[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[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.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

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.

[vartan]

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.

[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.

[Lazy O]

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

[Lazy O]

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

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

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.

[vartan]

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?

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.

[gamegeek2]

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.

[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?

[antisocialmunky]

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.

[vartan]

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?

[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.