[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[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]

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.