[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[The Celtic Viking]

This is not making sense ACS is totaly right i just played with WordlyBoar few moments ago and this battle proved that something should be fixed, cohorts routed and altrough they lost only 15-20 men its not so real i save battle as well to see this unrealistic battle I think Ceasar had bigger IQ than Ainstein when he counquered whole gallic tribes lol... http://www.mediafire.com/?s6vlvy18imyjlzo I played with Gauls just to tell that its not about my frustration, its about Roman Faction

This thread is for testing 3.0, that battle was played on 2.1.1.

Anyway, the battle doesn't show the weakness of Roman morale, but the strength of the double-scare, i.e. chariots + gaesatae/uirodusios/pictones/any-scare-infantry, especially against someone who for whatever reason hasn't brought any eagle units. It doesn't serve as an argument that legionnaires should have a morale bump at all.

[vartan]

The reason it's a bad argument for legions getting morale bump is because what about nations that don't have any eagles or units as professional on the ground as Rome, such as Hayasdan? Surely you would not use such invalid reasoning. In fact, I might have to end up bringing two generals, one for each flank, because of this problem.

[gamegeek2]

Currently planning to shrink some western missile units, while you can expect Persian archers to have 120 men (large).

Also, tired cavalry are supposed to be damn near useless. I don't like these ahistorical charge-and-charge again - cavalry charges were a big committment, not something easy to call off if you messed up. Meanwhile, a good cavalry charge would be devastating, hence increased horse mass.

[Lazy O]

Thank u. Though I still dont care even if you give them 0 stamina. You cannot change the engine.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

This thread is for testing 3.0, that battle was played on 2.1.1.

Anyway, the battle doesn't show the weakness of Roman morale, but the strength of the double-scare, i.e. chariots + gaesatae/uirodusios/pictones/any-scare-infantry, especially against someone who for whatever reason hasn't brought any eagle units. It doesn't serve as an argument that legionnaires should have a morale bump at all.

Any scare infantry should not rout a cohors engaging from the front... this is the point.
The cohors morale of vers. 3.0 is the same of 2.1.1, I think (13)

Also, tired cavalry are supposed to be damn near useless. I don't like these ahistorical charge-and-charge again - cavalry charges were a big committment, not something easy to call off if you messed up. Meanwhile, a good cavalry charge would be devastating, hence increased horse mass.

Look that increasing mass you could create some bugs with infantry.
I've already tried to do it, and I see which, if you engage a phalanx with your super mass cavalry, the phalangites lost cohesion in strange way.
You could see some phalangites bringing the sarissa 50 meters out of phalanx formation ;-D

[The Celtic Viking]

Any scare infantry should not rout a cohors engaging from the front... this is the point.
The cohors morale of vers. 3.0 is the same of 2.1.1, I think (13)

They have 14 morale in 3.0. Why "any scare infantry" shouldn't be able to rout cohors from the front I've no idea as the majority of scare infantry are elites while cohors are not, but according to Robin they didn't even do that. They engaged your unit from the side, and it resulted in a chain-rout. Nothing special about that.

You still missed my point anyway, which Vartan tried to explain. The battle Vega uploaded doesn't serve as an argument to increase legionaire's morale, because the Aedui army was using the double-scare tactic and the Roman army had no eagles. You can use double-scare against [insert whatever army you like] to show that [insert same army] should get a morale increase that way, because the problem is not the morale of the legionnaire, but the effectiveness of double-scare.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

They have 14 morale in 3.0.

This is actually the 3.0 EDU:



Then what are you talking about?

[Lazy O]

@ACS,Vega; Guys, stop whining. stop blaming your losses on the EDU. Fact is you people get beaten by more mobile and versatile opponents, instead of ranting about your units, get better. Its getting pathetic now. We are not the campaign AI so dont expect us to sit there , soak up pila and then attack 100 man cohorts in guard mode with whatever in the face.

/rant

[Vega]

@ACS,Vega; Guys, stop whining. stop blaming your losses on the EDU. Fact is you people get beaten by more mobile and versatile opponents, instead of ranting about your units, get better. Its getting pathetic now. We are not the campaign AI so dont expect us to sit there , soak up pila and then attack 100 man cohorts in guard mode with whatever in the face.

/rant

I could say something but i promised vartan that i will not, this is insulting me and ACS, and you dont have to be genius to win vs spqr like i wasnt when i played with gauls vs boar i atacked cohorts they trows pila and they was in guard mode that was useles cohorts routed after losing 15 men, the fact is that they are bad and slow killers and that symbol of SPQR rout after 10% lost army

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

@ACS,Vega; Guys, stop whining. stop blaming your losses on the EDU. Fact is you people get beaten by more mobile and versatile opponents, instead of ranting about your units, get better. Its getting pathetic now. We are not the campaign AI so dont expect us to sit there , soak up pila and then attack 100 man cohorts in guard mode with whatever in the face.

/rant

LazyO,TCV; Guys, please, respect the opinions of others, without saying "pathetic" and clapping ironically.
Otherwise you two will do a new edu and only you two will play it.

We want to improve the edu to make it realistic and have fun, every suggestions are precious.

The thing that I'm saying is that some romani units were weakened compared to the original edu.
So I think this is not the right way for having a good balance between factions in game.
This is my suggestion, nothing else.

[Lazy O]

What I see, is constant complaining of supposed underpowerement (new word, yay) of Roman Units which does not even exist.

[The Celtic Viking]

LazyO,TCV; Guys, please, respect the opinions of others, without saying "pathetic" and clapping ironically.
Otherwise you two will do a new edu and only you two will play it.

Sarcastically.

Anyway, if you don't want your opinion to be criticized, then keep it to yourself. If you go public with it and suggest that we make changes that will affect others, then you should expect that other people might have their own opinions as well. It just won't do to give your opinion and then cry foul when someone disagrees.

We want to improve the edu to make it realistic and have fun, every suggestions are precious.

The thing that I'm saying is that some romani units were weakened compared to the original edu.
So I think this is not the right way for having a good balance between factions in game.
This is my suggestion, nothing else.

I have given you my criticism of your suggestion, which you have completely ignored twice now. See, that's what annoys me: your attempts to shift the focus anywhere but to my arguments. It seems to be an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you can't answer my points, because that would mean that I could actually be right. Which would mean that the arguments you've made would be invalid.

And that's just not possible.

[The Celtic Viking]

This is actually the 3.0 EDU:



Then what are you talking about?

1) You said Imperial Cohortes. Cohortes Reformata are Marians.

2) Way to completely ignore my argument!

[antisocialmunky]

This is actually the 3.0 EDU:



Then what are you talking about?

You're going to have to stick a chevron on them to make them scary proof it seems or be extremely careful.