E.B. multiplayer (official)

**madmatg** · 10-09-2007, 11:29

just posted the first AAR in the AAR MP thread go check it out and play MP!

**Emperor Burakuku** · 10-09-2007, 11:42

OK. No limit on elites and elephantes then I agree. What about foot archers and HA? You dont want any limit for those? I mean, if my opponents plays a 20 Ha army I will play a 20 phalanx army and that's not EB. I'm not a bug fan of rules myself, but guys here say we need some rules for both realism and gameplay. I myself like to play with upgrades, but I've noticed that most of the guys don't. Also I like elites but the first few games I've played there was a max of 4 elites per army rule. What I am trying to say is that we need to go for some rules that would make everyone happy. I wll reedit my post now.

**mAIOR** · 10-09-2007, 12:53

Well, in an historical parthian army you'd have more than half the army with bows. So, it's realism.
AS for the elites I stated my point. you try and pit an army with just hypaspist against a balanced seleucid army. You'd loose big time.
The beauty of EB is that there are no units powerfull enough to win battles against a balanced army.

Cheers...

**Sarkiss** · 10-09-2007, 13:11

Originally Posted by mAIOR

Well, in an historical parthian army you'd have more than half the army with bows. So, it's realism.
AS for the elites I stated my point. you try and pit an army with just hypaspist against a balanced seleucid army. You'd loose big time.
The beauty of EB is that there are no units powerfull enough to win battles against a balanced army.

Cheers...

i agree with you on Nomads and Hay but disagree on the elites. i had a game against such an army and even though their right completely broke and routed the few remaining elites broke my left and stood their ground. they are better in a prolonged fight: better stamina, morale, attack/defence status, often more men per unit. so even though they were partially surrounded, my tired, inferior troops were eventually routed. was a close fight though and you need more than just an elite unit to win still, in a prolonged fight they prevail and more often than not its them who turn the tide of a battle.
my 2 cents.

**Emperor Burakuku** · 10-09-2007, 15:02

Originally Posted by mAIOR

Well, in an historical parthian army you'd have more than half the army with bows. So, it's realism.
AS for the elites I stated my point. you try and pit an army with just hypaspist against a balanced seleucid army. You'd loose big time.
The beauty of EB is that there are no units powerfull enough to win battles against a balanced army.

Cheers...

OK, I agree with you regarding nomads and archers in general. Though regarding elites can't agree. But there are elites and elites. For example, you can get 1 unit of Iberian Assault Inf for 2600 mnai with some armor and sword upgrades. That's not that expensive and trust me that for the same money 6 iberians (15600 mnai) can break 10 normal units if the player's skill allows it because if u manage to protect your flanks your iberians will kill faster and will also rout alot harder. No ideea why I argue about elites! I love them! :P

P.S I'm not trying to impose anyone what army to play with just trying to minimize spamming and maximize skill and realism.

**mAIOR** · 10-09-2007, 22:09

I understand. Nor am I. We are just debating :)
Now, it depends what you consider elites. For me, elites are the best of the best. For instance, Imperial legionaires are not elites on my terms however, they're extremely good professional troops.

Cheers...

**NeoSpartan** · 10-10-2007, 01:51

Ok for some reason my post didn't go through but here it is again:

--The 2-3 slingers is good, for now..... However if ur facing a HA army then is ok to get as many slingers/archers as you want.
--The elites cap is bs man. UNLESS we are playing with 50K or above you will not be able to afford a LOT of elites. Also, elites are hard but u gotta know how to beat them. Do not expect to just throw ur men at them, that works, but ur risking the rest of ur battle line.
--Now Up Grades.... here is my "Beef" with upgrades

I understand (as Mad explained to me and we tested) that upgrades have a proportional cost across untis. The cost will vary depending on the units # of men, and their attack/defense stats, but it will be propertional. Elite units have to pay more for thier upgrades than regular units, light units pay even less.

HOWEVER, the cost of the unit itself is NEITHER proportional, NOR balanced. Meaning, depending on the faction you are playing the given budject will dictate (1) How many units u can get (2) how many upgrades you can give. And unfortunaly the faction that has to pay the most for its army has less money to upgrade.

Let me give you an example:
-Aedui vs Imperial Romani, budget 40k (big $$ battle)
--The Aedui have a disadvantage when it comes to costs. Their normal units are rather cheap but are not great, the ONLY decetly costing unit (2200+) and has good stats are the Mori Gaesum, the rest are expensive (2600-3300) and they STILL get beat by Imp. Legions on a regular map. HOWEVER, Gallic heavy cavarly can beat Cavarly Auxilia. That, along with Geasatae scarying infantry, is the best thing the Gauls have going for them. But, due to the cost of thier units and the bad preformance of their normal units the Gallic army will usually be a few units short, or have a lot of normla not so good units.

--The Romani on the other had, have an easier time getting thier troops. Cheap but extremely good legions but decent cavarly. SO the smart ROmani player will upgrade thier cavarly to match/beat the Gallic one. This is made posible because he only has to pay 2400+ for an Imp. Legion, while the Gallic player had to pay 3200-3300 for a Soldurus, Cornetus, and Gaesatae, or pay 2600+ for a Neitos that is a not as good the previews three.

--So what ends up happeing, the Romani player can have a full stack of good units AND STILL have $$ left for upgrades. While the Gallic player will have to cut his army even shorter to afford the upgrades. On top of that, IF the Gallic players tries to upgrade his normal units they still will be no match to the Romani.

--As you can see, the faction with the most cost-to-benefit advantege ends up being given even a bigger advantege by updrades.

See where I am going with this...... Somebody is being made worst off.

NOW... HOLD ON A SECOND! THESE RULES SHOULD NOT BE WRITTEN IS STONE. BEFORE THE BATTLE PLAYERS CAN CHOOSE TO FOLLOW THEM OR MAKE THIER OWN!!!!

Something that could be done with regards to upgrades that I can live with (as I can tell I am really not a fan of MP upgrades) is after both sides have chosen thier armies. Give out $1000 extra solely to upgrade whatever units they will like. This way, the guy who has the "weaker" (that depends on the players skills and luck in the game) faction doesn't have to cut his army short to do upgrades.

**Emperor Burakuku** · 10-10-2007, 11:17

The upgrades can be fixed from the EDU file. Right now they're so unbalanced that carthaginian phalanx's upgrade for armour is only 100 mnai while the makedonian elite phalanx costs 691 mnai for upgrading armour. We should try to fix that when 1.0 comes up.