Why do certain players think that some factions are underpowered?

**Treverer** · 11-12-2007, 17:53

Hello,

having seen at least two or three threads having the title "Why is faction XYZ underpowered", I wonder why certain EB-players come to that conclusion. Well, I've read enough posts or AARs from people playing with the complete range of factions and I've noticed that most players get better along with certain factions than with others (I for example like to play with some of the Hellenic/Eastern Hellenic/Eastern factions. I get along with them, though I'm still far away from being a "Good Tactician/Leader of Men" etc.).

Well, back to topic: I cannot agree with those hypothesis(ae ?). Why do certain players conquer half of the map with those underpowered factions? Are they cheating? Or are they just using their economics/troops/diplomacy in a better way than others?

No offence, but I was just wondering why ...

Yours,
Treverer

**konny** · 11-12-2007, 18:09

I think those threads are just the result of a particular battle that the player has lost with a faction with which he thought he must always win.

In fact there are no underpowered or overpowered factions. Everyone of them has low end militias, that will be cut to pieces most of the times, and high end elites, that can win against anybody. Some units' stats are debatable when the AI starts spamming them, for example the naked fanatics, that can even make the early Celts invincible, provided half of the army is composed of them.

**TWFanatic** · 11-12-2007, 18:09

For one or more of the following reasons:

1. They play on low difficulty levels.
2. They are very good players.
3. They cheat.

When I just started EB, I loved playing as Rome and kicking everyone's behind. I've come to enjoy the more challenging factions though (Makedonia, KH, Nomads) on VH/H. When you defeat the grand army of Pyrrhus as Makedon with an army consisting of mainly militia and light troops, and only a small core of heavy cavalry and veteran pezhetairoi, on a challenging level, then it means something. When you rout the host of Antigonus and his heir with a rag-tag band of old-school hoplites and skirmishers, the feeling is far better than that of crushing a weaker opponent. To fight when you are on the brink of disaster and have (according to computer) an impossibly thin chance of victory, and yet prevail, that is what I find thrilling.

So yeah I like the "underpowered" factions.

**Treverer** · 11-12-2007, 18:38

Originally Posted by TWFanatic

To fight when you are on the brink of disaster and have (according to computer) an impossibly thin chance of victory, and yet prevail, that is what I find thrilling.

Yep, won a battle at Taras with each one levy hoplite, hoplite (both no upgrade, no chevrons), archer & slinger unit (both upgrade and one chevron) against ... ehm, hmmm, ... three Romans: two Reserve Skirmishers (they weren't my problem at all) and one Triarii (having 2 or 3 chevrons & amour upgrade). Well, my loses were beyond good and evil, but in the end the Triarii routed. Yes!

And now:

**Long lost Caesar** · 11-12-2007, 18:43

well i suppose its how the player views a unit when they finally get their hands on em. i personally used to think celtic slingers were the shiz, but when it came to actually using them, the effect left much to be desired. it all depends on what you expect, and the results you get.

**russia almighty** · 11-12-2007, 19:03

They fail at life .

**Tellos Athenaios** · 11-12-2007, 21:08

Well what Long Lost Caesar posted is a prime example: dissapointment. He was dissapointed about the Iosatae; I on the other hand think they are the single best slinger unit of the entire game. I find the Balearic slingers to be dissapointing - I guess someone else thinks them to be the very best.

**CirdanDharix** · 11-12-2007, 18:10

Well, back to topic: I cannot agree with those hypothesis(ae ?). Why do certain players conquer half of the map with those underpowered faction? Are they cheating? Or are they just using their economics/troops/diplomacy in a better way than others?

To be honest, the player is overpowered as a faction leader, compared to the AI. The battle AI in particular is very poor, I've had battles where it seemed to just mill around ineffectually while my archers emptied their quivers, even the AI's missile troops kept marching about without even returning fire. And when I did charge in for the kill, the AI soldiers were tired from having marched about without purpose. Formation mods seem to help avert this kind of behaviour, but the AI is stupid and hardcoded.

So really, any experienced player, provided he can survive at the start of the game, will be able to conquer half the map. It's the beginning which can be hard, and that's where factions matter. But no-one has made an AAR where they were killed within the first ten turns...

**Elminster12** · 11-12-2007, 18:36

They make such assertions through flippancy. They perhaps fail to read the FAQ, fail to read about the game, consider themselves good at vanilla, and ignore the challenge ratings factions have. They boot up the Parthians or whatever else, expecting to steamroll, but they start in a bewildering amount of debt in what is a very tough position. Everything is more expensive, and they declare it impossible. I remember once in vanilla I tried Dacia and gave up because I thought it was too hard. I remind myself of that whenever I need a RTW-related laugh, as I now shoulder much more difficult circumstance and much bigger debts with ease. I play on H/M: VH is just cheap, IMO.