Results 1 to 30 of 1362

Thread: [EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2 View Post
    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?
    EB Online Founder | Website
    Former Projects:
    - Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack

    - Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
    - EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
    - Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)

  2. #2
    Involuntary Gaesatae Member The Celtic Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the heart of Hyperborea
    Posts
    2,962

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by vartan
    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.
    Last edited by The Celtic Viking; 08-28-2011 at 02:06.

  3. #3

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking View Post
    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.
    EB Online Founder | Website
    Former Projects:
    - Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack

    - Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
    - EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
    - Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)

  4. #4
    RABO! Member Brave Brave Sir Robin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Assaulting your flanks
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    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.
    From Frontline for fixing siege towers of death
    x30 From mikepettytw for showing how to edit in game text.
    From Brennus for wit.

  5. #5
    Unbowed Unbent Unbroken Member Lazy O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,046

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    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.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 





    [21:16:17] [Gaius - 5.115.253.115]
    i m not camping , its elegant strategy of waiting

  6. #6
    RABO! Member Brave Brave Sir Robin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Assaulting your flanks
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    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.
    From Frontline for fixing siege towers of death
    x30 From mikepettytw for showing how to edit in game text.
    From Brennus for wit.

  7. #7

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin View Post
    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 completely agree with you. I've agreed with you since even before you were playing EBO. We've yet to see the cheap elephant. But it does say a lot that expensive elephants have still won battles. Looking forward to 1.5x cata-cost elephants though.
    EB Online Founder | Website
    Former Projects:
    - Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack

    - Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
    - EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
    - Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)

  8. #8
    Involuntary Gaesatae Member The Celtic Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the heart of Hyperborea
    Posts
    2,962

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by vartan View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy O View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin View Post
    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.
    Last edited by The Celtic Viking; 08-28-2011 at 15:16.

  9. #9
    Unbowed Unbent Unbroken Member Lazy O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,046

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    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.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 





    [21:16:17] [Gaius - 5.115.253.115]
    i m not camping , its elegant strategy of waiting

  10. #10
    EB:NOM Triumvir Member gamegeek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hanover, NH
    Posts
    3,569

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Ideally we would have armies with four elephants on large, eight on huge.
    Europa Barbarorum: Novus Ordo Mundi - Mod Leader Europa Barbarorum - Team Member

    Quote Originally Posted by skullheadhq
    Run Hax! For slave master gamegeek has arrived
    "To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace." -Calgacus

  11. #11
    Unbowed Unbent Unbroken Member Lazy O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,046

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    It annoys me when you are posting on the forum yet cant come on hamachi :(


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 





    [21:16:17] [Gaius - 5.115.253.115]
    i m not camping , its elegant strategy of waiting

  12. #12
    Unbowed Unbent Unbroken Member Lazy O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,046

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Triple post ftw, he might not admit it, but there was much more to his game than elephants.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 





    [21:16:17] [Gaius - 5.115.253.115]
    i m not camping , its elegant strategy of waiting

  13. #13
    RABO! Member Brave Brave Sir Robin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Assaulting your flanks
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by vartan View Post
    Why? Who said you need to make the numbers proportionally realistic?
    Yes no way to represent the fact that cavalry would not even go near elephants if the horses were unaccustomed to the sights, sounds, and smells of the beasts. The fair compromise is the unit size as is.

    A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.
    From Frontline for fixing siege towers of death
    x30 From mikepettytw for showing how to edit in game text.
    From Brennus for wit.

  14. #14

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy O View Post
    Triple post ftw, he might not admit it, but there was much more to his game than elephants.
    Who are you to speak on his behalf? Do you always do this?
    Quote Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin View Post
    Yes no way to represent the fact that cavalry would not even go near elephants if the horses were unaccustomed to the sights, sounds, and smells of the beasts. The fair compromise is the unit size as is.
    Basically. Cavalry are not supposed to come near. The engine fails, once again.
    A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.
    You'll need to ask the EB team about that.
    EB Online Founder | Website
    Former Projects:
    - Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack

    - Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
    - EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
    - Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)

  15. #15
    EB:NOM Triumvir Member gamegeek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hanover, NH
    Posts
    3,569

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by Brave Brave Sir Robin View Post
    Yes no way to represent the fact that cavalry would not even go near elephants if the horses were unaccustomed to the sights, sounds, and smells of the beasts. The fair compromise is the unit size as is.

    A side note: why do we pay more for Indian Elephants which have fewer elephants per unit than the African ones? Indian Elephants were in all likelihood, the easiest to train, as experienced mahouts would be common in India. And don't tell me that we pay so much more for two men on their backs that throw a few javelins or shoot a few arrows. The Ptolemies had considerably more trouble getting access to their African elephants than the Seleucids did trying to get Indians, yet their elephant units have more beasts and cost substantially less.
    Except I am going to make the better quality Indians cost less than the towered Africans. Did you read the documentation at all? Oh wait, that's long and boring.
    Europa Barbarorum: Novus Ordo Mundi - Mod Leader Europa Barbarorum - Team Member

    Quote Originally Posted by skullheadhq
    Run Hax! For slave master gamegeek has arrived
    "To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace." -Calgacus

  16. #16

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy O View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2 View Post
    Ideally we would have armies with four elephants on large, eight on huge.
    Why? Who said you need to make the numbers proportionally realistic?
    Last edited by Ludens; 08-29-2011 at 18:39. Reason: merged posts
    EB Online Founder | Website
    Former Projects:
    - Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack

    - Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
    - EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
    - Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)

  17. #17
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by vartan View Post
    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.
    Yeah, the royal guards and elites of the other factions aren't there to inspire people to do crazy stuff. Rather they have a very specialized purpose such as assault, holding strong points, or delivering the KO. It would be worse than taking AP off Getai units.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  18. #18

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by antisocialmunky View Post
    Yeah, the royal guards and elites of the other factions aren't there to inspire people to do crazy stuff. Rather they have a very specialized purpose such as assault, holding strong points, or delivering the KO. It would be worse than taking AP off Getai units.
    Yeah. Of course there are Getai units that need AP removed. But basic infantry like falxmen, didn't they get AP back yet?
    EB Online Founder | Website
    Former Projects:
    - Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack

    - Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
    - EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
    - Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)

  19. #19

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Does that then make all the other ele factions which are already top contenders overpowered?
    EB Online Founder | Website
    Former Projects:
    - Vartan's EB Submod Compilation Pack

    - Asia ton Barbaron (Armenian linguistics)
    - EB:NOM (Armenian linguistics/history)
    - Dominion of the Sword (Armenian linguistics/history, videographer)

  20. #20
    RABO! Member Brave Brave Sir Robin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Assaulting your flanks
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by vartan View Post
    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.
    From Frontline for fixing siege towers of death
    x30 From mikepettytw for showing how to edit in game text.
    From Brennus for wit.

  21. #21
    EB:NOM Triumvir Member gamegeek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hanover, NH
    Posts
    3,569

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by vartan View Post
    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.
    Europa Barbarorum: Novus Ordo Mundi - Mod Leader Europa Barbarorum - Team Member

    Quote Originally Posted by skullheadhq
    Run Hax! For slave master gamegeek has arrived
    "To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace." -Calgacus

  22. #22
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: 3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

    Quote Originally Posted by gamegeek2 View Post
    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.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO