[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[Lazy O]

Vega, what do you expect will happen if someone takes 7 Horse Archers regardless of the opposing teams faction? You are not talking Rome specific.

[gamegeek2]

The solution to horse archers is foot archers. They are more accurate and have more men, they only have less ammo, but each shot flies more true. A foot archer also costs a little bit more than half as much per man. This advantage is especially pronounced by the lack of Cantabrian circle for HA, if I forgot to remove it from any HA unit please tell me.

I didn't save the battles we had last night, but Vega's Romans outdid my Sweboz (despite many units having a shield stat of 6, roman pila and arrows are still devastating) and my superior Hai cavalry forced overran his Pontic force, despite a decided inferiority in foot archers. I feel the story of the battle exhibits some interesting points, so here goes:

My army:

1 Hai BG
2 Armenian Cataphracts
1 Armenian Medium Cav
1 Nizakahar Ayrudzi (JavCav)
2 Steppe Riders
2 Syrian Archers
1 Eastern Slingers
5 Panda Phalanxes
4 Georgian Infantry
1 Armenian Noble Infantry

Vega's Army (IIRC)

1 Early Pontos BG
2 Scythian Heavy Cavalry
2 Steppe Riders
3 Bosporan Archers
5-6 Panda Phalanxes
6-7 Mix of Kuarothoroi and Pontic Thorakitai

My troops were deployed in a manner to maximize flexibility in infantry, while to overwhelm with cavalry. I placed the phalanx in the center with the general behind, with the Georgians directly next to the general, and the Georgians next to the general, with the elite infantry and slingers behind those; the archers were in loose formation in front. To the direct left of my formation, I placed my skirmisher cavalry, with the cataphracts behind these, and the medium cavalry behind those. Vega deployed his 6 heavy infantry units on the sides of his center phalanxes (3 on each side) and had 2 of his archers in front of the phalanx, with one behind as a reserve; one of his Scythian units were placed on each side of the infantry line. Both of us deployed our horse archers on either wing, far from the main line. His position was better suited to go into action quickly, and his reserve archer unit, I feared, would do much to counteract my preponderance in cavalry.

The battle opened with the traditional archer duel. Our steppe horse archers engaged on the flanks, each inflicting approximately 30% casualties on each other before retiring and commencing other work, which shall be detailed later. His 2 Bosporans that he sent to the front easily outdid my Syrians (spending 2100 on an archer unit pays off) in quality, so I had my archers switch to shoot at his phalanx; they inflicted about 40-50 casualties on his phalangites, but my engaged archers suffered approximately 70% casualties, while his suffered only 12%, meaning he had those Bosporans left over to serve as medium infantrymen.

Following this, he began an advance with his line of infantry, but I refused to retreat my archers, keeping them far in front of my line to get good shots at his phalanxes. Seeing this, Vega deployed a Scythian unit to wipe up my archers, and I brought my slingers and one of my horse archers to fire on his Scythians as I retreated my archers. He pulled back his scythian cavalry, which took volleys in the rear, neglecting their large shield stat. He then brought his horse archers and reserve archer unit to shoot my slingers, which they did, but I concentrated fire on his Scythians with my limited resources (I turned my horse archers to shoot his) and dealt them about 10 casualties, or 20% of their strength.

The phalanx lines then clashed, and my Georgians fired volleys of javelins into his phalanxes, inflicting an unknown number of casualties. They then took flanking positions so that my line looked like this /-----\. To hold the crucial left flank, where my cavalry were to make their decisive charge, I placed my elite noble infantry. His weakened Scythians went on a ride around my army to assault the rear, while my cataphracts charged and quickly overran his one unit of Scythians on the left, while the javelin cavalry peppered the flank of his assaulting heavy infantry. The two cataphracts and one Medium cavalry immediately turned against his flank, without bothering to do a full lance charge; the inferior quality Pontic troops routed, while the two units of sturdy Galatians held.

I retreated my cataphracts and mediums, and had my Javelin cavalry empty their saddlebags with spears in the backs of the Galatians, before I sent my medium cavalry after them again; they and the left flank infantry ground up the Galatians. The cataphracts mopped up some of the Bosporan archers that he used to reinforce the line (after this they were tired and I commited them to no further action), and the phalanxes murdered each other, with all of my phalanxes suffering more than 50% casualties, and his routing. That little bit of archer and javelin fire had paid off with a victory in the center. His Scythians reached the back of my line and charged the rear of the phalanx, but this was irrelevant as almost 50% of the phalangites were dead already. His preponderance of infantry on my right (his left) meant that he was winning there, but my general got in one charge on his flank there, and the command bonus helped my troops hang on long enough for me to win the center and left. Seeing the hopelessness of his position, Vega admitted defeat.

What does this battle prove? First of all, it disproves the statement by Antisocialmunky that a superior quantity of heavy infantry counters a well-supported cavalry force. My cavalry, all concentrated on my left flank (except the horse archers), overran his flank within two minutes in hammer-and-anvil style, while my right flank held off long enough to make my victory complete.

Second of all, phalanxes kill each other too fast, especially as Panda Phalanxes have only 15 defense. To mitigate this, I am removing light_spear from the attributes of all phalanx units (except the Germanic Pikemen unit), which should not affect combat against other infantry as other infantry must move to close quarters to engage enemies anyway. However, the resulting loss of the -4 defense penalty should prolong phalanx combat by an estimated 50%. It will also mean that the pikemen do not resist cavalry charges from the front as well, but I don't expect anyone to charge cavalry right at a phalanx from the front even then, and if that becomes a viable tactic, it can easily be added to the list of fairplay violations.

Third of all, Hai infantry seems to hold the line effectively enough to allow the cavalry to win important battles, especially when an elite infantry unit or a general is present to reinforce and/or inspire. The new Pontic Thorakitai are an important asset to Pontic players, with 90 men and short swords to defeat opposing spearmen, and the defense stats of Thureophoroi.

Fourth, the battle demonstrated what I feel is a key principle, that Vega recognized after the battle; inferior archers ought not to be put to use by shooting the enemy archers, but by absorbing arrows and firing at other targets, so your other troops may be victorious. For example, they weakened the Scythian cavalry slightly, and they dealt some damage to the phalangites, enough to win me a victory in the push of pike; the Bosporan archers did little but shoot my missile troops and engage in close combat, in which they are useful support troops but far from the infantry of choice; they barely increased the strength of his force in the decisive melee clash (he reinforced his line rather than using them as flankers), while my archers, for less cost, dealt more important damage in the center.

[vartan]

Third of all, Hai infantry seems to hold the line effectively enough to allow the cavalry to win important battles, especially when an elite infantry unit or a general is present to reinforce and/or inspire. The new Pontic Thorakitai are an important asset to Pontic players, with 90 men and short swords to defeat opposing spearmen, and the defense stats of Thureophoroi.

Do elite units such as the elite infantry or cavalry deserve an eagle or is their ability to hold the flank (elite infantry) enough?

Fourth, the battle demonstrated what I feel is a key principle, that Vega recognized after the battle; inferior archers ought not to be put to use by shooting the enemy archers, but by absorbing arrows and firing at other targets, so your other troops may be victorious. For example, they weakened the Scythian cavalry slightly, and they dealt some damage to the phalangites, enough to win me a victory in the push of pike; the Bosporan archers did little but shoot my missile troops and engage in close combat, in which they are useful support troops but far from the infantry of choice; they barely increased the strength of his force in the decisive melee clash (he reinforced his line rather than using them as flankers), while my archers, for less cost, dealt more important damage in the center.

Reading this gives me the impression that I would like to be on the side with inferior archers, not superior archers. What do you think?

[The Celtic Viking]

Do elite units such as the elite infantry or cavalry deserve an eagle or is their ability to hold the flank (elite infantry) enough?

Lets not go crazy with those eagles now; it's enough that everyone's got at least one now. Giving it to more would remove the incentive to bring general units, and (I feel like I'm being a broken record on this) will serve to weaken the Casse further. Their particular fighting style would no longer be showcased in low morale units following their heroes into battle either; it would just be something everyone had, but with worse everything. It's definitely enough just to have them fight very well.

[vartan]

Lets not go crazy with those eagles now; it's enough that everyone's got at least one now. Giving it to more would remove the incentive to bring general units, and (I feel like I'm being a broken record on this) will serve to weaken the Casse further. Their particular fighting style would no longer be showcased in low morale units following their heroes into battle either; it would just be something everyone had, but with worse everything. It's definitely enough just to have them fight very well.

That's pretty much the case with Saba...you think Saba deserves compromise, too? I don't. But that's just my thought. There's nothing wrong with making all factions of the game work for the sake of having them work.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Saba get elephants. There is no unit in the Casse roster that can win a battle like elephants can.

That said, elephants should get a minor boost to hp if they havn't already. Maybe +1. Makes little sense that ellies get only one more hp than gaesatae.

[Lazy O]

Elephants cannot win you a battle and a re a liablity. Simply too many faction have charger cavalry, heck even prodromoi can kill elephants, so can a lowly akontisai unit.

[The Celtic Viking]

That's pretty much the case with Saba...you think Saba deserves compromise, too? I don't. But that's just my thought. There's nothing wrong with making all factions of the game work for the sake of having them work.

Huh? In vanilla EB, Casse gets low morale but so many eagles to showcase their different fighting style of having heroes lead the tribes into war. When you gave general units eagles, you decreased this point, and if you start giving them left, right and centre, you remove this distinguishment altogether. However, it's even worse, because you're only removing the good part of this distinguishment (the eagles), but keeping the bad part of it (low morale for non-heroic units).

In other words, my argument is not simply "doing this would make Casse irrelevant", which is pretty much true, but also that it would remove a historical point from the Casse faction. In other words, if we agreed that not giving elites an eagle would be a compromise, then all we'd have to agree with would be that either way would be a compromise. If that's the case, then I'd go with the compromise that I see as more important, both from a historical as well as a gameplay perspective. I would compromise in the way that kept Casse floating... but I genuinely don't think that it's really a compromise.

Elephants cannot win you a battle and a re a liablity. Simply too many faction have charger cavalry, heck even prodromoi can kill elephants, so can a lowly akontisai unit.

Nonsense. Elephants is what won Mr Fred's tournament as Saba.

Problem is elephants still cost too much. A unit of elephants shouldn't cost too much more than a unit of cataphracts considering there are more ways to counter them than catas. Maybe 6500 for a unit of elephants?

Btw, this is based solely on balance, not on historical accuracy.

I too agree with this.

[Lazy O]

Did anyone try charging Prodromoi or any charger cav into elephants last year ? I think not, people werent that brave last year, and saying elephants won him the tournament is over simplifying it.

[gamegeek2]

Ideally we would have armies with four elephants on large, eight on huge.

[vartan]

Huh? In vanilla EB, Casse gets low morale but so many eagles to showcase their different fighting style of having heroes lead the tribes into war. When you gave general units eagles, you decreased this point, and if you start giving them left, right and centre, you remove this distinguishment altogether. However, it's even worse, because you're only removing the good part of this distinguishment (the eagles), but keeping the bad part of it (low morale for non-heroic units).

In other words, my argument is not simply "doing this would make Casse irrelevant", which is pretty much true, but also that it would remove a historical point from the Casse faction. In other words, if we agreed that not giving elites an eagle would be a compromise, then all we'd have to agree with would be that either way would be a compromise. If that's the case, then I'd go with the compromise that I see as more important, both from a historical as well as a gameplay perspective. I would compromise in the way that kept Casse floating... but I genuinely don't think that it's really a compromise.

That's why I'm against giving elites eagles. Just cause one brings a suggestion up doesn't mean one is in favour of it.

Did anyone try charging Prodromoi or any charger cav into elephants last year ? I think not, people werent that brave last year, and saying elephants won him the tournament is over simplifying it.

It's not. You clearly haven't talked to him. It's the words that came out of his mouth.

Ideally we would have armies with four elephants on large, eight on huge.

Why? Who said you need to make the numbers proportionally realistic?

[vartan]

Does that then make all the other ele factions which are already top contenders overpowered?

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Does that then make all the other ele factions which are already top contenders overpowered?

Probably. That is why we should keep money at 36k. If anything, 34k would be even better as it would make the lighter units more important.

[gamegeek2]

Do elite units such as the elite infantry or cavalry deserve an eagle or is their ability to hold the flank (elite infantry) enough?

Reading this gives me the impression that I would like to be on the side with inferior archers, not superior archers. What do you think?

It's more of how you use the archers you have. If you have one archer instead of one line unit, and use that archer to badly damage the enemy cav, then you win the cav fight and can rout the line. But if you have five archers and the enemy has four identical ones, well then they cancel each other out much more, and the enemy has more line units to help break through.

[antisocialmunky]

It's more of how you use the archers you have. If you have one archer instead of one line unit, and use that archer to badly damage the enemy cav, then you win the cav fight and can rout the line. But if you have five archers and the enemy has four identical ones, well then they cancel each other out much more, and the enemy has more line units to help break through.

It depends on the faction since defensive infantry are quite hard to definitively kill. Having an additional identical archer is actually quite useful if the enemy is packing expensive cav because it by itself makes it hard to use cavalry since it will have extra ammo to spend and will be able to swing cav engagements your way... which will make it much easier to win a cav fight and mass rout the battle line. Also good in no cav at all cases because then it can break away and prevent flanking because it can shoot flankers or doods chasing your cav in the back.