[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[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.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

If mass is the same as 3.0, these new catas better cost 5-6000 each. Scary cavalry with 50 charge?

[Vega]

If mass is the same as 3.0, these new catas better cost 5-6000 each. Scary cavalry with 50 charge?

Yes robin i told that to gg2 on hamachi but he said that catas are slow and dont have stamina i still think that if they have fear boost that they should have a slightly cost increase

[antisocialmunky]

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

[gamegeek2]

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

OK, so the full charge strength is maxed against units with 24 defense, or spear units with 16 defense; but remember apparently maximum values of attack and defense can go over 63 so I do not trust this maximum as well.

[vartan]

OK, so the full charge strength is maxed against units with 24 defense, or spear units with 16 defense; but remember apparently maximum values of attack and defense can go over 63 so I do not trust this maximum as well.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm sure we can balance the situation without going over what the proposed maximums are.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I've noticed that lower accuracy slingers have much better accuracy than lower accuracy archers. This may have something to do with the projectile angle being lower.

[antisocialmunky]

Its just something I heard in the mod forum. There is a limit of 32 between attack and defense differences. We can try really high stuff, it probably won't matter THAT much since you'd be flattening low defense infantry anyway.