[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

**Kival** · 10-27-2011, 23:32

Some units are useless or at least not as useful as they historically have been without guard mode. Especially hoplites are no good without guard mode.

**gamegeek2** · 10-28-2011, 02:59

The strength of hoplites was historically in their shield-wall formation. Guard mode is a fine substitute for shield-wall, as it functions similarly in-game.

**antisocialmunky** · 10-28-2011, 04:22

Change the radius and increase charge to 20ish, it helps reduce the importance of guard mode as units won't spend all their time spread out and unable to concentrate mass.

**vartan** · 10-28-2011, 18:07

Originally Posted by Arjos

While I can agree to don't use guard mode, since afaik it can't be nerfed, I hope the EDU won't get too arcade removing features (even the history backed ones)...

When I call a feature an arcade one it means it isn't historical. History and arcade are meant to be opposites here in the terminology.

Originally Posted by Kival

Some units are useless or at least not as useful as they historically have been without guard mode. Especially hoplites are no good without guard mode.

Originally Posted by gamegeek2

The strength of hoplites was historically in their shield-wall formation. Guard mode is a fine substitute for shield-wall, as it functions similarly in-game.

Why the common misconception that history and game mechanisms need a one-to-one correspondence? That's not how it needs to work. There are always more than trivial ways and alternatives to this superficial shield-wall?-let's-design-a-feature-called-shield-wall approach.

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Change the radius and increase charge to 20ish, it helps reduce the importance of guard mode as units won't spend all their time spread out and unable to concentrate mass.

Case in point. Don't know if it works or not, but it's an example of what I describe above. And I'm not sure if the whole the-engine-sucks-so-let's-keep-features argument holds too strongly.

**Lazy O** · 10-28-2011, 18:17

You complicate things far too much. There really is nothing special about the Celtic factions without fear. Since they cannot really hold their own without it.

**Brave Brave Sir Robin** · 10-28-2011, 20:01

Anyway, scary should be removed from cataphracts. Their major weakness was that they tired quickly when moving into position for charges. Now they can do a good job of scaring infantry by standing still behind the lines therefore doing away with this weakness somewhat. The 1 shield value means that they don't have to worry too much about slingers when standing still either.

**TheShakAttack** · 10-28-2011, 20:48

No scary should not be removed from catas.

**vartan** · 10-28-2011, 21:16

Forget scary. I don't know which genius thought up the idea of that feature in the first place.

Originally Posted by Lazy O

You complicate things far too much. There really is nothing special about the Celtic factions without fear. Since they cannot really hold their own without it.

You complicate things by maintaining an extra feature. Removing features is called simplification. Adding or maintaining them is called complication. If a unit cannot hold its own without fear, that unit's stats need to be reviewed, and this should go without saying. You cannot and will not comprehend this train of thought until you stop thinking in a framework which uses an attribute such as fear. Remove it from the equation and try to think of what that system looks like. This is hard but not impossible.

**Arjos** · 10-28-2011, 21:22

But vartan, scary barbarians is source backed, its removal would be going all arcade with the edu...

**Vega** · 10-29-2011, 09:41

Originally Posted by vartan

Forget scary. I don't know which genius thought up the idea of that feature in the first place

OK im that genius who begins this discussion, so i see that im not the only one who is GENIUS and dont agree with me, remove fear from catas and give them eagle...

**Kival** · 10-28-2011, 22:49

Originally Posted by vartan

Why the common misconception that history and game mechanisms need a one-to-one correspondence? That's not how it needs to work. There are always more than trivial ways and alternatives to this superficial shield-wall?-let's-design-a-feature-called-shield-wall approach.

As long as we do no have another way to represent the function of hoplites, we should stay with guard mode. Only when we can find another way, we should thinking about deleting guard mode. One should not decontruct everything without any alternatives. If asms idea is working: perfect.

By the way I'm still not sure if it is possible to delete guard mode.

Originally Posted by Arjos

But vartan, scary barbarians is source backed, its removal would be going all arcade with the edu...

Indeed. What's the point of naked fanatics if not beeing scary (or/and perhaps inspiring). They surely did not have the best equipment, they had some fighting skill, sure, but without fear there is no reason to favour them before armoured troops. And as arjos and other already said, the scary effect of naked fanatics is not arcade or made up. It's pretty accurate historically.