than mass volley archers (think Legolas from LotR v an orc archer). Unfortunately EB does not seem to have represented them very well. These elites had the ability to shoot incredibly accurately from long ranges. Of course, they would have to be very, very expensive and small in numbers...

[-Stormrage-]

(think Legolas from LotR v an orc archer)

HAHA lol

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

xD

[LusitanianWolf]

[QUOTE=TheShakAttack;2053367981]

That is correct. Historically, archers were not terribly effective against armies that were well prepared for to receive fire from arrows. It's very easy to hide under shield or some sort of cover. Most archers were skirmishers and meant more to annoy, harass, distract, lower morale etc than deliver serious casualties. The psychological threat of being hit/maimed by a constant volley of arrows, seeing a few guys being hit around you, and the annoyance at not being able to retaliate was the desired effect. The only exception would be when the archers were well positioned and the units couldn't really turn around to face fire and duck under shields. Even in the battle of Carrhae, the HAs most useful purpose was to sap morale and continously harass the legions. They did not inflict tremendous casualties (in comparison to how long they were shooting/harassing for and the great shooting position they would have i.e. raised, and from flanks).

The logical exception of course would be units that were not prepared (didn't bring a sheild, or have decent armor)- this would have been more mobs than real armies. In EBO we play pitched battles, and in situations like this, it is hard to imagine that a unit would not even bring a shield or some sort of cover.

The exception of course are elite archers who functioned more as snipers than mass volley archers (think Legolas from LotR v an orc archer). Unfortunately EB does not seem to have represented them very well. These elites had the ability to shoot incredibly accurately from long ranges. Of course, they would have to be very, very expensive and small in numbers...

Exactly. But these elites would probably not be gathered in a single unit but acting as officers/champions spread around the army to inspire other archers or as general's personal retinue and they impact on battle would be too low to represent in RTW (unless some managed to kill the enemy general or hunt some Mumakills )

[-Stormrage-]

Another problem we have is, the light units which are accually stated as having light armour are given a huge sheild to block arrows.

example : Ridanz
stat_pri_armour 2, 12, 5, flesh . Cool theyve got light armour i finally found a unit i can kill with archers, thank you. oh wait, 5 sheild WTF!!!

I think GG is a big archer hater. Even the light units which should die to archer fire are given a big sheild to hide behind. GG its like your mocking us .