Unit Balancing Suggestions to CA

[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

[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?

[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]

Problems? The Romans actually have good cavalry. I just ran the archers down. Even pre-Marius, you can get Legionary cavalry. After Marius, the Praetorian cavalry is one of the most powerful in the game. Equites and Roman cavalry are both serviceable, cheap cavalry.

Archery isn't overly effective, for me. If you shoot armored hoplites or even standard hoplites, they take few casualties with every volley. Against armored hoplites, even Cretan archers have trouble killing them. What they are very effective against are unarmored targets. Armored targets don't take much casualties.

[Morindin]

Problems? The Romans actually have good cavalry. I just ran the archers down. Even pre-Marius, you can get Legionary cavalry. After Marius, the Praetorian cavalry is one of the most powerful in the game. Equites and Roman cavalry are both serviceable, cheap cavalry.

Archery isn't overly effective, for me. If you shoot armored hoplites or even standard hoplites, they take few casualties with every volley. Against armored hoplites, even Cretan archers have trouble killing them. What they are very effective against are unarmored targets. Armored targets don't take much casualties.

Most late game archer units, such as chosen archer warbands, and so forth, eat all Roman Cavalry+ for breakfast in melee in a 1v1 situation.

I swarmed over most of the other races with ease in my campaign game, and I came to a scretching halt against Pontus/Scythia/etc.

I did have an amusing situation (for my enemy) in a multiplayer game last night when I had three units of upgraded cretin archers firing on one stationary unit of upgraded sacred band. 5-6 volleys later from all three units and maybe one sacred band had died :)

But besides that - im not really talking about normal archers, rather the Egyptian Chariot archers.

[andrewt]

Praetorian Cavalry are 12 attack 22 defense. They're only slightly worse than urban cohorts. Of course, there are fewer of them, but I doubt any archer unit in the game can beat them in a melee.

If you're talking about the Egyptian chariot archers, I agree. They have a ridiculously overpowered melee attack. They also have the same mass as an elephant, in the game, which means they can break infantry formation as well as an elephant.

[DisruptorX]

Here's One:

Numidian Infantry have 200 upkeep, but they have a normal unit size and are one of the worst units in the game. Other units like them(eastern infantry) are 170.

[andrewt]

At least they have 8 morale. That's still very high, however.

I'm playing Parthia and I only use their infantry for battering gates and walls. I use the cavalry afterwards. The other primarily cavalry nations like Scythia have better infantry and a better selection of cavalry. I'm going to have fun with Cataphracts soon, though, which is the point of me choosing Parthia, anyway. That and the 2 horse archers units they have. Scythia has 4 different horse archer units, though.

[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

[Ulstan]

Whenever a question of balance comes up in these games, there is invariably one person who says "xxxx isn't overpowered - I can beat them 100% of the time!"

Unfortunately this individual never realizes what exactly it means for a unit to be overpowered - which is, it requires effort and resources to defeat the unit far out of proportion to what it takes to field the unit. A 500g chariot unit should not take 3 units of archers and a unit of artillery to defeat. That's pretty clearly imbalanced.

So that deals with chariots problems under gameplay only concerns.

Next we come to historical concerns - one of the greatest strengths of the total war series is the units do what they did historically.

Let us lay aside the fact that egypt having chariot heavy armies right now is not historically correct, and instead focusing on making the performance of chariots historically correct. That is, the chariots should handle and perform like chariots back then did. No turning on a dime, no super accurate archer fire mowing down everyone, and no slaughtering cavalry (their counter) in melee.

[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.

[Lord of the Isles]

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.

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.

Since some of us seem to have trouble following the rules, it would help if you posted the Grifman System for Allowable Discussion in full.

While I can see the need to stop Egypt being a pushover, I have two problems with its troops. Seeing chariots behave like hovertanks really hurts the authenticity of the game. I can suspend disbelief sufficiently to live with a thousand year out-of-date Egyptian army but not enough to watch its units do ludicrous things. And secondly, Egypt at the moment overpowers its AI neighbours in every game I've seen. Its cash rich provinces are no doubt a factor too but since they at least are historically correct, I'd rather its units were toned down.

I apologise in advance for all the Grifman rules of debating I've broken.

[Praylak]

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.

[Red Harvest]

Whenever a question of balance comes up in these games, there is invariably one person who says "xxxx isn't overpowered - I can beat them 100% of the time!"

Unfortunately this individual never realizes what exactly it means for a unit to be overpowered - which is, it requires effort and resources to defeat the unit far out of proportion to what it takes to field the unit. A 500g chariot unit should not take 3 units of archers and a unit of artillery to defeat. That's pretty clearly imbalanced.

So that deals with chariots problems under gameplay only concerns.

Next we come to historical concerns - one of the greatest strengths of the total war series is the units do what they did historically.

Let us lay aside the fact that egypt having chariot heavy armies right now is not historically correct, and instead focusing on making the performance of chariots historically correct. That is, the chariots should handle and perform like chariots back then did. No turning on a dime, no super accurate archer fire mowing down everyone, and no slaughtering cavalry (their counter) in melee.

VERY, very well said. Any time you have to use a quarter of your army to counter a single unit, and micromanage the engagement, something is a bit fishy. It could be historically accurate...but it better be a true super unit, not chariots.

[Praylak]

Unfortunately this individual never realizes what exactly it means for a unit to be overpowered - which is, it requires effort and resources to defeat the unit far out of proportion to what it takes to field the unit. A 500g chariot unit should not take 3 units of archers and a unit of artillery to defeat. That's pretty clearly imbalanced.

Some people believe one particular unit should be an equal counter to said unit, denarii for denarii or there abouts. In traditional RTS games this makes good gameplay sense but RTW is anything but. They also think all factions should have a unit that counters everything that may come their way. The game uses both history and gameplay measures to make the whole experience enjoyable so at times it does contradict itself. But the end result is what counts.

I enjoy both the challenge when fighting these units and the power they yield when I'm using them. When I face them, it makes me think tactically, and the risk of defeat only adds excitement. My best and most memorable battles have been these situations. If its too hard, maybe I should lower the difficulty level back one notch. Why do have to always play at veryhard? On the other hand when I have access to these units I relish the opportunities they allow to crush my enemy like bugs. Whether its with elephants, chariot archers, heavy cavalry, late legions, onagers, etc, etc, (all uber units that need fixing go here), etc, etc.

Some factions don't have a fleshed out roster. Throw in a little bit of history to make you use better strategy to deal with this weakness and you got gravy gameplay folks. Might not have all the tools you need, but ones you have are great. Parthia and Armenia is a good example of this.

Rock, paper and scissors makes balance, but it's not always history and it's not always fun. It's harder sometimes to play a certain faction, or fight certain units, it's what makes a good game. I honestly believe this is CA's intent and in contrast to MTW, they done great.

[andrewt]

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.

Overpowered is overpowered, not unbeatable. The game should be balanced whatever side you pick. If you pick the Egyptians and can steamroll through everything with ease, then they are also overpowered. I like the fact that factions have different starting positions and some are more powerful than others but I want the units to have at least some semblance of mp-level balance.

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 :)

For you, it is irrelevant mainly because you have a powerful empire by the time you reach Egypt. For nearby factions who are cash strapped at the start, it's a big problem. Check the stats of the archers. Roman Archers cost 190. Egyptian Archers cost 250, have the same stats but are 50% larger in size. You won't win that one by spamming. They'll have more than you at the same cost. Archer Auxilia cost 430. Pharaoh's Bowmen cost 680 but has more than double the armor (3 vs. 7), more than double the morale and more than 50% better missile rating (9 vs. 14). In contrast Desert Axemen costs 560 and Urban Cohort 860. The Axemen have 10 attack 18 defense. The Cohort has 14 attack 24 defense.

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? :)

That was part of my contention. Just because I didn't explicitly state it back then doesn't mean I'm changing the argument. I'll state it explicitly right now. I want to have some semblance of mp-level balance on the units in the sp campaign. Not necessarily completely balanced, just not having some units be way more cost effective than others. Are you sure you're not working for either the Bush or Kerry campaign?

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.

Cataphracts are effective but expensive (890 denarii). You also need large city (12,000 population) to start building them. Egyptian chariots need large town (2,000) and chariot archers, minor city (6,000). Horse archers cost 440, get shredded in a melee by chariot archers, barely outrun them, are just as manueverable, have fewer arrows and barely has half their missile rating (7 vs. 13). Persian cavalry fare better but are more expensive (780) than chariot archers. I won by taking advantage of my auto-replenishing general and sandwiching chariots between Persian cavalry. That and because the Seleucid AI is stupid, sending infantry army after infantry army that I'm building chevrons against. I lost tons of cavalry and camel riders attacking chariot archers from the flanks and the back. Their melee rating is that powerful.

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 :)

Ok, sorry I didn't make myself clear. 570 is for the chariot archers, who have the same mass for a charge as the weakest elephant version. The elephants have way more staying power but the chariots, from what I read in the files, and are actually more lethal in a melee and in a charge.

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.

You're the one making up rules as we go along. Rules that only you understand, agree with and follow. I believe that realism, historical accuracy and gameplay stand hand in hand. You may bend them here and there but you shouldn't completely break them and shatter them to pieces. Chariots aren't the only obsolete unit by this time frame. Phalanxes were as well. Their problem is being underpowered, however, both historically and gameplay wise. Again, if Egypt's units are obsolete by this time period, they could make it balanced by making them cheaper, a la MTW. They shouldn't make them both cheap and effective, however.

[Morindin]

You guys should check out the Realism Mod at TWcenter.
It tweaks and balances a lot of the factions, units( and removes the silly ones), and names. Egypt gets a big working over being completely changed to the Ptolemaic Empire, gaining more modern Egytian units, losing ancient ones, etc.

It also has numerous changes to the AI and includes the killspeed/run speed mods, I posted a link in the modding thread here.

On the discussion of balance here. I think single player is a poor way to judge the balance of a unit. For example, I had problems with Scythian chosen warband archers in single player. Is the unit "warband archer" overpowered? Probably not. It could have been the Scythian temple bonus that was overpowered, and nerfing the unit may nerf it for other races.

The best way to judge is multiplayer, if you're finding one unit there (where all things are equal) owning the battlefield in a combined arms situation (and not against its matchup) then yes it needs to be looked at. There is also the issue of histroical accuracy too, but Im no expert on that.

There is also the other side of the fence, a lot of people get their ass handed to them by a unit and cry out "unbalanced" because they simply dont know how to handle a particular unit, or let their opponent exercise the units strengths.
Units such as chariot archers do have a weakness, that is melee. But if you cant catch them you can never exploit their weakness, so really they dont. Playing against the AI you can trick it into being trapped in a melee (exploiting the skirmish feature), again, this is why singleplayer is a poor judge of balance. But multiplayer a human is not so stupid.

[andrewt]

Actually, the chariot archers are strong in a melee. I get significant losses attacking them from the back.

[Morindin]

Actually, the chariot archers are strong in a melee. I get significant losses attacking them from the back.

Well there you go.

[andrewt]

Ok. I'm off to find the modding thread here.

[Mr. Juice]

Actually, the chariot archers are strong in a melee. I get significant losses attacking them from the back.

I'll second that. Even my Bedouin Camels (which have bonuses in the desert, and more importantly to chariots) and 10 star general 30-50 unit cavalry take tremendous losses meleeing with Chariot Archers. They also lose just about every time they fight them one-on-one as well.