[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[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.