Saka edu: Feedback Appreciated

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Hello everyone, I've linked to a short edu which contains the Saka units in question which had not been edited previously by Gamegeek2. He himself said he would probably not have the time to finish up the edu at the moment and gave me his blessing to complete the work left.

There are a few notes which I will make here.
1. I didn't give their cataphracts the fear bonus. I think we would have to have a vote on whether we want this or not for all cataphract units. I know its a heated topic, but I also feel that many veteran players feel as if it is an unfair advantage for cataphracts over other heavy cavalry. Before we change the edu I'd like to hear back from most players on this.
2. Saka and Yuezhi cavalry units received a steppe discount somewhat similar to that of the Pahlava, less than that of the Sauromatae. I did not use a certain percentage, but tried to base it off of similar units already in game.
3. Some Saka infantry units exclusive to them got a small price bump to compensate since the Saka have MUCH better infantry options than either Pahlava or Sauromatae. This is really on two units, the Agema infantry and the Saka Hoplites, both of which are quality heavy infantry anyway.

Here is the link:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bq6xmus3rxb6qul

[NacroxNicke]

Cata shouldn't have fear. If you keep fear for them, you should add fear to all elite units, heck, even chariots and elephants shouldn't have fear but better stats, as units with fear are beeing used in the backyard to scary men, contrary to what a "feared" unit should do.

I don't think that a Flamethrower was scary for the ww2 soldiers if it wasn't launching fire at you.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I'd tend to agree with you but chariot and elephants need to keep fear or else they would both be worthless, chariots especially. Naked infantry is used in the back to promote fear, but also because it makes little sense to expose nude men to javelins or front line duty where armor clad infantry does much better. We could remove fear from most infantry units and either give them inspire instead in some cases, or just make them cheaper though. That is a matter for another discussion however.

[antisocialmunky]

Cataphracts should have stupidly high charge and no stamina.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

They already do. Unfortunately there is no way to give them bad stamina as opposed to standard stamina. AFAIK, they are the only cavalry which does not possess good stamina at least though.

What do you guys think about the statting for the units though?

[Lazy O]

You people should have a thread to discuss fear until the end of time .

[gamegeek2]

I believe I proposed +3 charge to compensate for loss of fear, maybe more.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

+10 charge would be fine even. Cataphract charges should be absolutely devastating. I think at a certain point charge stops mattering however. I'm not sure if we have reached that yet with our cavalry.

This all being said, can we please discuss the statting of the units. TCV raised a point with me, I'd like to hear from more of you.

[gamegeek2]

If we want cataphracts to be very devastating I would recommend a revision of the morale system. I've done this with a more shock-based battle style in mind for the EBNOM EDU (considering that there will be almost no phalanxes in it). The idea is for any levy to immediately rout when they're charged by cataphracts.

In line with the idea of a shock-based battle system, I've toned down the numbers of elite units and reduced the speed of melee combat so that flanking and charges are very important in order to avoid attrition fights.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

If we want cataphracts to be very devastating I would recommend a revision of the morale system. I've done this with a more shock-based battle style in mind for the EBNOM EDU (considering that there will be almost no phalanxes in it). The idea is for any levy to immediately rout when they're charged by cataphracts.

In line with the idea of a shock-based battle system, I've toned down the numbers of elite units and reduced the speed of melee combat so that flanking and charges are very important in order to avoid attrition fights.

What effect does this system have on factions which do not rely on cavalry? For example, this would seem to hurt a faction like Rome the most who relies on the attrition of long melee battles.

[Lazy O]

Any infantry which bothers standing still in a decent formation will not rout to a cavalry charge, they prey on confusion .

Personally, I feel balancing Saka is a waste of time unless HA are once again reliable for missile superiority, I do not like it when civilized madmen can utterly destroy my nomadic marksmen .

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Well our time frames nomads were not particularly renowned for their prowess in pitched battles. The issue remains that armored archers will beat the poop out of any non-cataphract horse archer units. For example, 1 Bosporan Archer can take on at least 2 light horse archer units. Widely available Syrians and Cretans will also easily handle them. At least the Saka get armored infantry to compete. Sauros are the faction which gets screwed most.

[antisocialmunky]

If we want cataphracts to be very devastating I would recommend a revision of the morale system. I've done this with a more shock-based battle style in mind for the EBNOM EDU (considering that there will be almost no phalanxes in it). The idea is for any levy to immediately rout when they're charged by cataphracts.

In line with the idea of a shock-based battle system, I've toned down the numbers of elite units and reduced the speed of melee combat so that flanking and charges are very important in order to avoid attrition fights.

That's somewhat anachronistic for this period isn't it? Cavalry only became OP in NOM's time frame. And there's the problem of eastern levies designed to spam defeat charging horses. Anyway, the OPness of cavalry was one of the reasons we redid the EDU, he who has the cavalry left at the end of the day used to always win.

[Lazy O]

Well our time frames nomads were not particularly renowned for their prowess in pitched battles. The issue remains that armored archers will beat the poop out of any non-cataphract horse archer units. For example, 1 Bosporan Archer can take on at least 2 light horse archer units. Widely available Syrians and Cretans will also easily handle them. At least the Saka get armored infantry to compete. Sauros are the faction which gets screwed most.

Problem with that theory is that linen armor is not much protection from an arrow, and archers did not carry around huge thureos on their arm -_- . At present, culture for whom archery play an almost non existent role can completely outmatch every archer unit nomadic factions can bring .

[gamegeek2]

That's somewhat anachronistic for this period isn't it? Cavalry only became OP in NOM's time frame. And there's the problem of eastern levies designed to spam defeat charging horses. Anyway, the OPness of cavalry was one of the reasons we redid the EDU, he who has the cavalry left at the end of the day used to always win.

Correct, that's why that's the system we're using in EBNOM, which was the heyday of the ultra-armoured cataphract, though not its peak (its peak came later in the Sassanid-Byzantine wars when both sides fielded thousands of them, albeit not as heavy as the ones in NOM).

About the spam problem, this will be addressed in EBNOM through a new morale system designed to make levies break easily to powerful charges if weakened slightly first. We will of course need to test this.

The solution is the new ammo system I suggested, along with having high HA numbers (I recommend 70 men for most light HA units).

[antisocialmunky]

I rather just make them undisciplined so when one breaks, they all break (when engaged) like now.

[Lazy O]

Correct, that's why that's the system we're using in EBNOM, which was the heyday of the ultra-armoured cataphract, though not its peak (its peak came later in the Sassanid-Byzantine wars when both sides fielded thousands of them, albeit not as heavy as the ones in NOM).

About the spam problem, this will be addressed in EBNOM through a new morale system designed to make levies break easily to powerful charges if weakened slightly first. We will of course need to test this.

The solution is the new ammo system I suggested, along with having high HA numbers (I recommend 70 men for most light HA units).

Wrong, heavy cavalry was using mail by that time . Savaran used Mail, lamellar, and large chest plates on top of their armor, along with sophisticated arm and leg protection .

[gamegeek2]

Wrong, heavy cavalry was using mail by that time . Savaran used Mail, lamellar, and large chest plates on top of their armor, along with sophisticated arm and leg protection .

That much is correct. I should refocus my statement and note that it was the later Sassanid times when having less armor became more popular.

I rather just make them undisciplined so when one breaks, they all break (when engaged) like now.

You need to have their base morale low enough that they crack quickly when impacted by a powerful charge. Discipline will be low as well, and cataphracts will be relatively more expensive.

[Lazy O]

If you call this less armoured...

Technology gets better, not worse, Personally I think full armored horse was a waste of money anyway .

[gamegeek2]

It's just as effective, if not moreso, but it is less overall armour.

[antisocialmunky]

Well they did transition to a slightly lighter corps which got all the way to Anatolia.

[Lazy O]

Problem with that theory being the "lightness" misconception , it is because lesser landowners could now serve in the Savaran, the fully armored cavalryman was never displaced .

[gamegeek2]

Problem with that theory being the "lightness" misconception , it is because lesser landowners could now serve in the Savaran, the fully armored cavalryman was never displaced .

That makes sense.

I propose five changes to EDU 3.0:

1. -.02 lethality to all AP weapons that aren't lances
2. Treat cavalry kopides like regular long swords
3. Remove fear from cataphracts, replacing it with +4 charge (at least)
4. Do the Saka stats properly
5. Implement new ammo system

[vartan]

If you call this less armoured...

Technology gets better, not worse, Personally I think full armored horse was a waste of money anyway .

Lol. Note the 5th to 9th centuries CE.

P.S. Robin I forgot to mention I'd be hard put to give feedback considering I'm not well-versed in translating EDUs into plain English.

[antisocialmunky]

That makes sense.

I propose five changes to EDU 3.0:

1. -.02 lethality to all AP weapons that aren't lances
2. Treat cavalry kopides like regular long swords
3. Remove fear from cataphracts, replacing it with +4 charge (at least)
4. Do the Saka stats properly
5. Implement new ammo system

1 and 2 just turn AP weapons into pretty much vanilla EB. 3.4.5. would be fine though.

[gamegeek2]

The statistical model I've developed shows that currently AP weapons are somewhat overpowered, and also that vanilla EB shortwords were somewhat better balanced than things are now (something I must take the blame for). Kopides had AP in vanilla EB.

[Kival]

Clubmen and axemen already are pretty useless... I don't think I like the idea.

[antisocialmunky]

Define overpowered. I don't think that axes can beat hellenic units at this point.

[Lazy O]

@vartan; Oh please this is not Europes 5th and 9th century .

[gamegeek2]

Clubmen and axemen already are pretty useless... I don't think I like the idea.

I'm inclined to suggest that this is because such units are overcosted due to the way the price system works...I'm willing to explore this further but only after I test out my new EBNOM battle system.