Unit Balancing Suggestions to CA

**andrewt** · 10-10-2004, 08:21

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** · 10-10-2004, 09:27

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** · 10-10-2004, 19:07

Originally Posted by 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....

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** · 10-10-2004, 18:08

Originally Posted by andrewt

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** · 10-10-2004, 18:19

Originally Posted by Praylak

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.

**Praylak** · 10-11-2004, 16:45

Originally Posted by Dorkus

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.

Selection may not be there, true, but has anyone considered that perhaps thats the way it's was intended? Like for similiar reasons why they cannot develop to level 5.

**andrewt** · 10-10-2004, 18:22

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.