[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I would say declare before battle because the two are radically different, unlike the Roman eras.

The only reason I brought this up is because Saka would be in line to receive discounts on cavalry units as a steppe faction, yet would get access to high quality infantry as well unlike Pahlava or Sauros. I thought of maybe making their infantry more expensive, but that is an impossibility since they share so many with Baktria and that would make Baktria unplayable. Me and Gamegeek had pondered how to "limit" the Saka a few days ago but this thought didn't cross my mind until now.

[vartan]

Does sound good. Would there be overlaps in era 1 and era 2?

[TheShakAttack]

I strongly disagree with this entire line of reasoning. Presumably the reason the declaration of era is necessary is because otherwise saka would be overpowered (OP). I think this is unnecessary, unfair and inconsistent.

I will be making a lot of comparisons with AS, and this is purely because they are the easiest faction to compare against.

First, lets look at the "high quality" infantry saka have access to. The contendors are:

Srenis (who cost 2.5k atm)- very expensive, not very highly armoured nor very spamable.
Hoplitai indohellenikoi - same as thueros minus the javelins. they costthe same despite this lack of jav.
Hoplitai indohellenikon - Realtively similar to hoplites but heavier. Just as crappy in offense, marginally better in defense.
Agema indohellenikon - Once again a variant of hoplites. Good infantry but very expensive (2.8 k) and fewer men.
Peltastai indohellenikoi - similar to peltastai but better melee. decent light infantry unit.
Noble hoplites- Very heavy hoplites but a 70 man unit.

One very obvious point is lack of any serious assault infantry (srenis are quite lightly armored for cost and very expensive). I acknowledge that cheaper cav would mean that expensive infantry is less of a problem, but still, srenis are quite expensive.

There are many factions that have rosters which are significantly superior to saka. They too have access to HAs and catas and a wider range of infantry, not to mention access to superior infantry and great cav. The most obvious example is AS.

Sauro is not terribly far off in terms of infantry. They have access to (upto 4) hoplites. The "good infantry" saka has are just variants of hoplites. Sauro is more diverse as it has access to fear inducing infantry (which are cheap) (slavic spearmen), germanic swordsmen who are pretty decent offensively, bosphorans, komatai, 2 diff kinds of axemen, and bastarnae. true a lot of these are mercs, but sauro has a higher merc allowance.

So whilst saka can play a good defensive infantry game, they are terrible in offensive infantry, and quite literally have no readily affordable "killers".

This is why I disagree that saka have an OP roster- just compare them to other rosters and you can see they do not really have any significant superiority that requires one to go out of their way to address it.

The second reason I disagree is because it is inconsistent. Various factions went through similar "transformations", pahlava being one, who do not have to declare anything. Pahlava get access to pandas, babylonian spearmen, parthian theros, which occured after they settled. The Gallic factions, Sweboz etc also experienced similar changes. AS historically did not start training catas until they came into contact with parthia. To apply it to a single faction smacks of unfairness.

The third reason is that Saka have a relatively small roster as it is. Splitting up Rome into different eras is acceptable due to how big their roster is- Saka, not so much.

The fourth reason is that during EB time period, Saka were pretty kickass. They were able to combine their cultural inheritance of horsemanship with the superior infantry and metalworks of the places they conquered. Very similar to how AS were able to make great use of Cav and eles available in Anatolia and further east with their inheritance of great infantry. If AS awesomeness is being portrayed in EB and EBO, why shouldn't saka?

Lastly, I note that there is truth to saka being able to make use of their cav discount and combine with their good quality defensive infantry. But why is this not acceptable? AS are able to make use of their fantastic infantry with catas, cheap light cav, and an incredibly diverse roster. Historically, where good quality cav was available, relatively cheap, and the terrain made them usable, civilisations tended to go cavalry heavy as they were very effective for both mobility and battle effectiveness. The Eastern Roman Empire became progressively cav heavier as their access to cav improved, and they began neglecting their infantry. Of course the truth is a great deal more complicated than what I have written above, but I think the above is an acceptable generalisation. The reason I brought up this example is simply to note: why should this not be reflected?

On a last note, steppe armies, whilst very annoying to play against, are not unbeateable. Esp with changes made to HA. The fact that they are hard to play against should not really be a reason to make changes like the one proposed. Of course, if they are unbeatable, then it is different and might be modified for gameplay reasons. I do not think this is the case. Further, steppe factions can always be countered with other steppe factions. I hope this doesnt sound rude, and it is certainly not aimed at any of the people who have already posted (except storm :P) but, lack of ability on the players part to counter steppe armies should not be a reason to shackle a faction (not that I am saying this is why; but I do think this is why steppe armies are highly unpopular with a lot of EBO players and therefore does influence matters).

I hope that is fairly clear. The main thrusts of my argument being saka infantry roster is not "all that" great, and very one-dimensional; that historicity should be reflected; that there are factions who enjoy privileges in EBO because of how powerful they were during EBO time period; and that other factions also went through similar "evolutions" who do not have to make such declarations.

PS. This has been written when I am not at my most sober, and written fairly rushed. Please let me know if anything is unclear and I will clarify :)

[vartan]

So basically, Saka deserves a two-way era division but no obligation to name era pre-battle?

[TheShakAttack]

So basically, Saka deserves a two-way era division but no obligation to name era pre-battle?

Sorry for lack of clarity, lol. Figures that I forgot to clarify the central point of argument :D. They deserve neither a two-way era division nor an obligation to name era pre-battle. I doubt they will deserve this for reasons outlined above; though I am confident that should they be OP, and I change my mind, I will tell you guys. May I suggest that we start off without any such limitations, do a few test battles, and then decide on this particular issue? I hope this is a decent compromise?

[antisocialmunky]

We can figure out Saka after we make it. Afterall Macs can take a mass hoplite + companion army of arguably similar effectiveness.

[vartan]

True. We never had an OP issue with the steppe factions, even Saka. Perhaps this is more due to the civ vs steppe legacy army compositions. Brave Sir Robin, you brought up the division proposition. Do you think without the civ/steppe division, a freehand Saka player will have an OP faction in his hands? I certainly hope not, but after y'all play around with Saka upon its being ported to the 3.0 system, we can figure out if indeed such a divide is needed.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I think Shak, that you are vastly underestimating the Saka infantry capabilities. The Guild Warriors are basically an AP equivalent to Thracian Elites/Kluddargos and cost less than either. They are an absolutely devastating weapon when you gain the missile advantage. Both the Indo-Greek Nobles and the Saka Elites have longswords with their 0.235 lethality or whatever it has been changed to. They are also defensive infantry par excellence as you point out. Saka Heavy Hoplites and Indohellenikoi Hoplitai are both competant medium/heavy infantry units, especially on defense which is probably where you will be after winning the missile duel. Saka doesn't have phalangites which Pahlava does but the Pandas are a disadvantage against any faction that can bring phalanx, since you will likely lose them without doing much damage, severely weakening your main line. Sauros can't take Bosphorans if they take 4 Hoplites since both count as Greek mercenaries afaik. Neither Pahlava or Sauros get factional heavy infantry with excellent morale which can act as phenomenal anvils for your "hammer" of steppe cavalry.

Comparing them to AS, the AS does not receive any discounts while Saka would be in line to. Basically they would gain an easy cavalry advantage which would negate the slight advantage AS would gain in infantry since Saka could afford either more heavy cav or more heavy infantry to match the Seleukid forces.

The reason I would give Saka two distinct eras is that they were pushed from the steppes by the Yuezhi and therefore migrated into Baktria and eventually India. The Pahlava meanwhile, maintained their steppe homeland throughout the majority of their existence as an empire.

Oh and I somehow missed the later posts but as to Vartan's post, I think that you won't know whether to prepare for a steppe army from Saka or a heavy infantry based one similar to the Hellenistic factions. With the variety of heavy infantry and steppe units Saka has, it negates the duplicate unit limits (and merc limits)which other factions like the AS or Baktria face when trying for a steppe flavor (ie AS can't take too many Dahae Riders but Saka has several types of lighter HA) or a more heavy infantry one which Pahlava and Sauros run into while also having trouble with merc limits in the latter case. (ie Pahlava runs into merc limits with Babylonians as well as unit limits with units like Parthian Theuros while Saka has about 3-4 different heavy/medium infantry units that are relatively affordable). Basically the point I am raising is that Saka is probably the most flexible faction in game, if not in pure unit diversity like the AS or Carthage, then in play style which imo, is the more important distinction. Gamegeek originally raised the concern about Saka being imbalanced, and I agree with him to an extent after thinking about it further, so it would be a good idea to include him in the discussion and to hear his opinions on the matter. I'm not tied irrevocably to this idea, I'm just putting it forward with an argument and see what becomes of it. I think a discussion among EBO players will lead to the proper answer that we are looking for. After all, most of us are a rational bunch.

[gamegeek2]

Right, here I shall outline some propositions.

Vartan and I have agreed that from now on units that cost between 1850 and 2500 mnai will be limited to 4 of a single unit. This is in response to a few things:

a. The possibility of a spam of Cretan Archers, particularly by the Koinon Hellenon, or (less importantly) Dacian Elite Archers by the Getai.
b. The "arms race" of phalanxes in which players are obligated to bring only Pezhetairoi as Hellenistic factions or lose to the other player's phalanx. We feel that this will help mitigate this and free up some cash in the Hellenistic fight, and we don't want to make exceptions to our rules.
c. The low cost of some key heavy units such as Indo-Hellenic Heavy Hoplites and Thorakitai. Spams of these haven't popped up by I don't want to take chances.

Next, something a bit more hard-hitting

Division of Sauromatae into Two Army Types: "Bosporan" and "Sarmatian"

Currently, the Sauromatae are forced to have limits on the number of key Greek troops they can bring, while they are allowed an expanded number of non-factionals to fill their infantry needs. I feel that this division would allow for more factions to be represented in EB Online, and remove the need for restrictions such as this. A player would need to announce which army type he brings.

The "Sarmatian" Army
-Not allowed to bring Bosporan factional troops (except Scythian units) - this includes Bosporan Archers!
-Rest of roster is fully available.
-Maximum of 6 non-factionals allowed.

The "Bosporan" Army
-Different list of factional troops.
-Not allowed to bring Sarmatian factional troops (except Scythian units and some exceptions to be added)

I would add a host of troops to the Sarmatian roster to enable the "Bosporan" army including:

-Thraikioi Peltastai
-Thraikioi Hippeis
-Thraikioi Prodromoi
-Hoplitai Haploi
-Peltastai
-Thureophoroi
-Pontikoi Thorakitai (maybe) - to represent the later Bosporan legionary imitations
-Thorakitai (maybe)
-Epilektoi Hoplitai (maybe)
-Hippeis
-Lonchophoroi Hippeis
-Hippeis Xystophoroi (maybe)

This would be made possible via editing of descr_model_battle

The steppe factions are well overdue for an overhaul in their 3.0 stats; I will redo all of their stats in this regard at the same time as I stat the Saka.

--- Saka Proposal ---

I fully support a division of Saka into "Steppe Saka" and "Indo Saka" but I'm not sure how I'd work this out.

[Lazy O]

Give back cantabrian circle. The ones who have been affected the most by its removal are the noble horse archers. They still die to arrow fire and cant avoid it anymore. Thus losing their dual role and being extremely limited during the archer war because you cannot afford to waste such expensive units.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Give back cantabrian circle. The ones who have been affected the most by its removal are the noble horse archers. They still die to arrow fire and cant avoid it anymore. Thus losing their dual role and being extremely limited during the archer war because you cannot afford to waste such expensive units.

Well you have to take foot archers as steppe factions now to absorb arrows. Nothing too difficult to figure out about that. Use the noble horse archers after your enemy has expended the majority or all of his missiles. They can harass from the back while posing a constant threat of a charge to the rear.

[TheShakAttack]

Hey

2 very interesting posts to respond to. Unfortunately I do not have the time to do them both justice right now, and they both deserve well formulated replies given the issues that have been brought up.

I will respond to gg2 for now since I think it will take less time.

The Sauro split should be interesting; seems like a “creative” way to work in a Bosphoran Faction ;)

In fact, if anything, Sauro becomes the Bosphoran Kingdrom rather than being Sauro :P

It’s quite clear that the path envisioned for Sauro and Saka are remarkably different than they have been previously. Though the plans have not been fleshed out, it appears that to choose Sauro (sarmatian army) or Saka (early era), means bringing incredibly large numbers of HA, some heavies and almost non-existent infantry. Now, this is not terribly far from how the historic armies would have been (though of course, HA units would be much larger, and have more ammo), but, in terms of gameplay, I think it would be too restrictive unless these cav get some kind of serious bump. It would be quite easy to bring a lot of heavy spears, some slingers and heavy archers, and 1-2 heavy cav to counter this type of an army.

I’ll wait to hear more about this split. I would be particularly interested in seeing the proposed unit lists of the 2 eras/armies for the 2 factions. Maybe after seeing the lists, things might not seem so gloomy.

Robin, I will defo get to your post since it deserves such due to how informative and cogent it is.

On the note of Saka, might I suggest that something similar to the previous steppe declaration be implemented? I was speaking to Robin yday, and he said his main concern is that he wouldn’t know what kind of army he was up against, an infantry based or cav based one. Perhaps we could implement something whereby any more than 7-10 infantry units would need to be declared as infantry based (rather than limiting which units can be taken)? I hope I am not misunderstanding him when he said that this was a proposal worth considering when he said “stfu you idiot”.

[-Stormrage-]

I fully support a division of Saka into "Steppe Saka" and "Indo Saka" but I'm not sure how I'd work this out.

Game over Shak , you have no chance.

I know from Experience, maybe he will give you a .1 here a .2 their but thats it.

[Lazy O]

Tell me, what reason do you have to justify this? All other factions underwent a change, if we are going to do this, why not limit gauls into 3 eras? Why not the carthaginians as before rome or after rome? Why not limit catas for Seleucids unless they are facing the Parthians? Hey, what are the sweboz even doing here without any metal, how did they even get 36000 mnai in the first place, lets impose 10000 denarii limit on them just to make sure the game is historical. Have you ever heard of Sarmatians fielding Falxmen and Germans and Baltics? I most certainly have not.

[antisocialmunky]

You know what the weakness of saka was before? Your infantry line had crap morale and heavy hoplites were stupidly fragile compared to regular ones and prone to massive chain routs.

Since there is no missile limit anymore, I don't think its a problem. I don't really want to see an eras division. I don't really mind seeing a Thorakitai HA army. I can take one already as KH.

[gamegeek2]

One by one:

Why not limit catas for Seleucids unless they are facing the Parthians?

Under current rules, the Seleucids can only take two cataphracts anyways.

Why not the carthaginians as before rome or after rome?

272 BC onward can be called "after Rome" as the Punic Wars start a decade into our timeframe.

Have you ever heard of Sarmatians fielding Falxmen and Germans and Baltics? I most certainly have not.

Contemporary historians didn't distinguish a Baltic speaker from a Germanic one. The fact remains that in the immediate area west of the Sarmatian core territory, river-traversing East Baltic tribes made their homes, and they fought mainly as spear-armed infantry, with some archers and cavalry among them. Germanics would be more elusive, which is why I intend to reduce the Sarmatian options in that regard, but please note that many of the "Germanic" units are also used as placeholders for other troop types. For example, undoubtedly the East Balts had a core of experienced veterans such as the Dugundiz, but EB has no such East Baltic unit; hence the Dugundiz serve as a placeholder.

Hey, what are the sweboz even doing here without any metal, how did they even get 36000 mnai in the first place, lets impose 10000 denarii limit on them just to make sure the game is historical.

Now you're just being silly. Certainly the Sweboz had limited access to metal, but towards the later part of our time-frame (on which we focus for the Sweboz, the Gauls, etc.) a large industry of bog-iron smelting developed in the region, and access to iron greatly improved. Tacitus writes of fire-hardened wood later, but keep in mind that his account was second-hand at best, and perhaps limited by Roman stereotypes.

Give back cantabrian circle. The ones who have been affected the most by its removal are the noble horse archers. They still die to arrow fire and cant avoid it anymore. Thus losing their dual role and being extremely limited during the archer war because you cannot afford to waste such expensive units.

Absolutely not, when the result of giving it back would be to make foot archers once again useless at shooting circling horse archers. I can re-power the HA by giving their arrows full strength at their entire range; I may grant HA greater numbers, and I have already given them a slight accuracy pump. But the fact is, foot archers were the best counter to horse archers historically, and I want to make sure that's true in EBO as well. And I remember us testing horse archer armies at full power and you complaining about how it was a total slaughter...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

You know what the weakness of saka was before? Your infantry line had crap morale and heavy hoplites were stupidly fragile compared to regular ones and prone to massive chain routs.

Since there is no missile limit anymore, I don't think its a problem. I don't really want to see an eras division. I don't really mind seeing a Thorakitai HA army. I can take one already as KH.

The only problem with this is that most Saka infantry units are in line to receive excellent morale on par with standard hoplites. The Indohellenikoi have excellent morale already and I would figure the Saka Heavy Hoplites will as well since they possessed it in 2.1. Going against the Sauros, you can drive their HA away with an archer slinger combo and then target the mostly unarmored infantry line to inflict severe casualties but there is no such hope against the heavy infantry of the Saka. Saka does, for the record, possess a cataphract unit as well as a cataphract archer so they can be nearly as flexible as Pahlava in this sense as well. Maybe the heaviest of Saka cavalry should be in smaller numbers? I'm not sure what proportion of steppe armies were based on heavy cavalry rather than light HA.

[Lazy O]

@Robin; I think we discussed this before, idk, Saka Heavy hoplites had 11 morale. Same as the indo hellenic hoplites. I say steppe armies, before settling in, would be probably 90% horse archer 10% cata. Now, that would be pretty cheap too, problem is getting those few units of catas to do some serious damage, which im sure almost everyone here can avoid.

And gamegeek2, you still have not given a reason for dividing the Sakae into eras, on the sweboz part, I say they should not even be included in the factions list, same goes for the saba.

[TheShakAttack]

I think the point Lazy was making (about unit eras, not C. circle), whilst more symbolic/ranting than literal, makes sense. Dividing saka into 2 eras does not make much sense, especially since the EBO roster is very happy to incorporate "later era" units with older ones in other factions. In fact, I think if you really want to dig into Lazy's argument, it is very tenable. BUT I think to delve into that would mean that we get dangerously and fruitlessly sidetracked, arguing for the sake of arguing.

Plus, are there any historical sources which indicate that Saka did not have ANY HA (the light types) when they settled (what is proposed to be the "later era")? Certainly I would agree they might have been in a lower proportion (not 60-90% light HA anymore).

I would like to repeat the following to ellicit a response from Robin and GG2 who seem to have the most concerns re: saka. Robin, am I correct is saying the following from my earlier post?:

"...[Robin] said his main concern is that he wouldn’t know what kind of army he was up against [if his opponent was saka], an infantry based or cav based one. Perhaps we could implement something whereby any more than 7-10 infantry units would need to be declared as infantry based (rather than limiting which [combination of] units can be taken)? I hope I am not misunderstanding him when he said that this was a proposal worth considering when he said “stfu you idiot”."

I'd also love to hear GG2s concerns about saka.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Well its somewhat possible to tell infantry based or cavalry based by looking at army numbers. However, there are numerous ways of disguising this, with units like Persian Archers being used to mask a cavalry heavy army. This would be my main concern though Shak, you are correct. Generally against Sauros you know you are facing a majority cavalry army since their factional infantry is, well, awful. And with Pahlava, you can deduce much the same thing although the infantry is now slightly better than it once was. With Saka, there is no need to pigeonhole yourself as a majority cavalry army. In fact, 50/50 seems somewhat logical for them with exceptions made on which factions you are facing.

[gamegeek2]

I think the point Lazy was making (about unit eras, not C. circle), whilst more symbolic/ranting than literal, makes sense

I hesitate to say this, but I am not at this moment prepared to take LazyO seriously, because I can hardly tell if he's trolling or not; he honestly is proposing to eliminate the Sweboz as a faction! Saba I can see an argument for, but the Sweboz?!?!? Certainly they need some sort of fix, but eliminate them?

...are there any historical sources which indicate that Saka did not have ANY HA (the light types) when they settled (what is proposed to be the "later era")?

This is a straw man. None of us are arguing that the late Saka should not be able to recruit light HA. What we want to place is a limit to promote historical army-building, either by disabling some of the Saka light HA units during the later era or placing a categorical limit on light horse archers. They'd be less available, but if a player wanted to take a good 6 or so of them that would be an option.

[TheShakAttack]

Hmm, interesting points GG2. I think I can understand you a bit better now. I think the best thing for me to do is to wait until I see what you are proposing and then comment- for all I know what I fear u may do might be v diff from ur actual plans.

I dont think Lazy seriously meant Sweboz and Saba should be eliminated (at least I hope not! lol!), I only meant his initial post has a grain of truth in it.

@Robin, as I said, personally, I have no problem with Saka having to declare if they are bringing more than a certain amount of infantry units so that the opponent is not caught off guard facing 15 infantry units; at least to try it out as a compromise and see if it works.

[Lazy O]

You can only have so much historical accuracy, if we push it to the max, like you seem to be focused on, then there is no point of having Saba or Sweboz . It was an example. How nice of you to dismiss it as trolling.

And Saka bringing 15 infantry units is highly unlikely. Even 10 is a gamble. If they do bring that many, you will have an instant advantage since Sakae infantry with the exception of the Indian Srenis are pathetic and only good at holding a line, not winning a battle.

[gamegeek2]

Actually, the Saba WOULD be significantly better if I could conjure a few historically accurate units out of thin air but I can't do that.

Are you honestly suggesting that we not maximize historical accuracy in the effectiveness of given units?

I apologize for my inclination to dismiss gramatically incorrect, punctuation-lacking posts with otherwise ridiculous content as trolling. This isn't Hamachi chat.

[TheShakAttack]

I think what he meant to say is that given the parameters we are working with in EB (not being able to add more units etc), let’s not be inconsistent and impose a limitation for saka under the guise of “historical accuracy” given that most other factions suffer under no such limitations. In other words, if “historical accuracy” is to be implemented in determining saka's army composition, it should be done uniformly and apply to all the factions equally. I do not think LazyO’s was aimed at any particular units.

I am more interested in seeing the proposals before discussing the issue above personally. When do you think the proposed rules/composition will be ready (no pressure, just asking for approx)?

[TheShakAttack]

And Saka bringing 15 infantry units is highly unlikely. Even 10 is a gamble. If they do bring that many, you will have an instant advantage since Sakae infantry with the exception of the Indian Srenis are pathetic and only good at holding a line, not winning a battle.

True. And let's not forget that you can only bring 2 srenis under duplication rules.

[Lazy O]

Yes, I much prefer hamachi chat. Why are you never on? And why are you still awake while posting that post? :D

[The Celtic Viking]

I think what he meant to say is that given the parameters we are working with in EB (not being able to add more units etc), let’s not be inconsistent and impose a limitation for saka under the guise of “historical accuracy” given that most other factions suffer under no such limitations.

Most others. The key word here is most, which means that some already do. In other words, it would not be inconsistent to impose such a limitation; in fact, it would be inconsistent not to.

Also, Gamegeek2, when will you come around to answering my questions?

[TheShakAttack]

Most others. The key word here is most, which means that some already do. In other words, it would not be inconsistent to impose such a limitation; in fact, it would be inconsistent not to.

Also, Gamegeek2, when will you come around to answering my questions?

Lol. I knew I should have clarified this in my post, but I did not want to do so since it would muddle the main issue. However, since you brought it up, I will clarify.



Since we’re getting all semantic, what you have written is inaccurate. In the example we are talking about:

The key word here is most, which means that some already do.

Agreed. Only one does though: Rome, which for reasons discussed earlier and I will discuss again below, is v diff from saka.

In other words, it would not be inconsistent to impose such a limitation

Not necessarily. It could still be inconsistent if it is inconsistently applied. If A, B, C and D should all be treated to a limitation, and only A and B are treated to it (C and D are not), it is still inconsistent.

in fact, it would be inconsistent not to

Not necessarily. Taking above example again, if A, B, C and D should all be treated to a limitation, and only A is treated to it right now, whilst B and C are not (and will not be), it is not inconsistent if D is not treated to limitation like A (given that B and C are not either).

Now, in above examples, A = Rome.

The only faction which has an era split (on EBO) is Rome. If you look at the Roman roster and the Saka Roster, you will notice how many more units Rome has than Saka. For obvious reasons, the EB team decided to use a lot of units to detail the evolution of Rome’s army. This has not been done, and cannot be done now with Saka.

Rome is basically in a league of its own. I do not think it is fair to compare Rome with other factions due to how purpose built their roster is, and the sheer range of units they have.

Other factions went through transformations/evolutions similar to Saka, but EBO rules do not require an era split for them. It is with these ppl that Saka should be compared to

I have already said all this TCV, thanks for making me waste time at work repeating it again :P

[The Celtic Viking]

Not necessarily. It could still be inconsistent if it is inconsistently applied. If A, B, C and D should all be treated to a limitation, and only A and B are treated to it (C and D are not), it is still inconsistent.

Yes, but it is only inconsistent in that C and D are not getting the treatment, so by arguing for consistency, you must argue for implementing this limitation on Saka. You're not, so either argue that Rome should not have the limitation, or drop the consistency argument altogether.

The only faction which has an era split (on EBO) is Rome. If you look at the Roman roster and the Saka Roster, you will notice how many more units Rome has than Saka. For obvious reasons, the EB team decided to use a lot of units to detail the evolution of Rome’s army. This has not been done, and cannot be done now with Saka.

Yes, it has been done with the Saka, just not to the same degree as for Rome. If it hadn't, we wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place, since there wouldn't be any units to divide up: they'd already be from the same reform era.

Rome is basically in a league of its own. I do not think it is fair to compare Rome with other factions due to how purpose built their roster is, and the sheer range of units they have.

Then drop the consistency argument.

Other factions went through transformations/evolutions similar to Saka, but EBO rules do not require an era split for them. It is with these ppl that Saka should be compared to

No, I think the Saka reform is in a major way different than, say, the Gallic reform. The effect of the Gallic reforms is adding mail clad infantry and (recruitable) cavalry, removing certain units like Cidainh, Lugoae and Teceitos, but leaving the type of army very much the same. The Sakae reform is on the other hand more fundamental, giving access to heavy infantry which it did not possess before. That's very different, and a valid point for discrimination.

I have already said all this TCV, thanks for making me waste time at work repeating it again :P

In that case you were wrong then too, which I already pointed out, which means you wasted your own time. Now also mine. Thanks. :p

Edit: I should perhaps state my own position on this, which - as the True Swede I am - is quite neutral. If it is implemented, I could easily see the reasoning behind it. If it isn't, I'm fine with that as well, so long as they don't turn out OP, which as I've gathered is GG2 and BBSR's concerns here. All in all, I suppose I am an adherent of the view you've espoused here: try it without the limitation first and see if that does make them OP. If it does, then we can implement the limitation; if it does not, then from what I've gathered the push for this would be abandoned anyway.