[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[-Stormrage-]

@robin, well once i trapped cav by having my cav pinning them in front and a infantry unit charging from the back. like a sandwich, another time the enemy cav was fighitng the back of my main line i brought 2 infantry from behind and made a trainagle, then they moved through my infantry and attacked the back of my line again.

Lets make a clear rule on cav movements please. Vartan ?

[Lazy O]

No need for rules, if you have a brain you can kill enemy cav before they get out, no need to make rules to cover up peoples sloppiness. Which is exactly what I think of these "fair play" rules.

[gamegeek2]

Well, to tell you a few things about the upcoming update:

1. Elite units got a slight cost increase, mainly to counteract the fact that they get their stamina boost for free.
2. I am making the distinction between light and heavy troops in mass more pronounced
3. I am increasing cav charge values and lowering horse mass values.

4. The distinction between the Pahlava and the Sauromatae horse archers has become far more significant, and I have used historical data in my reasoning, primarily from this for the Sauromatae and from various sources regarding the size of Parthian armies, and accounts of their effectiveness, such as at the Battle of Carrhae.

The Parthian Army in Contrast With the Sarmatians, in the Context of EB Unit Stats

Typical encounters between the Roman Republic and Parthians seem to show that the Romans typically outnumbered them by between 3:1 and 3:2; ratios echoed later when the full strength of the Empire was brought against the more powerful Sassanids, who probably also put their full strength into play when the fought the Romans. This provides a guiding line for what the comparative sizes of fully mounted Parthian and infantry heavy Roman armies should be in combat. Smaller Parthian or Sassanid armies were able to achieve decisive victories over larger Roman ones by skilled archery (especially when additional supplies of arrows were available to the horse-archers) and judicious use of the heavy cavalry core, the cataphracts, which formed about 10% of their armies.

In contrast, the various Sarmatian peoples, confederacies, etc. seem to have been able to put very large hosts of horsemen into the field, but later on they seemed to have concentrated into a more professionalized, higher quality force, especially after the adoption of the kontos as an important weapon. For example, Strabo says that one of the two divisions of the Aorsi was able to muster 200,000 horsemen; likely an exageration, but a Chinese source describing the Yancai (Alans), who were located nearby, were able to put 100,000 horsemen into the field. Clearly their numbers were impressive at this early stage.

The records of the early Sarmatians in combat are not impressive. The Siracae, for example, were a small nation, but their king Ariapharnes mustered a large number of horsemen to take part in the battle of the Thates river. In this battle, his horsemen were apparently easily dispersed by the charge of the 'picked Scythian horse' of the opponent. Strabo provides an account of Sarmatians opposing an expeditionary force sent by Mithridates VI, in which a Roxolanic and Scythian force of 50,000 was defeated by a Diophantes (the Pontic commander) and his 6,000 troops; likely these included some heavy Bosporan archers, and definitely contained a phalanx. Strabo describes the equipment of the Roxolani as raw-hide armor, wicker shields, bows, and spears for close combat; in other words, the 'Aorsi Riders' unit.

Later sources from the 1st century AD describe the unstoppable nature of the charge of the Sarmatian horsemen, when executed properly. The lancers apparently wore varying amounts of armor, from fine and heavy scale to light scale or leather (which enabled the heavy legionaries to easily defeat fallen Sarmatian horsemen). Yet they were prudent enough to use feigned retreats and traditional steppe tactics when opposed by sturdy infantry wielding long spears. The importance of bows declined over time, and the number of arrows in graves did as well; but the archery of the Sarmatians seems to not have been as impressive or devastating as that of the Parthians, as suggested by their apparently poor performance before the first century AD.

--- TRANSLATION IN GAME ---
-Parthian horse archers have very large amounts of ammunition (50) and good archer skills. However, their numbers are equal to those of other light cavalry.
-Scythian horse archers come in smaller units than Sarmatians and have less ammo than Parthians, but thus end up as cheaper than either one.
-Sarmatian horse archers and riders have larger unit sizes and are cheaper than their Parthian counterparts, but suffer from lower accuracy and less ammunition.
-Early Sarmatian nobles also come in greater numbers than their later counterparts, but again, are less impressive
-Sarmatian kontos lancers are no cataphracts but have a devastating charge, better than their Parthian counterparts. I may yet make it better, but their high stamina lets them repeat their charges - do we want to change this?

[vartan]

East may win on high money, but they lose on low money. Expect heavy losses on 36k. I would find it hard to balance these. The fact is that well-used steppe is invariably stronger than corresponding civ, and since there will be no such distinction upon the final release of 3.0 for "official" tournament use next year (spoiler?), you'll have some clearly advantageous options at your disposal. And now that there won't be a distinction, there's no way to enforce a discrimination between steppe and civ, telling one not to battle the other. More situations will be possible than before, and we'll have to live with it and see where it leads us.

Storm, fair play allows you to retreat your horse no matter what (with the exception of running into pikes). This is indicated on the website. Lazy, we have fair play for many a good reason. I don't need to point this out, since you should by now know this well enough.

-Sarmatian kontos lancers are no cataphracts but have a devastating charge, better than their Parthian counterparts. I may yet make it better, but their high stamina lets them repeat their charges - do we want to change this?

That's unfortunate, but like you say, they aren't cataphracts. If only there was a way to make their subsequent charges less devastating than the previous one...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I don't think the Parthians were very successful against the Romans. A quick scan of the Roman-Parthian Wars reveals that besides Carrhae, the Parthians really only defeated one other Roman army in the field and this was much later than our timeframe. Considering the logistical difficulties that the Romans would have in bringing a fight to the Parthians while comparing the relatively shorter distances from Ctesiphon to Syria and the Parthians' inability to hold Syrian territory, I feel as if Rome fared significantly better off in their wars than the Parthians did.

The Sassanids are a different story entirely. They were much better equipped to handle the Romans and came about at a time when Rome may be considered on the downswing.

That's unfortunate, but like you say, they aren't cataphracts. If only there was a way to make their subsequent charges less devastating than the previous one...

The only way to do this is by lowering stamina. However, there is no medium speed between full gallop and walking for cavalry and so we are forced to run cavalry all over the place if they are needed as deterrents or chase off skirmishers etc. This is why I feel as if cavalry was fine in previous versions. The increased mass makes the initial charge more effective now but lower stamina and animation speed limits the usefulness of cavalry in other tasks. For example, in this version, I will just keep a spear unit behind my lines to deter enemy cav attacks if I lose the cavalry battle or refuse one. A good stamina, quick spear unit can run parallel to my lines and stop slower and quickly tiring enemy cav from turning and smacking into my back. Previous to this version, that spear unit would have quickly been outrun and I would have needed two or three units behind the lines if I wanted to protect against cav.

[gamegeek2]

Well, I am lowering mass but increasing charge strength now, as per ASM's suggestion. Perhaps that will work better. We shall see.

You are correct, properly prepared Roman armies were highly successful against the Parthians; for example, against Pacorus, the numerous Roman slingers inflicted heavy damage on the Parthian heavy cavalry, letting the Romans kill Pacorus and rout his army.

I am seeing a potentially similar outcome here in MP battles. Prepared armies of large kingdoms seem like they would be able to much better supply ammunition to their troops than steppe folk, but steppe nobles can expect to have a large number of arrows (one gorytos from a kurgan had hundreds of them!)

[-Stormrage-]

Hey steppe folk can get rocks from different regions , due to them migrating alot. I think steppe slingers should fire various colors of stones due to the historical tradition of steppe people having a hobby of picking rocks off the ground.

Oh and the Arabian peninsula had lots of desert pavement so i think suadi slingers should get plus ammo :p

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Hey steppe folk can get rocks from different regions , due to them migrating alot. I think steppe slingers should fire various colors of stones due to the historical tradition of steppe people having a hobby of picking rocks off the ground.

Oh and the Arabian peninsula had lots of desert pavement so i think suadi slingers should get plus ammo :p

No such thing as steppe slingers Storm :p

I'm very interested to see the changes to the Hellenistic factions. Though I love to play the Eurobarbs in MP, Hellenes always hold a special spot in my heart.

[vartan]

The only way to do this is by lowering stamina. However, there is no medium speed between full gallop and walking for cavalry and so we are forced to run cavalry all over the place if they are needed as deterrents or chase off skirmishers etc. This is why I feel as if cavalry was fine in previous versions. The increased mass makes the initial charge more effective now but lower stamina and animation speed limits the usefulness of cavalry in other tasks. For example, in this version, I will just keep a spear unit behind my lines to deter enemy cav attacks if I lose the cavalry battle or refuse one. A good stamina, quick spear unit can run parallel to my lines and stop slower and quickly tiring enemy cav from turning and smacking into my back. Previous to this version, that spear unit would have quickly been outrun and I would have needed two or three units behind the lines if I wanted to protect against cav.

The idea in my mind is to have either a hardy cav unit or a non-hardy one. Therefore you can expect plenty of non-cataphract cav to have hardy stamina if gg2 takes this approach. So you'll still have options in that regard that you mention, if not as limitless as before.

EDIT: The key here is that what you mention about previous cav should not remain unchecked in these developments. Reason is to not allow one tactic to become the be all and end all of EB Online.

[antisocialmunky]

It would be nice to have different types of cav instead of 'good chargers' and crap everything else. 3.0 has already addressed a ton of it but I think you should make the really heavy cataphracts something special, normal stamina and fear inducing. Atleast for the purposes of testing. After all they were used for frontal charges against weakened positions unlike heavy cavalry used for flanking tactics. There should be a difference between the heavily armed hellenistic cavalry covered with mail, shield, and cuirass and the ridiculously half or fully armored Cataphracts of the east. Main idea is to have the really powerful elite Cataphracts be really powerful sledge hammer cavalry to crack a battle line in its weakest spot. I suppose it would be somewhat difficult to balance the half armored Cataphracts though. Those would probably just be really powerful frontal charge but no scary.

[Lazy O]

Wont make no difference.

[gamegeek2]

It would be nice to have different types of cav instead of 'good chargers' and crap everything else. 3.0 has already addressed a ton of it but I think you should make the really heavy cataphracts something special, normal stamina and fear inducing. Atleast for the purposes of testing. After all they were used for frontal charges against weakened positions unlike heavy cavalry used for flanking tactics. There should be a difference between the heavily armed hellenistic cavalry covered with mail, shield, and cuirass and the ridiculously half or fully armored Cataphracts of the east. Main idea is to have the really powerful elite Cataphracts be really powerful sledge hammer cavalry to crack a battle line in its weakest spot. I suppose it would be somewhat difficult to balance the half armored Cataphracts though. Those would probably just be really powerful frontal charge but no scary.

You have hit the nail on the head, that's why my current stats aim to do. I am fearing, however, that 50 charge plus scary may not be enough in light of lowered horse masses.

[Lazy O]

Why lower them? Just make them the default ones we were using pre 3.0.

[antisocialmunky]

I think the max applicable attack/defense diff is 32. So charge values that high may not make much of a difference :p