Unit Balancing Suggestions to CA

[Grifman]

Chariots are powerful, but you have to know how to counter them. I have no problem defeating the Egyptians, even numbers, even outnumbered, battle after battle in the game (unless you are talking MP, that's not my issue). You just have to come to battle with the right stuff. Of course chariots are going to tear up armored hoplites - the hoplites can't get close enough to even smell them, much less touch them with those long pointy spears. Don't come crying that your hoplites are dying any more than Crassus cried at Carrhae at what Parthian horsearchers did to him :) The game calls them missile cavalry and for all practical purposes that's what they are. So you have to fight them as that. For the Romans against the Egyptians, that means having artillery and archers. My Roman armies fighting the Egyptians who bring alot of ranged units to battle always have two onagers, and at least 4, maybe 6 archers.

I've found that chariots die easily under archer fire. Put two auxila archers units firing on a chariot unit and it dies quickly - they just don't last long. There aren't alot of men in a chariot unit and they die like flies under archer fire. I concentrate fire on them first and take them out. Meanwhile my artillery is pounding the desert axemen who have to advance slowly on foot. And when the chariots are dead, my archers turn their attentions on them.

On medium, I routinely inflict losses on the Egyptian in a ration of between 5 to 1 and 10 to 1 in my favor. Best was 1260 Egyptians dead vs my 60.

Grifman

[andrewt]

I did say that chariots die under archer fire. However, they could charge the archers and they have the speed to do it. Also, Egyptians have the best archers in the game and you'll lose the archer vs. archer duel if the enemy simply sits his chariot behind the archers. The AI does have some moments when it looks like it actually knows what it's doing.

A problem is besieging the Egyptians. The chariots are way too manueverable on the city streets and archers aren't very effective in sieges.

Missile cavalry die quickly when caught by light cavalry. Chariots, however, kill tons of light cavalry in the process. Even camels die in droves in a melee to them. Their melee ability is too high. They're just way too cost effective and way too powerful compared to what they were historically.

[Mr. Juice]

Missile cavalry die quickly when caught by light cavalry. Chariots, however, kill tons of light cavalry in the process. Even camels die in droves in a melee to them. Their melee ability is too high. They're just way too cost effective and way too powerful compared to what they were historically.

I'll second that.

[GFX707]

Barbarian units need to be cheaper, and Roman/civilised need to be more expensive....

[andrewt]

Some factions in the game have a really small selection of troops. Parthia, for example, has some really good horse units but they have too few troops in general. It seems CA focused on a few factions and many are really underdeveloped. Some, like the Gauls, only have generic troops with no real specialty.

[GFX707]

Yes, Parthia's infantry is completely worthless....if you are going to make the skirmish AI "run to map edge and get stuck" then you could at least have given parthia better troops....

[Grifman]

Yes, Parthia's infantry is completely worthless....if you are going to make the skirmish AI "run to map edge and get stuck" then you could at least have given parthia better troops....

Just like in history. Parthia had great horsearchers and great cataphracts, but Parthian infantry was largely peasatn levies - crappy and totally unable to stand up to Roman legionnaires. Parthia shouldn't get great infantry because they didn't have it. But they do have great cavalry - why don't you complain about Roman cavalry being crappy because it is compared to Parthia? :)

Grifman

[Praylak]

It seems CA focused on a few factions and many are really underdeveloped. Some, like the Gauls, only have generic troops with no real specialty.

Not trying to be a dick or anything Andrew, but whats up with that statement? Ever use Forester warband Archers?

[Dorkus]

Not trying to be a dick or anything Andrew, but whats up with that statement? Ever use Forester warband Archers?

His basic point is right. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, though. rather they devote more time to, e.g. the battle ui, then develping x more factions. I think there's plenty of diversity as things stand.

[andrewt]

I looked at all the faction unit lineups. Some, like the Scythians, have around 4 types of horse archers. Pontus has light javelin cavalry, heavy javelin cavalry, a few other unique units. Some, like Gaul, have only 1 or 2 units that are truly unique to them while some have tons of unique units. I was disappointed with Parthia's selection of cavalry. Sure, they are powerful but there's too few of them.

As for chariots, it wasn't the phalanx that made them obsolete. It is cavalry. Cavalry are faster and more manueverable. Historically, chariots are easily chased down and destroyed by light cavalry. They could easily separate the horses from the chariot, which would render the unit as just a regular archer unit, not to mention the momentum would hurt the guys riding the chariots. In this game, the melee ability of the scythes attached to the wheels of the chariots kill light cavalry really fast. Also, chariots have the speed of medium cavalry and the same manueverability, which is not true.

[Grifman]

I did say that chariots die under archer fire. However, they could charge the archers and they have the speed to do it.

And then your archers run behind your legion/phalanx and bye bye goes the chariot :) Again it's not that it's overpowered, it's simple tactics which people are not handing correctly.

Also, Egyptians have the best archers in the game and you'll lose the archer vs. archer duel if the enemy simply sits his chariot behind the archers.

Which is why you bring artillery along as the Romans - I can pound their slower moving archer infantry again and again before they even get into ranch. The Egyptian can't - and in a credit to the AI - won't just sit there when I start hitting it with artillery - it is smarter than that. It has to come out "to play" :) In addition I'll concentrate fire from two archer units on any one chariot/archer unit until it routes while the AI spread it's arrow barrages. Again, specific units, specific tactics for specific enemies. That's all it comes down to. Chariots are NOT overpowered because I can beat them EVERY time.

The AI does have some moments when it looks like it actually knows what it's doing.

It tries really hard :) The suicidal chariot charges under hails of arrows from my archer auxila usually does it in though :)

A problem is besieging the Egyptians. The chariots are way too manueverable on the city streets and archers aren't very effective in sieges.

Just line up your legion in a street with archers behind them and they'll take out chariots everytime.

Missile cavalry die quickly when caught by light cavalry. Chariots, however, kill tons of light cavalry in the process. Even camels die in droves in a melee to them. Their melee ability is too high. They're just way too cost effective and way too powerful compared to what they were historically.

Are we talking history or gameplay wise. Yes, chariots were obsolete by the time of the game so their being powerful is unhistorical. But we were discussing gamplay right? :) And in that respect, though they are powerful, they are not uber-units - they can be beaten because I do it all the time, every time, with the right units and right tactics.

Grifman

[Red Harvest]

Actually, I've read some stuff that indicates that improved infantry in "barbarian" (meaning not chariot ruled) areas finally learned how to counter chariots. Around 1200 BC most ot the great chariot dynasties were conquered.

Grifman, I can counter chariots too, but that doesn't mean they make sense. Speed and mobility wise they don't play right. With the battle speed we have, they can be unreasonably hard to fight. One of my toughest fights was a few chariot archers, two pharaoh's bowmen, some axemen and some spearmen. I had a big hardened powerful force, but those chariots caused mayhem. I won a Phyric victory.

One chariot unit can usually be countered fairly well. But two combined with super bowmen was just a mess, with chariots flying in and out of the line routing weakened units, and not being chased down despite concerted efforts on my part. I had faced them before so I knew how to counter them. Of course I had no real archers in my faction...so your suggested tactics were absolutely non-starters. Most Western factions do not get archers early on. Even if I had a unit or two of elite merc archers, they would have been completely outgunned by the best archers in the game.

[Grifman]

Actually, I've read some stuff that indicates that improved infantry in "barbarian" (meaning not chariot ruled) areas finally learned how to counter chariots. Around 1200 BC most ot the great chariot dynasties were conquered.

Yes, but the game only models history loosely at best. Chariots and the Egyptians as portrayed are ahistorical.

Grifman, I can counter chariots too, but that doesn't mean they make sense. Speed and mobility wise they don't play right. With the battle speed we have, they can be unreasonably hard to fight. One of my toughest fights was a few chariot archers, two pharaoh's bowmen, some axemen and some spearmen. I had a big hardened powerful force, but those chariots caused mayhem. I won a Phyric victory.

They are among the Egyptians best units. Why should any victory against them be other than tough. I can see it now - chariots being weak and we'd all be screaming that the Egyptians are pushovers, beef them up, CA! :)

One chariot unit can usually be countered fairly well. But two combined with super bowmen was just a mess, with chariots flying in and out of the line routing weakened units, and not being chased down despite concerted efforts on my part. I had faced them before so I knew how to counter them.

And you won as you stated. It was just tough. Well, why shouldn't it be? I don't understand this line of reasoning. Do you want easy victories?

Of course I had no real archers in my faction...so your suggested tactics were absolutely non-starters.

Problem number one :)

Most Western factions do not get archers early on. Even if I had a unit or two of elite merc archers, they would have been completely outgunned by the best archers in the game.

Huh, Romans and Greeks both have archers early on - who exactly are you talking about?

Problem number two - please note, my tactics don't call for "a unit or two", I said a minimum of 4, up to 6 and that is with artillery, so you need more if you don't have onagers. I can't be blamed if you think 4 to 6 archers with 2 onagers means "a unit or two" :)

Grifman

[andrewt]

I'm mixing arguments because I believe the two go hand in hand. Gameplay should be based on a certain amount of realism. Even if the Egyptian lineup is historically anachronistic because CA used Old Kingdom units, there's still no reason why they shouldn't have the same strengths and weaknesses as Old Kingdom units. In MTW, after all, the late Catholic units were vastly better armored and equipped than the late Egyptian units. CA balanced them simply by making the Egyptian units cost much, much less.

Your assumption is that if you can beat it, then it is balanced. However, you are a much better general than the AI. If the situation is reversed, you'd find using the Egyptians to be much easier than beating them. It's hardly true that Egyptians don't have anything else other than chariots. Their archers are better than your archers. The Pharaoh's bowmen are extremely powerful and you seem to be forgetting them. You have onagers. They have onagers as well. You have legionaires. Their desert axemen are powerful and cheap. They may be not as powerful as your most powerful cohorts but their cost makes up for it. Every single unit you used to counter chariots, the Egyptians have a similar or better version. If you play yourself, one using Romans and on using Egyptians, same denarii army costs, the Egyptian side will win a majority of the time. And what if you're playing as a different faction? The Romans don't have overpowered units like the Egyptians but they have a good selection of units and few weaknesses. The Parthians and Seleucids will have a much harder time and so will many of the other factions.

You never also responded to my charges that the costs of the Egyptian units are way out of line of their power. Elephants are also counterable. However, do you think they would be balanced if their cost is also 570? They are as counterable at 2490 denarii as they are at 570 denarii, after all.

Your taking advantage of the AI stupidity because you can clearly outthink it. You win by focus firing. If they can focus fire as well, will you come up on top? I'll give you a scenario. You have onagers. They have onagers as well. Their troops are better and more numerous than yours on a cost basis. Whatever your onagers focus fire on, they'll focus fire on the similar part of your army. They then move their archers forward to engage your archers in a duel. If they use focus fire as well, you'll lose. If you commit your legions, they have their desert axemen, who'll either win against your legions by strength or by numbers. Their chariots could help in firing arrows and could take out your cavalry and perform flanking attacks on infantry better than your cavalry can.

Think as the commander of the Romans. How can you counter the Egyptian army? Then think as the commander of the Egyptians. Is there seriously anything the Romans can do that you, now that you're in command of the Egyptians, can't do better and cheaper?

[Grifman]

I'm mixing arguments because I believe the two go hand in hand. Gameplay should be based on a certain amount of realism. Even if the Egyptian lineup is historically anachronistic because CA used Old Kingdom units, there's still no reason why they shouldn't have the same strengths and weaknesses as Old Kingdom units. In MTW, after all, the late Catholic units were vastly better armored and equipped than the late Egyptian units. CA balanced them simply by making the Egyptian units cost much, much less.

No you can't mix them both. They have to be two separate arguments. If you argue historically, then we can end it here because the Egyptians as portrayed in the game did not exist at the time. Game over, debate over. CA is plain wrong. You want Egyptian NK units? Then the Egyptians will lose everytime, since NK units fought from chariots, already obsolete, and Egypt was conquered by armies of the type (Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian) that Western style infantry armies had defeated again and again. If Persia was second rate, then a NK army would be third rate. You can't argue historically and then expect balanced gameplay - you can't have it both ways. A NK Egyptian army would be a walkover.

So either argue history or gameplay, you can't logically argue both. And since history means the Egyptians would be a worthless weak faction, you're really just left with gameplay. So drop the history - you're going nowhere fast with it.

Your assumption is that if you can beat it, then it is balanced.

Maybe not since I can beat them 100% of the time :) They certainly aren't uberunits like you think they are.

However, you are a much better general than the AI. If the situation is reversed, you'd find using the Egyptians to be much easier than beating them.

Maybe so, but it is the AI that I am playing against. That's the balancing that has to be done. Note we're talking the campaign game here, not MP. So the game has to be balanced with me playing against the AI. The argument was that chariots were overpowered, but I've shown they can be beat, again and again, quite handily.

It's hardly true that Egyptians don't have anything else other than chariots. Their archers are better than your archers. The Pharaoh's bowmen are extremely powerful and you seem to be forgetting them.

No, I never said mine were better. I just beat them with what I had.

You have onagers. They have onagers as well. You have legionaires. Their desert axemen are powerful and cheap. They may be not as powerful as your most powerful cohorts but their cost makes up for it. Every single unit you used to counter chariots, the Egyptians have a similar or better version.

Cost is largely irrelevant. Both units take one turn to build, armies can only have so many units. If I have plenty of cash - and I always do, then whether my unit costs more is irrelevant - I can always bring an equal number of high priced units to battle to beat his cheaper unit. But I can turn your cost argument against you - I suspect Roman archers are cheaper than your Pharoah archers and your chariot archers - so what if I "spam" the Egyptians with cheap archers :)

If you play yourself, one using Romans and on using Egyptians, same denarii army costs, the Egyptian side will win a majority of the time.

But I'm not playing myself so that is irrelevant. Your argument wasn't some theoretical issue with you playing yourself, you were saying that chariots were overpowered because how hard they were to beat in the game. Since I've shown they aren't hard to beat in the game, that says you are mistaken. If you want to change the argument now, we can do that, but that's not what the original argument was, was it? :)

And what if you're playing as a different faction? The Romans don't have overpowered units like the Egyptians but they have a good selection of units and few weaknesses. The Parthians and Seleucids will have a much harder time and so will many of the other factions.

Can't speak for the Parthians, but the Seleucids have many similar units to the Romans and more. They're next on my agenda, having just finished the Scipii campaign. And I suspect a cataphract/horsearcher army of the Parthians would do pretty good against the Egyptians.

You never also responded to my charges that the costs of the Egyptian units are way out of line of their power. Elephants are also counterable. However, do you think they would be balanced if their cost is also 570? They are as counterable at 2490 denarii as they are at 570 denarii, after all.

Look again, I did respond. I said that I thought pila make the legionnaire a good buy but that I had no solution for the Pontic chariot vs the Egyptian one. How is that not an anwer? :)

I don't think Egyptian axemen are as powerful as elephants so you comparison is ludicrous. I don't find the cost of axemen to be out of line. They are a deadend - Egyptians have no equivalent of higher level legion units - you didn't answer that point yourself :)

Your taking advantage of the AI stupidity because you can clearly outthink it.

Ok now we're getting silly. Of course that I can outthink, but no reasonable person considers that a cheat or exploit. If I'm not allowed to play the game, then we'll just put the AI in command of my units and sit back and watch what happens. That would be alot of fun now, wouldn't it? This argument is getting silly.

You win by focus firing. If they can focus fire as well, will you come up on top? I'll give you a scenario. You have onagers. They have onagers as well. Their troops are better and more numerous than yours on a cost basis. Whatever your onagers focus fire on, they'll focus fire on the similar part of your army. They then move their archers forward to engage your archers in a duel. If they use focus fire as well, you'll lose. If you commit your legions, they have their desert axemen, who'll either win against your legions by strength or by numbers. Their chariots could help in firing arrows and could take out your cavalry and perform flanking attacks on infantry better than your cavalry can.

The problem is, this doesn't happen in the game. They balance the game with you playing against the AI, not the AI against the AI, or me playing against myself. Your argument is irrelevant. It's a theortical argument that doesn't matter unless you just want to argue it. But that's not your original argument. It was how chariots and axeman just tore up everything. Well they don't.

Think as the commander of the Romans. How can you counter the Egyptian army? Then think as the commander of the Egyptians. Is there seriously anything the Romans can do that you, now that you're in command of the Egyptians, can't do better and cheaper?

Sorry, you're playing the bait and switch game. Start with one argument, then see it not go well, then move to another, it not go well, then switch to another. We started with gameplay, I showed that they aren't ovepowered within the game, then you moved to history, which I showed was irrelevant, now you're moving to a theoretical me playing myself. Sorry, Homey don't play that game. I'll leave you to argue with yourself.

Grifman

[Red Harvest]

By Western factions I meant primarily the following I have been using: Carthage, Spain, and Numidia. I've played the Romans a few times but I didn't have Roman archers all that early, although the Romans are very teched up compared to others.

Archery has been overly effective from what I've seen. A defining moment was when I watched a single volley from a single archer unit kill 14 or 16 Balearic slingers at max range. Even with a mass of vanilla archers as you suggest I would have had my hands full vs. the pharoah's bowmen with their extended range. I'm not sure I would have won the archery duel, it would have been very costly and I still would have been in for brawl. I had a large, strong cav army with lots of experience and a good general. It should have had a field day running down the superbowmen and chariots.

My most recent chariot experience was even worse. Try Numidia vs. those Egyptians...no archers for you, and no economy, so you can't lose any battles. Here comes the Egyptian steam roller...err...chariot army. I managed to beat one army because it was poorly constructed, three spear phalanx units, and a single chariot. And I bought every merc I could for the next one, but three chariots were far more than my poor army could handle.

Onagers, don't get me started on their high yield warheads. I only see them as being "fair" for seiges. The disappointing thing about RTW is the preponderance of wonder units. Have a problem with a wonder unit lacking its historical limitations? Answer is to buy another wonder unit equally lacking. Uggghhh.

[Morindin]

The Romans have problems with all archer based factions, not just Egyptians.

However, those Egyptian chariot archers are absurdly powerful and uncatchable. You can whittle them down with archers (provided you have them) but they do an insane amount of damage in the mean time.

Im still in two minds about desert axemen - havnt had enough experiance with them yet. Im not sure why they have the defence they do, it seems a little high to me.

[andrewt]

I'm discussing both. I'd like all the units in the game to function close to how they did historically. Whatever historically countered them should counter them in this game as well.

Sure, you can counter every unit in the game. The question is, is what the unit brings to the table proportionate to what it costs? Can you honestly tell me why a desert axeman who has better stats than the early legionary cohort costs less? The pila aren't that powerful to make them more expensive. Can you also tell me why the barely more powerful Pontic chariot archers cost 1060 vs. 570 for the Egyptian chariot archers?

I've used onagers. They don't do that much damage before the enemy closes in, though sometimes the stupid AI allows me to use all my boulders with impunity.

I've played Starcraft and Warcraft3. My definition of overpowered isn't something which beats everything else. If something is simply way more effective vs. what it costs, it is overpowered even if it has a counter. The time in the game when it is available is also a factor. You're beating the Egyptians' chariots/archers combo with more expensive, higher tech units because the Romans start so far away from them. You're also taking advantage of AI stupidity to counter them. Even if I'm just playing the AI, I'd like to play a game where I could counter a unit effectively if it was played by a human.

I could counter chariots as well but they are harder to counter than most units in the game. They also are a harder counter to units they do well against compared to other in game counters. To echo Red Harvest, they don't play right. What rendered them obsolete should be able to counter them the most effectively.

[Grifman]

I'm discussing both. I'd like all the units in the game to function close to how they did historically. Whatever historically countered them should counter them in this game as well.

Then chariots shouldn't be in the game at all, except for the Britains. No one else was using them in the Med world. CA included them to ahistorically, as they did with most of the Egyptian units, since Egypt was governed by the Ptolomies, a Macdonian regime. You can't argue anything historically with they Egyptian faction because they aren't portrayed historically. And gameplay vs. history are two separate arguments - you seem to mix them whenever it suits you. Let's just talk one or the other so we can keep the arguments straight :)

Sure, you can counter every unit in the game. The question is, is what the unit brings to the table proportionate to what it costs? Can you honestly tell me why a desert axeman who has better stats than the early legionary cohort costs less?

Is there a further upgrade to the axeman? Early legionnaries are just that - you can then go to legion chain to regular legions to to praetorians to urban cohorts. If the Egyptians don't have a true further upgrade, then they're in trouble. They have a unit that is cheap, but stays flat with no tech movement upwards. You can't just compare unit to unit, but look at what happens over time.

The pila aren't that powerful to make them more expensive.

They seem pretty powerful to me. Two throws can whittle an opposing unit down by 10% minimum. I've seen plenty of units, exposed to artillery and archer fire route when they get within pila range and get hit - I'm talking those fearsome desert axemen btw :)

Can you also tell me why the barely more powerful Pontic chariot archers cost 1060 vs. 570 for the Egyptian chariot archers?

Nope, can't tell you that, but I can kill them both easily, that I can tell you :)

I've used onagers. They don't do that much damage before the enemy closes in, though sometimes the stupid AI allows me to use all my boulders with impunity.

They do fine for me, outranging any Egyptian archers you keep complaining about :)

I've played Starcraft and Warcraft3. My definition of overpowered isn't something which beats everything else. If something is simply way more effective vs. what it costs, it is overpowered even if it has a counter.

So you've played some RTS games with VERY limited factions and VERY limited units. What you have 3 factions in each of those, maybe 2 dozen units each, something like that. While in this game you have a dozen or so factions each with their own units? That's alot harder to balance.

I'd also say the other problem is your perspective. You're talking about RTS game where you have units and counters to units but where integrated battles with specific orders of battle don't exist - at least not to the extent they do in RTW. RTW doesn't play that way. You just can't look at individual units, but what they bring to your individual army as a whole. Your army is greater than the sum of it's parts if you know how to bring it all together combined arms. It's not unit X counters unit Y, but how units X+Y+Z can counter units A+B+C if used properly.

The time in the game when it is available is also a factor. You're beating the Egyptians' chariots/archers combo with more expensive, higher tech units because the Romans start so far away from them.

No, I've beaten them with Hastiti and Princeps and regular archers. Exactly where other than saying I've used onagers or archer auxila have I mentioned a higher tech unit?

You're also taking advantage of AI stupidity to counter them.

Nope, other than the suiciding generals - which is what I meant when I said "suicide charges" - sorry if that wasn't clear - I don't think I mentioned stupid AI or exploiting the AI. I generally don't try to exploit AI weakness when it is something I can control or manipulate.

Even if I'm just playing the AI, I'd like to play a game where I could counter a unit effectively if it was played by a human.

So do I, so where exactly did I say I exploited the AI please? Again, the suicide charge refers to the AI generals which I have no control over. Chariots in general don't suicide - they are a pain, but they are meant to be a pain in the game. They and the axemen are really the only two things the Egyptians have going for them.

I could counter chariots as well but they are harder to counter than most units in the game.

Why? I just laid out above how to counter them. Point is, which you seem to be forgetting is that they and axemen are the only two good Egyptian units. They should be the most difficult to counter. If they aren't then what are going to be the good units for the Egyptians? What is left for them really?

They also are a harder counter to units they do well against compared to other in game counters. To echo Red Harvest, they don't play right. What rendered them obsolete should be able to counter them the most effectively.

You're going back to history here and mixing arguments. If you're talking history, the whole Egyptian faction as presented is ahistorical, so let's not just stop at chariots :)

Grifman

[SpencerH]

I found Egyptian chariots to be very effective in a melee vs Greek cav but would run from the cav (and were therefore nullified by them) until after my phalanx and chariots had chopped up the remainder of the Egyptian armies. By the time the chariots had stopped runnng and killed my Greek cav, the battle was over.