
Originally Posted by
vollorix
The armour of the most units might be as realistic as possible concerning the actual situation in the time frame of EB, but there are two things which make this "realism" quite unrealistic game wise:
1. The armour is the primary value which is considered in autocalc, and therefore the disadvantage of unarmoured units is quite obvious.
2. The defence skill doesn´t not have an overall protection like armour does; on the battlemap this simply leads to unbalanced results.
One can´t make it perfect due to the limited RTW engine, and every one has his own view on different things, but the main goal of EB, to realisticly represent ( in game: on the campaign/battle map ) leads to very undesired results ( one simple example: Lusos rampaging their way through Gaul; their lowest levy unit has an armour value of "4" ( iberi milites, 240 men ), while the best armoured gaulic swordmen have a value of "5" ( Bataroas, 200 men ).
I, for my part, think that there is a descrepancy between the historical realismus, and the ingame situation. And i don´t want to start talking about "Triari spam" of the Romans ( "14" armour value, meaning "game over" for any barbarian faction ). As much as i love EB, and appriciate the hard and dedicated work of all team members who have been involved in making this modification possible, i wonder why there were never made needed fixes for the balancing the factions ( not everyone can mode even the EDU, but moding EDB with the complicated EB system is quite difficult ).
I hope, in EB II the approach will be more sofisticated concerning the unit balancing.
Bookmarks