[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[vartan]

The falx had its AP removed so as to underpower the units that use it. Any falx-wielding units that still have AP simply mean there are inconsistencies in the EDU and that gg2 has yet to remove AP from those units. It's simply a move that was taken to underpower them. I could argue that AP be removed from maces and axes, especially axes. But when we look at non-blade weaponry, we see why AP is necessary. The falx is a blade, and this is one of the biggest obstacles in understanding it as AP-worthy, but if you consider how devastating the falx was, it doesn't matter if it didn't cut through armor, it still deserves AP as a way of representing its devastating nature as a weapon of war.

TL;DR Falx translated into RTW terms should be AP. The EB team, though not flawless, had this point right the first time around.

[gamegeek2]

The falx had its AP removed so as to underpower the units that use it. Any falx-wielding units that still have AP simply mean there are inconsistencies in the EDU and that gg2 has yet to remove AP from those units. It's simply a move that was taken to underpower them. I could argue that AP be removed from maces and axes, especially axes. But when we look at non-blade weaponry, we see why AP is necessary. The falx is a blade, and this is one of the biggest obstacles in understanding it as AP-worthy, but if you consider how devastating the falx was, it doesn't matter if it didn't cut through armor, it still deserves AP as a way of representing its devastating nature as a weapon of war.

TL;DR Falx translated into RTW terms should be AP. The EB team, though not flawless, had this point right the first time around.

Vartan that's awfully low of you to misrepresent like that. But as I said it is under the microscope.

[vartan]

For all the confused out there, this was all a farce. Excuse this charade. We are truly working on the falx and have in the works a proposition that is going to be tested that, theoretically at least, looks quite promising as an alternative that will bring back AP for the falx while maintaining a desired level of balance. Thanks.

[antisocialmunky]

Trolls live in bridges and not under caves...

I think high lethality will serve it fine. It was a little OP against Romans back in Vanilla anyway.

[-Stormrage-]

Since were on the subject, i move we give back AP to Thracian peltestai and Indian Longbowmen. you could gice thracians peltatsts a cost boost like maybe 1800 and return AP to them , afterall werent you the ones always ranting on about historical accuracy, whenever something is suggested, " oh no htats not historicaly asccurate" . Moreover, Indian Longbowmen die like flies to anything that can shoot, get one persian archer it'll rip'em apart, so whhy take AP from them they arent overpowered, if u allow them to engage then thats your mistake.

Note: Why do bosphoran archers and other proffesional archers, only have 5 attack. I think you will agree most EB units alot have armour, AND EVEN the light units have armour. Why only 5, what do u want them to do shoot birds. i suggest +2 archer attack to all archers. heres the thing We have greatly Decreased accuracy of archers, I see no reason why we ccant increase their damage to balance the high decrease in accuracy.

[gamegeek2]

OK. I think it's a stretch giving the AP to the two-handed falx, so I'm inclined to say that it's a definite no to restoring AP to one of the most insanely overpowered units of vanilla EB, the Thracian Peltast. Not only did it was the peltast actually superior as an armor-piercing infantryman than Celtic Axemen - without a barbarian bonus to melee combat, he was also better armored and a better skirmisher. It was absurd and, from what I can tell, there was almost universal approval to its removal.

A cane longbow simply doesn't stack up to a composite bow in terms of range and power, and we don't have a levy indian archer unit anyways. Also, please propose how that small sword, wielded in two hands since they have no shield (that sword doesn't look long enough to be a proper two-handed weapon) that the Indian archers have will effectively bludgeon through a mail shirt, let along a muscled cuirass. It's an absurd proposition.

Stormrage, you've exhausted your credibility capital on the issue of archers. The system of how better quality archers achieve better shooting results has, I believe, been explained perfectly adequately. In fact, the new higher quality archers have a much more pronounced advantage over lower quality archers in doing damage, per man, but they have less men to do it with now. Their advantage is significantly more pronounced at longer range, and their armor reinforces this edge significantly.

Do recall that attack means the chance of an arrow killing if it hits its target. If a levy archer shoots a Roman and a Bosporan shoots him, their arrows will have the same penetration power as each other, assuming they use the same bows.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Since were on the subject, i move we give back AP to Thracian peltestai and Indian Longbowmen. you could gice thracians peltatsts a cost boost like maybe 1800 and return AP to them , afterall werent you the ones always ranting on about historical accuracy, whenever something is suggested, " oh no htats not historicaly asccurate" . Moreover, Indian Longbowmen die like flies to anything that can shoot, get one persian archer it'll rip'em apart, so whhy take AP from them they arent overpowered, if u allow them to engage then thats your mistake.

Note: Why do bosphoran archers and other proffesional archers, only have 5 attack. I think you will agree most EB units alot have armour, AND EVEN the light units have armour. Why only 5, what do u want them to do shoot birds. i suggest +2 archer attack to all archers. heres the thing We have greatly Decreased accuracy of archers, I see no reason why we ccant increase their damage to balance the high decrease in accuracy.

As far as archer attack, I think gamegeek is using the draw strength of various bow types in attack ratings, possibly factoring in arrow types as well. It is the accuracy that really matters though. If you hand a bow to a professional archer and someone off the streets who is relatively strong, there is little difference in the amount of damage the arrow would do if both hit their target. However, the professional will hit his target far more often so in this sense the accuracy changes make a lot of sense.

Thracian Peltasts should not get ap back. They use their blade single handed which wouldn't generate so much force and the blade is rather thin. However, weapons like the Indian sword wielded by the archers and the weapons of the Kluddargos and Lugii should get AP back instead. These are large, heavy weapons. Even though they do not have sweet spots like a mace or axe, the relative weight of the entire weapon along with it's two handed nature mean that a lot of force will be generated swinging one of these. I tend to think that two handed swords of this time frame were more crushing weapons than cutting weapons anyway. And obviously I feel that falxes should get AP back.

I would also appreciate your opinion gamegeek, on my idea of why more armor may have been added to counter the falx, since it seems to have been lost in the discussion.

[antisocialmunky]

You could just make them more plentiful or something. You could just make them some sort of interesting 240 sized levy archer/machette unit. I mean, you have cheap plentiful parts and a lot of people able to use bows so it would make sense.

I always thought they had one of these: http://www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=1036

You could just stat it as a swinging sword with defense decrease since its not really made for parry/not dying.

[Lazy O]

Please talk in large scale. And an Indian sword has a MUCH larger blade than that.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Good photo of Indian longbow sword, even compares it to celtic longsword. Its probably designed as a two handed weapon as it looks rather top heavy for a one handed blade.

[TheShakAttack]

A cane longbow simply doesn't stack up to a composite bow in terms of range and power, and we don't have a levy indian archer unit anyways. Also, please propose how that small sword, wielded in two hands since they have no shield (that sword doesn't look long enough to be a proper two-handed weapon) that the Indian archers have will effectively bludgeon through a mail shirt, let along a muscled cuirass. It's an absurd proposition.

...

Do recall that attack means the chance of an arrow killing if it hits its target. If a levy archer shoots a Roman and a Bosporan shoots him, their arrows will have the same penetration power as each other, assuming they use the same bows.

I disagree. Indian archery had a very long and historic tradition, much like the cultures that surrounded it. They can be roughly divided into two types of units, the common/levy type of soldiers that used bamboo longbows which used traditional arrows and when against cavalry/elephants, used iron arrows to increase piercing ability. The nobility used steel bows and steel head arrows ( to give arrows AP ability to be used more effectively against armoured elephants and cavalry).

The bamboo longbow was a very large weapon, longer than the person wielding it, and it was anchored on the ground using the toes of the foot. An average composite bow only offers a significant advantage against longbows/longbows in that they are compact and therefore well suited for mounted archery. For most practical (i.e. flight archery excluded) non-mounted archery purposes, composite construction offers no advantage. The English Longbow, though of superior construction to bamboo longbow, was not terribly dissimilar in concept, and demonstrates this principle. A composite bow was in fact, very expensive whereas the bamboo longbow was very cheap. So this should be addressed. Only the most expensive/well-made composite bows offered any considerable advantage when compared to longbows (for non-mounted purposes). These very well made composite bows would usually only be found in the hands of elites of steppe, west and central asia and further east (India, china, etc). The composite bows used by Cretans are unlikely to have been a match (esp in the EB time period). Bosphorans, I do not honestly know..it's likely given their location (though I'm not sure they would have had the high quality composite bows that offer adv over longbow/longbows).

On a side note, I think the prowess of Cretan archers has been overemphasised/powered in the game (and inconsistent with history), but that discussion is for another time.

I know the Indian Longbow unit is not finished so I cant comment on how they are right now. However, if you consider the Indian longbow unit respresnts the “common soldier/levy”, it should be very cheap and just as powerful as a elite composite bow user apart from perhaps persian heavy and bosphoran (who would have access to supeiror composite bow). If you consider it represents the nobility, then it should be one of the most expensive and best archer units in the game to reflect metal construction, certainly better than Cretans (though I do not think this is your intention so I will not discuss it further).

Heres a quote to end my discussion

“The Indian longbow was reputedly a powerful weapon capable of great range and penetration and provided an effective counter to invading horse archers. Iron shafts were used against armored elephants and fire arrows were also part of the bowmen's arsenal. India historically has had a prominent reputation for its steel weapons. One of these was the steel bow. Due to its high tensility, the steel bow was capable of long range and penetration of exceptionally thick armor. These were less common weapons than the bamboo design and found in the hands of noblemen rather than in the ranks.”

Also, please propose how that small sword, wielded in two hands since they have no shield (that sword doesn't look long enough to be a proper two-handed weapon) that the Indian archers have will effectively bludgeon through a mail shirt, let along a muscled cuirass. It's an absurd proposition.

Agree with Robin’s post. The region had access to one of the best ironworks during that time period so it is entirely possible that they would have cheaply constructed something similar to what Robin has suggested. Plus, they look awfully big in the game, I don't know where you got "that small sword" from.

Also, it’d be interesting to hear what your rationale is for giving AP to axe, mace, kopis/falcatta.

Do recall that attack means the chance of an arrow killing if it hits its target. If a levy archer shoots a Roman and a Bosporan shoots him, their arrows will have the same penetration power as each other, assuming they use the same bows.

Didn’t know that. So I am guessing that the only adv the Bosphoran would have over the levy unit using the same bow when firing at a Roman Legionary is that more of their arrows would hit the target when shooting from a distance?

[-Stormrage-]

As far as archer attack, I think gamegeek is using the draw strength of various bow types in attack ratings, possibly factoring in arrow types as well. It is the accuracy that really matters though. If you hand a bow to a professional archer and someone off the streets who is relatively strong, there is little difference in the amount of damage the arrow would do if both hit their target. However, the professional will hit his target far more often so in this sense the accuracy changes make a lot of sense.

Yes your right a proffesional archer wil hit his target more often then a levy archer, but my point is most eb units have armour around 10 even "light units" have armour, so even if the archer hits his target the armour of the "light" unit will stop it. not to mention all light units have sheilds 3 to 5. an increase in arrow attack will insure that when a light unit is hit he will die and his armour wont stop the bullet.

Another note: I think sword attack is too low. Lets take a common sowrd, for example we have a sword thats 11 attack. consider the enemy unit most unit have 8- 10 armour, + sheild + the defense skill. So add all those defense aspects then look at the attack value of a sword. It shows that the units are dying way way way too slowly.

Message to GG: If u want to have a light unit, here is what u can do u can give the light unit something like 4-5 armour, then give him 20-25 defense skill. that way you get a light unit archers can kill, but at the same time a light unit which doesnt die too fast in melee, thats my advice.

GG i found a problem, its either a stat error or a category error. Unit (Taxilan Agema )
category cavalry
class light
stat_pri_armour 12, 13, 2, leather (armour/defense skill/sheild)

[LusitanianWolf]

Yes your right a proffesional archer wil hit his target more often then a levy archer, but my point is most eb units have armour around 10 even "light units" have armour, so even if the archer hits his target the armour of the "light" unit will stop it. not to mention all light units have sheilds 3 to 5. an increase in arrow attack will insure that when a light unit is hit he will die and his armour wont stop the bullet.

Another note: I think sword attack is too low. Lets take a common sowrd, for example we have a sword thats 11 attack. consider the enemy unit most unit have 8- 10 armour, + sheild + the defense skill. So add all those defense aspects then look at the attack value of a sword. It shows that the units are dying way way way too slowly.

Message to GG: If u want to have a light unit, here is what u can do u can give the light unit something like 4-5 armour, then give him 20-25 defense skill. that way you get a light unit archers can kill, but at the same time a light unit which doesnt die too fast in melee, thats my advice.

GG i found a problem, its either a stat error or a category error. Unit (Taxilan Agema )
category cavalry
class light
stat_pri_armour 12, 13, 2, leather (armour/defense skill/sheild)

EB units killing rate is already too high, historically speaking in the majority of battles there would be much less casualities and the majority of them during pursuit.


Bah, I'm eager to finish this work and get back to EB MP, the new EDU looks promissing!!!!

[-Stormrage-]

Another problem we have is, the light units which are accually stated as having light armour are given a huge sheild to block arrows.

example : Ridanz
stat_pri_armour 2, 12, 5, flesh . Cool theyve got light armour i finally found a unit i can kill with archers, thank you. oh wait, 5 sheild WTF!!!

I think GG is a big archer hater. Even the light units which should die to archer fire are given a big sheild to hide behind. GG its like your mocking us .

[-Stormrage-]

[QUOTE=LusitanianWolf;2053367961]EB units killing rate is already too high, historically speaking in the majority of battles there would be much less casualities and the majority of them during pursuit./QUOTE]

Historical battles lasted for hours, We cant spend hours on a single battle. This is wwhat historical accuracy has driven you too , oh people. You are now willing to make kill rates so slow to match the kill rates of real life. well you have to remmeber something, its a game not real life.

[LusitanianWolf]

[QUOTE=-Stormrage-;2053367967]

EB units killing rate is already too high, historically speaking in the majority of battles there would be much less casualities and the majority of them during pursuit. /QUOTE]

Historical battles lasted for hours, We cant spend hours on a single battle. This is wwhat historical accuracy has driven you too , oh people. You are now willing to make kill rates so slow to match the kill rates of real life. well you have to remmeber something, its a game not real life.

I'm not talking about the speed of killing but the number of people that would be killed... Alexander the Great in Guadamela was fighting a huge number of archers and peltasts and his infantry casualities are said to be 100-500 (acourding to wiki at least).

[-Stormrage-]

@Shak, I love yah man.

Till now ALL of your 11 posts have been posts of good reasoning, historical facts , and supported by resourses and jquotes. Best of all your supporting some ideas i agree with, and are putting them forth in a good case.

[-Stormrage-]

Good photo of Indian longbow sword, even compares it to celtic longsword. Its probably designed as a two handed weapon as it looks rather top heavy for a one handed blade.

that thing should cut the naked in half.

[TheShakAttack]

[QUOTE=LusitanianWolf;2053367970]

I'm not talking about the speed of killing but the number of people that would be killed... Alexander the Great in Guadamela was fighting a huge number of archers and peltasts and his infantry casualities are said to be 100-500 (acourding to wiki at least).

That is correct. Historically, archers were not terribly effective against armies that were well prepared for to receive fire from arrows. It's very easy to hide under shield or some sort of cover. Most archers were skirmishers and meant more to annoy, harass, distract, lower morale etc than deliver serious casualties. The psychological threat of being hit/maimed by a constant volley of arrows, seeing a few guys being hit around you, and the annoyance at not being able to retaliate was the desired effect. The only exception would be when the archers were well positioned and the units couldn't really turn around to face fire and duck under shields. Even in the battle of Carrhae, the HAs most useful purpose was to sap morale and continously harass the legions. They did not inflict tremendous casualties (in comparison to how long they were shooting/harassing for and the great shooting position they would have i.e. raised, and from flanks).

The logical exception of course would be units that were not prepared (didn't bring a sheild, or have decent armor)- this would have been more mobs than real armies. In EBO we play pitched battles, and in situations like this, it is hard to imagine that a unit would not even bring a shield or some sort of cover.

The exception of course are elite archers who functioned more as snipers than mass volley archers (think Legolas from LotR v an orc archer). Unfortunately EB does not seem to have represented them very well. These elites had the ability to shoot incredibly accurately from long ranges. Of course, they would have to be very, very expensive and small in numbers...

[TheShakAttack]

that thing should cut the naked in half.

Unless it hits the "naked's" two spherical objects contained in a sac close to the pelvic region. In which case the sword should disintegrate and explode. Instantly killing the indian longbowmen and half his army while naked stands back and laughs.

[-Stormrage-]

(think Legolas from LotR v an orc archer)

HAHA lol

Unless it hits the "naked's" two spherical objects contained in a sac close to the pelvic region. In which case it should disintegrate and explode. Instantly killing the indian longbowmen and half the army.

xD

[-Stormrage-]

HE REMOVED AP FROM ORCA
stat_pri 13, 8, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, sword, 0 ,0.225
stat_pri_attr no

What the hell you thinking!!!!
Orca??? orca!?!?!!?!? those are ELITES.

NOTE: Cav charge distances are now 30. Archer charge distances are 30. infantry charge distance is 30.
Ok,cavalry should have a longer charge distance then infantry, especailly long lance weilding cavalry becuase: the cav charge especially the heavy cataphract charge should not stop for anything when u increase charge distance the cataphract will lower lance a longer way back thus any unit in between the cataphract and the target does not distrupt the charge. this is what will happen. the cataphracts will lower lanes charge to their target any levy unit any loose formation unit will get impaled and the cata will continue forward to the target. another situation, consider there is a blob of infantry . if targeta unit and it happens to be fighting on the opposite side of the blob, the cata will not lower lances it will run into the blob lances raised, if charge distance is increased they were lower lances way before and impale any poor unlucky guy between the cata and its target.

Cav charge should be between 40 and 50.

[LusitanianWolf]

[QUOTE=TheShakAttack;2053367981]

That is correct. Historically, archers were not terribly effective against armies that were well prepared for to receive fire from arrows. It's very easy to hide under shield or some sort of cover. Most archers were skirmishers and meant more to annoy, harass, distract, lower morale etc than deliver serious casualties. The psychological threat of being hit/maimed by a constant volley of arrows, seeing a few guys being hit around you, and the annoyance at not being able to retaliate was the desired effect. The only exception would be when the archers were well positioned and the units couldn't really turn around to face fire and duck under shields. Even in the battle of Carrhae, the HAs most useful purpose was to sap morale and continously harass the legions. They did not inflict tremendous casualties (in comparison to how long they were shooting/harassing for and the great shooting position they would have i.e. raised, and from flanks).

The logical exception of course would be units that were not prepared (didn't bring a sheild, or have decent armor)- this would have been more mobs than real armies. In EBO we play pitched battles, and in situations like this, it is hard to imagine that a unit would not even bring a shield or some sort of cover.

The exception of course are elite archers who functioned more as snipers than mass volley archers (think Legolas from LotR v an orc archer). Unfortunately EB does not seem to have represented them very well. These elites had the ability to shoot incredibly accurately from long ranges. Of course, they would have to be very, very expensive and small in numbers...

Exactly. But these elites would probably not be gathered in a single unit but acting as officers/champions spread around the army to inspire other archers or as general's personal retinue and they impact on battle would be too low to represent in RTW (unless some managed to kill the enemy general or hunt some Mumakills )

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Storm, why don't you play as Getai and take 5 Elite Archers. Those guys tear stuff to shreds. I can't see any basis in your complaints otherwise. If you want strong archers you should not be playing a mod from this time period when infantry was the predominant force on the battlefield.

Oh and orca never had AP Storm. He's made them stronger by giving them a 0.225 longsword. These are now, imo, one of the best infantry units in game. Do not complain about them.

[Lazy O]

Storm, go play either ETW , NTW, or RoP. Heck, even vanilla is getting infantry based these days.

[Lazy O]

I disagree. Indian archery had a very long and historic tradition, much like the cultures that surrounded it. They can be roughly divided into two types of units, the common/levy type of soldiers that used bamboo longbows which used traditional arrows and when against cavalry/elephants, used iron arrows to increase piercing ability. The nobility used steel bows and steel head arrows ( to give arrows AP ability to be used more effectively against armoured elephants and cavalry).

The bamboo longbow was a very large weapon, longer than the person wielding it, and it was anchored on the ground using the toes of the foot. An average composite bow only offers a significant advantage against longbows/longbows in that they are compact and therefore well suited for mounted archery. For most practical (i.e. flight archery excluded) non-mounted archery purposes, composite construction offers no advantage. The English Longbow, though of superior construction to bamboo longbow, was not terribly dissimilar in concept, and demonstrates this principle. A composite bow was in fact, very expensive whereas the bamboo longbow was very cheap. So this should be addressed. Only the most expensive/well-made composite bows offered any considerable advantage when compared to longbows (for non-mounted purposes). These very well made composite bows would usually only be found in the hands of elites of steppe, west and central asia and further east (India, china, etc). The composite bows used by Cretans are unlikely to have been a match (esp in the EB time period). Bosphorans, I do not honestly know..it's likely given their location (though I'm not sure they would have had the high quality composite bows that offer adv over longbow/longbows).

On a side note, I think the prowess of Cretan archers has been overemphasised/powered in the game (and inconsistent with history), but that discussion is for another time.

I know the Indian Longbow unit is not finished so I cant comment on how they are right now. However, if you consider the Indian longbow unit respresnts the “common soldier/levy”, it should be very cheap and just as powerful as a elite composite bow user apart from perhaps persian heavy and bosphoran (who would have access to supeiror composite bow). If you consider it represents the nobility, then it should be one of the most expensive and best archer units in the game to reflect metal construction, certainly better than Cretans (though I do not think this is your intention so I will not discuss it further).

Heres a quote to end my discussion

“The Indian longbow was reputedly a powerful weapon capable of great range and penetration and provided an effective counter to invading horse archers. Iron shafts were used against armored elephants and fire arrows were also part of the bowmen's arsenal. India historically has had a prominent reputation for its steel weapons. One of these was the steel bow. Due to its high tensility, the steel bow was capable of long range and penetration of exceptionally thick armor. These were less common weapons than the bamboo design and found in the hands of noblemen rather than in the ranks.”





Agree with Robin’s post. The region had access to one of the best ironworks during that time period so it is entirely possible that they would have cheaply constructed something similar to what Robin has suggested. Plus, they look awfully big in the game, I don't know where you got "that small sword" from.

Also, it’d be interesting to hear what your rationale is for giving AP to axe, mace, kopis/falcatta.



Didn’t know that. So I am guessing that the only adv the Bosphoran would have over the levy unit using the same bow when firing at a Roman Legionary is that more of their arrows would hit the target when shooting from a distance?

I am quoting Shaks post again becuase of haters who have completely ignored it. But I really dont get what all the fuss is about, just learn to get 5 archers to the flanks. Auto win. LEARN TO PLAY

[LusitanianWolf]

Regarding Falxes and cia... Historically they were very effective agaisnt armour, sure, even more than falcatas, kopis and some axes... But here were not talking if they were or not, the question is how is the best way to represent them ingame and if they should have the AP attribute that halves enemy armour. Since it was a weapon so deadly they should have high attack and high lettality... So, what happens if you also had them AP? They'll probably become unrealisticly OP... So there is 3 points you need to manage: attack, letality and AP. Falcatas, axes and kopis, in the other way were also effective agaisnt armour (I've heard romans doubled their shields width because of iberian mercenairs falcatas during 1st punic war) but not so letal, so they should have lower attack and lettality and will need AP to still be effective. But with or without AP falxes can still be as very deadly (high attack and letallity). Not saing that that they should'nt have the attribute or that they are ballanced ingame, just that you can still represent their effectivness without the game attribute AP.


And about indians, In EBII preview archers are said to be part of the warrior class and have a very proud tradition, so they should be very good archers. The problem is that on EB1 you only have one archer unit to represent both levy and elites so you have to make either a choice or a ballance.. I expect in EBII to these nice steel bows to be represented by chariot crews or perhaps a new, shinny unit And that swords are nasty but they were clearly OP in vannilla so its the same as falxes..

[-Stormrage-]

OP ? if something is good at what it is supposed to do it is not OP. And i thought u ugys were all about Historical accuracy well the falx was historically good at doing what it does "OP" as u call it. everytime i suggest somehting someone tells me "oh no sotrmrage but that is not historically accurate we dont care if its good for gameplay its not historical" . you guys are all . History is NUMBER 1 historocal accuracy is NUMBER 1. Why are you now hiding behind the banner of "for gameplay puposes" . EB isnt about fair gameplay its about historical accuracy, according to you.

[LusitanianWolf]

OP ? if something is good at what it is supposed to do it is not OP. And i thought u ugys were all about Historical accuracy well the falx was historically good at doing what it does "OP" as u call it. everytime i suggest somehting someone tells me "oh no sotrmrage but that is not historically accurate we dont care if its good for gameplay its not historical" . you guys are all . History is NUMBER 1 historocal accuracy is NUMBER 1. Why are you now hiding behind the banner of "for gameplay puposes" . EB isnt about fair gameplay its about historical accuracy, according to you.

Eb is about both, its about making a game as historically accurate, ballanced and fun to play as is possible with the RTW engine. So you have to find a compromise. If you want to play a game that drop the historicaly accurate part, why dont you go play another mod, there's lot of good ones? I was saying that falxes being historically good agaisnt armour doesnt mean that you can't ballance them without the game attribute AP. That, for the sake of gameplay, game AP isnt the same as historicaly AP. Unless you want to decrase falx letallity? Indian archers in vanilla were OP in vanilla because they could kick the ass out even of catas!

[TheShakAttack]

Regarding Falxes and cia... Historically they were very effective agaisnt armour, sure, even more than falcatas, kopis and some axes... But here were not talking if they were or not, the question is how is the best way to represent them ingame and if they should have the AP attribute that halves enemy armour. Since it was a weapon so deadly they should have high attack and high lettality... So, what happens if you also had them AP? They'll probably become unrealisticly OP... So there is 3 points you need to manage: attack, letality and AP. Falcatas, axes and kopis, in the other way were also effective agaisnt armour (I've heard romans doubled their shields width because of iberian mercenairs falcatas during 1st punic war) but not so letal, so they should have lower attack and lettality and will need AP to still be effective. But with or without AP falxes can still be as very deadly (high attack and letallity). Not saing that that they should'nt have the attribute or that they are ballanced ingame, just that you can still represent their effectivness without the game attribute AP.


And about indians, In EBII preview archers are said to be part of the warrior class and have a very proud tradition, so they should be very good archers. The problem is that on EB1 you only have one archer unit to represent both levy and elites so you have to make either a choice or a ballance.. I expect in EBII to these nice steel bows to be represented by chariot crews or perhaps a new, shinny unit And that swords are nasty but they were clearly OP in vannilla so its the same as falxes..

Good post. This stat based explanation is a good explanation, though this is not the reasoning that was provided when explaining why falx is not AP. Gamegeek2 focused more on the actual ability of the falx to cut through armor. He did not forward the stat based explanation. I have 3 points in response to your post if indeed this is the reason why AP was taken away.

1) Keep falx as “low attack + AP” to make them anti-armor personnel. There are other ways to take down lightly armoured infantry. Making falx less effective against them, whilst very unrealistic, would be an acceptable sacrifice in my opinion. I get the feeling most ppl used them v heavy armor anyways. They won’t miss the effectiveness v light armor.
2) Taking away AP from falx, as I understand it, makes them less effective against highly armoured units. Even if u substitute high attack/lethality, it is unlikely to cover it unless you make them grossly overpowered.
3) Lastly, if falcattas remain AP, why not falx was my question. Surely falcattas would also be just as good v unarmored opponents. Deal with falx same way (if not more AP) as falcattas have been dealt with.

Re: Indians, you are very right they had a very proud tradition. In fact, in Hinduism, historically, the highest caste (or “group”) of people were Kryhstias (warrior caste); even more interestingly, a significant portion of Hindu mythology focuses on archery, and the main weapon of many of the primary gods is the bow (which might give some idea of how important they considered archery). If the Indian Longbow unit is to be representative of the region as a whole, it should be one of the more powerful (in terms of attack and accuracy; not necessarily armor), and yet cheap, units in the game for reasons I discussed in my earlier post (low cost weapon, highly populous region, rich tradition etc.)