[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[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.

[vartan]

@ACS,Vega; Guys, stop whining [...]

Was this really necessary...? I am disappoint.

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

I actually explained my analysis of that battle in detail in the Hamachi chat. Firstly, let me correct you in that WorldlyBoar's legions were mostly, if not all, out of guard mode. That's the first thing I looked for when I was reviewing the battle. It was my conclusion that due to a lack of first cohorts and a general, the Roman army was simply asking to have its morale lowered to the point where entire units would rout. It was simply a matter of time until the first routed. After that point, not only do you have a double-scare, but now you lose morale because your brothers-in-arm beside you are running for their lives.

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.

Romans were strengthened compared to the original EDU. The most important thing is their sword, and that was improved to kill more often (its lethality for instance is improved).

Also, if suggestions are so precious, please reconsider what you think about increasing heavy cavalry mass. Remember, we wish to simulate history better by making the exploitation of heavy cavalry less possible (cannot completely exterminate it). By this we mean to allow a cavalry commander a decisive charge (or two) that really matter, after which point you should not be able to keep hitting and running as if you're running on 500 horsepower. It's a horse carrying kilo after kilo of armour, not a Lamborghini (not that I like Lambos).

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

Do you mean to say people may be unintentionally contributing with deception? You need to give the benefit of the doubt and consider that the player is not informed (or has not reviewed) the changes in question. And I think it's underpowerment*

[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.

[-Stormrage-]

I move to Give ALL archers Poor morale. This will cause them to insta rout at cav charges which is historical. An archer in the feild of battle would *** in his pants when he sees cav running towards him. The current system makes it so u need 2 cav charges to rout even the persian archers.

[Ludens]

Anyway, if you don't want your opinion to be criticized, then keep it to yourself.

This is absolutely true, but you can still criticise someone without getting disrespectful. If you can't say it politely, don't say it at all. That applies even when the other guy is talking nonsense.

[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.