BSR's Edu Updates/Suggestions Thread

[The Celtic Viking]

It seemed wrong to me that Celtic/Germanic archer units had more men per unit than steppe foot units. Also the ranged advantage of many eastern factions was diluted by the fact that 90 man Celtic archer units could absorb the majority of their arrows.

A steppe player who's an ounce smarter than the AI will still win 100% of the times against Celts or Germanics anyway; it certainly won't come down to the awesome effectiveness of the mighty sotaroas.

It may be a good idea to give them fewer arrows and stronger melee capabilities akin to the eastern archer-spearmen units though. This is definitely something that I would consider and, dare I say, lean towards. Maybe 12-15 arrows with 8-9 morale and better melee stats? That way they wouldn't have to suffer through a price bump and would still be able to fight off some weakened or tired light cavalry units.

Make that 10 morale (+4 like you did with the Arabs) and that change (with none else) would be fine by me

As for the Cohortes Evocata, you are really pointing out the only Roman infantry unit I would consider overpowered for their price.

I agree. Still OP, though.

The Roman scutum having a smaller value than the aspis is something I think of as an oversight rather than a price point issue.

No, I think that's rather because the highest shield value given out in vanilla EB stats is 4, with 5 reserved for phalangites (which is gone in gamegeek's EDU). The reason why you see the aspis with 5 is because it's carried by shieldwall units, who got +1 shield value but -1 def skill to compensate. He has also given light infantry units +1 shield which is why you can see such oddities.

Also, they are in the tier which I would consider veteran heavy infantry, where they have little company, possibly only the Iberian Assaults. Shortsword units in general have higher defense skills than longsword units, as well they should considering the gladius is a quicker weapon that leaves the user exposed far less than a longsword when used intelligently in tandem with a larger shield, as a highly trained and veteran unit such as Evocata would be wont to use them. I should also point out that for pure gameplay reasons, the Evocata unit is one of the only advantages the post-Marian era gives to a Roman player. That all being said, I would agree with a small bump to cost for the +1 shield value, perhaps +50 or so since this was already an effective unit. My reasoning was meant more for most other Roman infantry units, it just so happened that I typed the reasoning in for the lone Roman infantry unit that had a very high defense skill.

I see. Still, defence skill also includes things like dodging, which a big, cumbersome shield and heavy armour doesn't allow for as much as, say, a Bagaudas could. I don't think there was anything wrong with its def skill as it was.

As for your point about them being "one of the only advantages", well, yeah... but that's like saying, regarding ice hockey, "the only advantage with a powerplay is that you outnumber the opponent". You get cheap, massed heavily armoured infantry, good quality cavalry, you've still got good mercenary archers and the extra merc slots to slip them in... how many advantages do you need? If what you mean is that the better-quality-lesser-numbers modification makes Marian infantry inferior compared to imperials (something I disagree with), then it would be much better to go back to how it was before we made that change. It's better that we recognize that a flavour change failed and trash it than perpetually improve the Romans because one of their gazillion reforms turns out superior to the rest...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I'll agree on this. The general increase to good stamina for all heavy infantry is really what hurt the Romans most. Prior to that, it was really only elites, Roman legionary units, and a select other few heavy infantries that had good stamina. I suppose in that sense the stamina edits help them more since I've reverted to those stats. That being said, most Roman infantry only has +1 defense skill over hoplite units which means they were equal prior to the shieldwall bonus. True the scutum is cumbersome, but to only have a +1 value over a buckler is silly, is it not? Its very nearly a full body shield, exposing the shins and head only. Plus, armor values on legions really aren't that high. Compare with Theurophoroi for example. The +2 for a pair of greaves more than makes up for the fact that chain mail is rated higher than linothorax. Romans do get good auxiliaries but to compare Roman native heavy infantry currently with Gallic, Iberian, Carthaginian, or Hellenic and you will find the Roman units wanting. I found it odd that Roman cavalry was actually more effective cost-wise than Roman infantry, something that I wanted to change by pricing the cav up slightly (along with a small morale plus) and making the infantry a little better.

[The Celtic Viking]

I'll agree on this. The general increase to good stamina for all heavy infantry is really what hurt the Romans most. Prior to that, it was really only elites, Roman legionary units, and a select other few heavy infantries that had good stamina. I suppose in that sense the stamina edits help them more since I've reverted to those stats. That being said, most Roman infantry only has +1 defense skill over hoplite units which means they were equal prior to the shieldwall bonus. True the scutum is cumbersome, but to only have a +1 value over a buckler is silly, is it not? Its very nearly a full body shield, exposing the shins and head only. Plus, armor values on legions really aren't that high. Compare with Theurophoroi for example. The +2 for a pair of greaves more than makes up for the fact that chain mail is rated higher than linothorax. Romans do get good auxiliaries but to compare Roman native heavy infantry currently with Gallic, Iberian, Carthaginian, or Hellenic and you will find the Roman units wanting. I found it odd that Roman cavalry was actually more effective cost-wise than Roman infantry, something that I wanted to change by pricing the cav up slightly (along with a small morale plus) and making the infantry a little better.

What unit are you looking at to say it's only 1 more than a buckler? Remember now that light units got a +1 shield, so if you're looking at Bagaudas, their buckler shield value is actually only 2 even though their shield stat is 3. It was an earlier attempt at making light infantry less useless.

As for the greaves on a Thureophoroi giving them the same armour value as Marians, that's true, but the reasoning being that the legs are more exposed than the chest area due to the shield, as I'm sure you know. This is of course a bit wonky as armour value protects from the back as well, which the greaves do not. Is it possible to put the greaves value on the shield instead, so it works from the front (+1 side) and vs missiles, but not from behind? I don't know, just something that struck me right now. The downside of that would be a less straight-forward stat system, of course, and possibly better defence vs missiles than they should have (from front and/or shield side at least) due to shield-value doubling... Just an un-thought-through idea, 's'all.

That non-Roman heavy infantry is better quality-wise is not wrong either... it's as it should be. They *should* be inferior to Gallic heavy infantry like Neitos, Arjos etc. What they've got is numbers and cost, which means that they can bring twice as many Cohortes Reformata/Imperatora as you can any of those even though they - the cohorts - still have more men individually as well. They were kind of the USSR of antiquity that way...

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

What unit are you looking at to say it's only 1 more than a buckler? Remember now that light units got a +1 shield, so if you're looking at Bagaudas, their buckler shield value is actually only 2 even though their shield stat is 3. It was an earlier attempt at making light infantry less useless.

As for the greaves on a Thureophoroi giving them the same armour value as Marians, that's true, but the reasoning being that the legs are more exposed than the chest area due to the shield, as I'm sure you know. This is of course a bit wonky as armour value protects from the back as well, which the greaves do not. Is it possible to put the greaves value on the shield instead, so it works from the front (+1 side) and vs missiles, but not from behind? I don't know, just something that struck me right now. The downside of that would be a less straight-forward stat system, of course, and possibly better defence vs missiles than they should have (from front and/or shield side at least) due to shield-value doubling... Just an un-thought-through idea, 's'all.

That non-Roman heavy infantry is better quality-wise is not wrong either... it's as it should be. They *should* be inferior to Gallic heavy infantry like Neitos, Arjos etc. What they've got is numbers and cost, which means that they can bring twice as many Cohortes Reformata/Imperatora as you can any of those even though they - the cohorts - still have more men individually as well. They were kind of the USSR of antiquity that way...

Well its not only light infantry with bucklers that received a +1, all units with bucklers have a 3 shield, including heavy cavalry, so essentially, the buckler has a 3 value like it or not.

My idea for greaves was to give a +1 armor for the lead greave and nothing for the rear with a very small price decrease to compensate. The rear leg would be difficult to hit with a man standing at the ready anyway.

On the topic of the Roman infantry, it is difficult to consider them as proper heavy infantry which is why I raised the Thureophoroi comparison. They and legionaries have the same armor value and the same shield. I don't consider Romans to be medium infantry, but I certainly think that of Thureos. Its really the morale that makes Roman units better but morale doesn't actually affect fighting ability in a vacuum and even the largest Rome-hater couldn't argue that they shouldn't be substantially better than Thureos man for man. I wouldn't mind higher priced legion units that were better (though not as good as Neitos, Thorakitai, etc.), that way Romans couldn't afford as many high priced auxiliaries or less cavalry either of which would be a beneficial outcome in my opinion.

[The Celtic Viking]

I just checked for sure, and while you're mostly correct, there are exceptions. Slingers with bucklers have only 1 shield value, Northern Iberian Skirmishers have only 2, Cantabrian Cav 2 as well, just like phalanxes... I don't know, it's weird. I'd like to hear GG2's explanation, but the weirdness is really on the buckler side.

Only one greave gives an armour bonus already anyway; see Polybian Principes for instance. You can of course argue to cut the armour bonus in half, something I don't necessarily disagree with.

It's morale and numbers, and to be fair, the Thureophoroi description does call them heavy infantry. They should still lose in a 1-on-1 situation due to numbers and morale, and I think the biggest problem really is the spear's lethality is now higher than the shortsword (it used to be the same). I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions, though.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I just checked for sure, and while you're mostly correct, there are exceptions. Slingers with bucklers have only 1 shield value, Northern Iberian Skirmishers have only 2, Cantabrian Cav 2 as well, just like phalanxes... I don't know, it's weird. I'd like to hear GG2's explanation, but the weirdness is really on the buckler side.

The exceptions I've noted (and remember) so far in my edu'ing: Cantabrian Cav with 2, Iberian Light Cav with 2, Northern Iberian Skirms with 2, Iovaman with a 1 (poor Iberians can't catch a break against archers), Garamantene Infantry with a 2, all phalangite units with a 2, and all slinger/archer units with a 1 except for Theurophorantes Toxotai who have a 2. The logic for slingers and archers with smaller values (and I've discussed this with GG2) is that when firing a bow or a sling, the shield is not in an advantageous position to deflect or absorb missiles. Also, these shields are often strapped to the arm and would be more difficult to use than one freely about in the hand, similar to the shields used by phalangites. I've considered the above units (not counting the slingers/archers and phalangites) oversights to the rules rather than exceptions considering they are likely less than 5% of all buckler using units in game.

I won't comment too further on the Theuro/Legion comparison only to say that Theurophoroi's historical description is as a flanking unit, one whose role was somewhere between Peltast and line infantry. I believe me and GG2 have discussed that the in game models for both Theuros and Peltasts depict the higher-end armor that either of those would be wearing and as such, we statted accordingly (though its fair to mention that the Epeirote Theuro wears no greaves).

[The Celtic Viking]

Yeah, I understood the archer/slinger side, but the description of the Thureophoroi has them as between peltastai and phalangites, which isn't exactly the same as line infantry, and that their usage was contested. With the latter in your army too it shouldn't be surprising that the Thureophoroi would be flanking units either. That is not to say a thing about their armour and armament or how those should be statted for anyway, which is what you will have to argue about.