[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[vartan]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 :(

[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?

[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.

[Lazy O]

Who are you to prevent me from saying that he was better than you people think he was?

[vartan]

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.

Why the unfortunate and unnecessary inconsistency in having better quality troops cost less?

Who are you to prevent me from saying that he was better than you people think he was?

You can't speak on his behalf. I'm just saying what he told me about his play. So zip it.

[The Celtic Viking]

Who are you to prevent me from saying that he was better than you people think he was?

What are you talking about? No one here has said a word, or even implied anything, about Mr Fred's skill. All we're saying is that the elephants are what won him that tournament. It shouldn't be such a controversial thing to say when by his own words he based his whole bloody tactic on those ellies! His army composition was made up of one elephant and 19 units to support it. Of course the elephants were instrumental to his success, and there's no reasonable way to deny that.

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.

True, but just because he who brought it up doesn't favour it himself doesn't mean that I can't give my reasons why I am against it, does it?

[vartan]

What are you talking about? No one here has said a word, or even implied anything, about Mr Fred's skill. All we're saying is that the elephants are what won him that tournament. It shouldn't be such a controversial thing to say when by his own words he based his whole bloody tactic on those ellies! His army composition was made up of one elephant and 19 units to support it. Of course the elephants were instrumental to his success, and there's no reasonable way to deny that.

Precisely. He even wrote on why he made the decisions he did with those beasts of war. Lazy is probably unaware of this, or does not wish to inform himself on the matter, as usual.

True, but just because he who brought it up doesn't favour it himself doesn't mean that I can't give my reasons why I am against it, does it?

True. I'm against it for the same reasons basically.

[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?

[gamegeek2]

Yeah. Of course there are Getai units that need AP removed. But basic infantry like falxmen, didn't they get AP back yet?

Again, from a historical standpoint, it would make no sense. Either way falxmen had to be de-powered. If anybody recalls, we had to place a restriction on Bastarnae Falxmen because they were so good; Drapanai were let slide because they were the selling-point of the Getai, as the Getai never won archer wars at the time and thus the Drapanai got slaughtered. Now, the Getai have one of the cheapest and most effective low tier archer units in the game.

[vartan]

Again, from a historical standpoint, it would make no sense. Either way falxmen had to be de-powered. If anybody recalls, we had to place a restriction on Bastarnae Falxmen because they were so good; Drapanai were let slide because they were the selling-point of the Getai, as the Getai never won archer wars at the time and thus the Drapanai got slaughtered. Now, the Getai have one of the cheapest and most effective low tier archer units in the game.

Can't really get away with cheap units. You need to reconsider for reasons of gameplay uniqueness as a faction. And you can remove the possibility of restrictions by using pricing in combination of stats, or to spell it out, not over-the-top powerful and/or more expensive.

[-Stormrage-]

we had to place a restriction on Bastarnae Falxmen because they were so good

Bastarnae falxmen arent OP, they have 0 armour and die to arrow fire. This is what balance is. Rock paper scissors. Falxmen beat armour but die to arrows clear advantage and disadvantage, but the problem we have is those advantages and disadvantages arent so clear in other units. and the counter to a unit doesnt do much damage to it . I think your problem is you make changes over historical accuracy rather then gameplay.

[vartan]

Bastarnae falxmen arent OP, they have 0 armour and die to arrow fire. This is what balance is. Rock paper scissors. Falxmen beat armour but die to arrows clear advantage and disadvantage, but the problem we have is those advantages and disadvantages arent so clear in other units. and the counter to a unit doesnt do much damage to it . I think your problem is you make changes over historical accuracy rather then gameplay.

I thought you stopped playing EB and switched to Rock-Paper-Scissors, as you were suggested to do. I thought wrong!

[-Stormrage-]

I dont know what you meant by that, im still trying to decipher the meaning.

[vartan]

I dont know what you meant by that, im still trying to decipher the meaning.

Let me give you some links to help you out with that.

http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Learn-English-Picture-Dictionary/dp/0071408223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314580648&sr=8-1
http://www.tolearnenglish.com/

[gamegeek2]

I dont know what you meant by that, im still trying to decipher the meaning.

Storm, he means your idea of balance is so simple-minded that you might as well go play Rock Paper Scissors - the most perfectly balanced game there is. Everything in the game has a clear strength and weakness. You can apply the same principle to a lesser extent in Shogun 2 - Spears beat Cav, Cav beat Swords, and Swords beat Spears.

But the closest thing to a simplified matrix of unit advantages and disadvantages in ancient Western warfare is this:

Heavy Infantry: Can successfully defeat all other unit types in melee, cannot outrun any units.
Heavy Cavalry: Can successfully defeat all unit types except heavy infantry in melee, can outrun all infantry.
Light Infantry: Can successfully defeat all units at range, and outrun heavy infantry, can outrun heavy infantry.
Light Cavalry: Can successfully defeat all unit types except light infantry at range, can outrun any unit.

And even to this simplified system there is a proliferation of exceptions, variations, etc.

I think your problem is you make changes over historical accuracy rather then gameplay.

Right then, please go play Starcraft.

Can't really get away with cheap units. You need to reconsider for reasons of gameplay uniqueness as a faction. And you can remove the possibility of restrictions by using pricing in combination of stats, or to spell it out, not over-the-top powerful and/or more expensive.

Do remind me, then, how a man with no shirt and a weapon that costs less than a sword would become expensive at all? Pricing is based on manpower availability and equipment only, nothing else. The Getai had plenty of falx-armed infantry so I can't increase the price. Were I to make the falx pierce armor, it's only logical to extend that to all units equipped with similar two-handed weapons, but the Rhomphaiaphoroi are at an excellent power level that I don't want to modify.

The only thing I could consider would be to artificially boost the armor stat of the Drapanai, but I have done this already, by increasing it to 2 with the excuse that their leather caps afford them some protection, which seemed to be the EB team's reasoning as well. But that's it.

[-Stormrage-]

Starcraft is nice, its actually a very well balanced game.