Why do certain players think that some factions are underpowered?

[konny]

And that would be the first one for me to subscribe.

[TWFanatic]

I do find it funny that Gaesatae have 5 armor and two hitpoints. It's not as if they have an armored **** or literal "buns of steel." Besides, it was missiles in the end that led to their defeat at Telamon according to Polybius. I don't think Polybius would agree with the missile-resistance of the Gaesatae in EB.

Just one of the many elements of the EDU file that I couldn't resist editing.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Personally I'm waiting for the "Eleutheroi overpowered?" thread.

Well we already have had a couple of the "WTF, the Eleutheroi kicked my ass!!!" threads & posts though.

[blank]

That depends very much of the situation.

When you have the money to either field for example two units of Phalangitai Deuteroi or one unit of Argyraspides you should always decide for the cheaper, weaker units because two of them will certainly beat one elite unit of the same type. That can be when you are short of money/income per turn or need to field more than one main stack at a time.

When you have enough money or, due to the strategic situation, can limited yourself to one main army, the 20-slots limit becomes more important. In this situation you should always take the better unit, even if the cost-efficinecy isn't as good because of the much higher price with only slightly better stats.

That doesn't apply to units that are too different in strength though - for example, one unit of Spartan hoplites could kick the arses of quite several levy hoplites, also one unit of Gaesatae could take on many, many low-class units

[konny]

That doesn't apply to units that are too different in strength though - for example, one unit of Spartan hoplites could kick the arses of quite several levy hoplites

Are you sure? I wouldn't say so.

also one unit of Gaesatae could take on many, many low-class units

As a passionate Rome and Sweboz player, I would say 'no' to this one too. For example a unit of Hastati plus a unit of Peltastai are able to butcher a unit of Gaesatae.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I must warn you the low class definition seems to get a bit broad there... Peltastai aren't low class; Hastati usually aren't either. Peltastai are Pezhetarioi class, mind you.

[konny]

I don't think that blank was refering to social classes.

[blank]

I don't think that blank was refering to social classes.

I meant units like Hoplitai Haploi (i have taken out several of these even with a unit of classical hoplites, so Spartans shouldn't really be a question), and Lugoae (Gaesatae can take on quite several of these guys)

[Sakkura]

I must warn you the low class definition seems to get a bit broad there... Peltastai aren't low class; Hastati usually aren't either. Peltastai are Pezhetarioi class, mind you.

Hmm, as far as frontline infantry goes, peltastai and to some extent hastati (camillan?) would IMO be low class. However, compared to skirmishers their melee abilities are of course superior.

[konny]

I meant units like Hoplitai Haploi (i have taken out several of these even with a unit of classical hoplites, so Spartans shouldn't really be a question), and Lugoae (Gaesatae can take on quite several of these guys)

With Lugoae we have reached the very bottom (if not, butt) of the Celtic line up: I even was able to exterminate two units of Lugoae with one unit of Leuce Epos. I can't recall any faction or unit that I had ever seen in trouble when facing Lugoae (ok, I hadn't tried them against Pantodapoi).

The Hoplite fight is another story. You had done so, but there isn't a guarantee with it. Two units of Haploi are certainly able to win against one unit of Classicals, provided all three have the same experince and upgrades. They must not everytime, but they will if used the correct way (that is overlapping both flanks of the Hoplites).

In my example (2x Phalangitai Deuteroi vs. 1x Argyraspides) it should be clearer: as long as you do not have both Deuteroi standing behind each other you will get in one flank of the Argyraspides, what they won't survive, regardless of their stats.

[Geoffrey S]

In my example (2x Phalangitai Deuteroi vs. 1x Argyraspides) it should be clearer: as long as you do not have both Deuteroi standing behind each other you will get in one flank of the Argyraspides, what they won't survive, regardless of their stats.

That's because they have an entirely different purpose: stick them in the main line, and they will hold it a lot longer than other phalanx units. They are to be used as an anchor for the main line, not an elite that breaks the enemy.

[konny]

That's because they have an entirely different purpose: stick them in the main line, and they will hold it a lot longer than other phalanx units.

They will not hold the line against two other phalanxes, that's the point. It doesn't matter that they will hold out longer than any other Phalanx in the given situation before they break.

[Geoffrey S]

They will not hold the line against two other phalanxes, that's the point. It doesn't matter that they will hold out longer than any other Phalanx in the given situation before they break.

Did you even read what I said? They are meant to be used in the main battle line as any other phalanx unit, where they will usually not face more than one enemy unit except if the rest of the line collapses, not alone against too many opponents. They do exactly what other phalanx units but better and more reliably, but suffer from exactly the same fatal problem, namely vulnerability to flank attacks. Use them to either hold a strong central part of the line, or as an anchor on one or both of the flanks for cavalry to attack around.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't get it. They are meant to hold the main line - not to form a main line. So they aren't quite as useful on their own; but work wonders in conjuction with other - lesser phalanx units. (Simply put: you can afford to have lower quality phalanx troops if you make sure to have a couple of those extremely stiff back bone units too.)

Elite units aren't for making up an entire army of them; elite units are for supplying the army with additional punch and resilience.

[konny]

Did you even read what I said? ....

You are absolutly missing the point of this discussion. How to use a phalanx is not the topic, but if it is preferable to raise two medicore units instead of one elite.



But since you insist on talking of phalanx warfare:

They are meant to be used in the main battle line as any other phalanx unit, where they will usually not face more than one enemy unit except if the rest of the line collapses, not alone against too many opponents.

The enemy phalanx in my example is 8 units long while yours numbers just 4 of (better) units. How do you manage to have each of your phalanxes to face just one of the enemy phalanx? The units on the wings are facing two enemy phalanxes each and there is still one more enemy phalanx standing next to these flankers to fight off your mobile forces and cavalry, what the enemy has too.

This tactical nightmare is achived by deciding for Phalangitai Deuteroi instead of Argyraspides.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

In my opinion, anything more than Deuteroi level phalanxes against non-phalanx enemies is a waste of money.

Against other Diadochoi, maybe I can get some Pezhetairoi, but the Deuteroi seem to hold the line enough until I can hit them with my cavalry. Cavalry, not UBER phalanxes, is my greatest asset when fighting against Diadochi, KH or anyone that uses phalanxes broadly.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Uhm... Konny you seem to be talking purely theory, and practical issues be discarded.

Now on the other hand consider this. 20 units = 20 units?

At some stage you will reach the luxury of affording elite troops. Then the choice is yours: do you make an army of 20 crappy units and another army of 20 equally crappy units? Or do you go the other way around: dividing your elite forces over multiple armies and adding some manpower in the form of crappy units?

That way you'll likely end up with two armies of 15 units each... Respectable armies at that. And I would take the 15 unit armies over the 20 unit ones - because a lil' math tells me the unit ratio is 3:4 which is quite possible to win. Then consider the 3 units have 1 unit which is good enough to hold 2 from the front (and therefore can be spread over a much larger area if need be)... I do think the 3 would beat the 4 hands down.

(A frequent strategy I use against the numerous but crappy stacks of AI levies: make sure to have your main line a bit curved so the AI will need to maintain a longer line than you have (unit wise) to avoid being outflanked from the get go. (Elite) phalanx units are particularly useful for this kind of tactics.)

[Geoffrey S]

I think Tellos Athenaios has said pretty much all there is to say, but...

You are absolutly missing the point of this discussion. How to use a phalanx is not the topic, but if it is preferable to raise two medicore units instead of one elite.

The enemy phalanx in my example is 8 units long while yours numbers just 4 of (better) units. How do you manage to have each of your phalanxes to face just one of the enemy phalanx? The units on the wings are facing two enemy phalanxes each and there is still one more enemy phalanx standing next to these flankers to fight off your mobile forces and cavalry, what the enemy has too.

This tactical nightmare is achived by deciding for Phalangitai Deuteroi instead of Argyraspides.

...who's talking about one elite against two mediocre units, or four against eight? They're not meant to be cost effective, they're meant to be available when enough money is available to replace one of the mediocre units. Elites are not massively better than regulars but they can make all the difference when used in a regular battle line.

And in history, that's what elites did: they were a minority in a regular line, holding a particular (often crucial) part of it or used for breaking a specific part of the enemy line. So, not only are you missing the point of this discussion, I think you're also missing the point of elites in armies.

[Frostwulf]

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

For me Treverer it was that EB wanted to make the units as historical as possible. It's not so much a faction issue for me as it is a historical unit accuracy issue. I felt from my readings that there were some inaccuracies in the Celtic units and some minor ones of the German units.

[konny]

...who's talking about one elite against two mediocre units, or four against eight?

Sakkura, Blank and me from post #25 of this thread onward. I am sorry that you managed to miss the enitre discussion that you joined in, but I can't help it: phalanxes were a pure example.


The same is for Tellos Athenaios:

At some stage you will reach the luxury of affording elite troops. Then the choice is yours: do you make an army of 20 crappy units and another army of 20 equally crappy units? Or do you go the other way around: dividing your elite forces over multiple armies and adding some manpower in the form of crappy units?

It would be helpfull if you take the time to read the previous posts of this discussion (it's not a 20 pages thread after all), then you might not start teaching me things that I had allready pointed out on the previous page:

That depends very much of the situation.

When you have the money to either field for example two units of Phalangitai Deuteroi or one unit of Argyraspides you should always decide for the cheaper, weaker units because two of them will certainly beat one elite unit of the same type. That can be when you are short of money/income per turn or need to field more than one main stack at a time.

When you have enough money or, due to the strategic situation, can limited yourself to one main army, the 20-slots limit becomes more important. In this situation you should always take the better unit, even if the cost-efficinecy isn't as good because of the much higher price with only slightly better stats.

[Cyclops]

I enjoy this mod so much because there is quite a good balance and if I don't like it they tell me how to mod stats.

I particularly like it when I make a mistake and the AI makes me pay. I look back at a bloody nose the Eleutheroi gave my Epirotes in Patavium, and I feel satisfaction at the victory I took in round 2 with the same units plus 2 mercs hired to counter their Gesaetae.

As a historical simulation it does an enjoyable job given the hard-coded limits, and gives a good idea why people in 272 felt the Antigonids were easy meat and Pyhrros was on track to be Big Al 2.

[Michaelis]

They have 5 armour, what makes them one of the best armoured units in the early Celtic army. Against them you need AP missles to achieve a visible effect (slingers, pila)

I'm blown away. From the post quoted above, and one earlier on in this thread, I surmise that in EB, slingers use armour piercing projectiles and archers do not. Is this really true? Please tell me it isn't, that I got things wrong, because it should be exactly the other way around.

[Sakkura]

I'm blown away. From the post quoted above, and one earlier on in this thread, I surmise that in EB, slingers use armour piercing projectiles and archers do not. Is this really true? Please tell me it isn't, that I got things wrong, because it should be exactly the other way around.

It is true. Sling bullets generally fare better against armored opponents than arrows, although of course there are many variables involved.

[abou]

I do find it funny that Gaesatae have 5 armor and two hitpoints. It's not as if they have an armored **** or literal "buns of steel." Besides, it was missiles in the end that led to their defeat at Telamon according to Polybius. I don't think Polybius would agree with the missile-resistance of the Gaesatae in EB.

Just one of the many elements of the EDU file that I couldn't resist editing.

That armor is from the helmet, which is what many infantry get. Something like 4 for the helmet and 1 for the cheek pieces.

[NeoSpartan]

Why do certain players think that some factions are overpowered?

Honestly I am not 100% sure but I have seen some common trends in "underpowered/overpowered" threads, I'll list a few:

-Levy Pike unit X is stronger than spear/sword elite unit Y. For some reason, I believe due to playing mods that allowed infantry to literaly walk through pikes, a bunch of people posted about this. Not realizing that u DO NOT win a frontal attack on a ready pike formation with a melee unit.

-Pretorian much should be stonger than Cohort Imperatoria. A lot of people asume that a Pretorian was always a better soldier than a regular legionary, although this was the case for a short while, the norm became that Pretorians were legions recruited in ITALY. Thats it. They got a little better pay and a little better armor, but they rarely saw any combat. Exept for riots and Civil Wars. Regular legionaries in imperial times were recruited from the provinces.
----for the record I do a agree that Evocata should be notched up a bit more. Along with cost.

-Faction X beat faction Y in the time frame of so&so BC to so&so BC. Therefore Faction X > Y throughout the entire EB timelime. Here some people assume that historicaly since a faction X beat faction Y in so&so BC it follows that the units of faction X should be able to beat the units of faction Y. Well here context and other factors that weakened/strenghtened either faction tend to be ignored, and a simple "soldiers from X where ALWAYS stronger than soldiers from Y" argument is used. Unfortunatly u cannot say this because it ignores other issues affecting the outcome of wars. Its like saying US tanks in WWII were better than in German tanks in WWII becuse historically the Germans lost WWII....When infact it was the opposite and there were MANY other factors that hindered German armor against the US/Britain in 1944/45.

-....and.... DANG IT! I had one more and it just slipped my mind when I remember it I'll post.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

-Pretorian much should be stonger than Cohort Imperatoria. A lot of people asume that a Pretorian was always a better soldier than a regular legionary, although this was the case for a short while, the norm became that Pretorians were legions recruited in ITALY. Thats it. They got a little better pay and a little better armor, but they rarely saw any combat. Exept for riots and Civil Wars. Regular legionaries in imperial times were recruited from the provinces.

Truly, Praetorians supposedly did get more training than Cohors Imperatoria, even though their combat experience was smaller. And their extra armour should be better represented as they really have more armour than the Cohors Imperatoria and are depicted in game as so.

[CirdanDharix]

Did you even read what I said? They are meant to be used in the main battle line as any other phalanx unit, where they will usually not face more than one enemy unit except if the rest of the line collapses, not alone against too many opponents. They do exactly what other phalanx units but better and more reliably, but suffer from exactly the same fatal problem, namely vulnerability to flank attacks. Use them to either hold a strong central part of the line, or as an anchor on one or both of the flanks for cavalry to attack around.

Use Argyraspidai to anchor the flanks, if your centre caves in you bring your flanks together to perform the classic double envelopment. It worked for Militiades and Hannibal, it works for me, it will work for you. The only time I'd consider positioning my elites in the centre is if I'm badly outnumbered and gambling on a rapid breakthrough, not something I'm comfortable with. Of course, if the elites aren't in the battle-line but in reserve, then I usually place them in the centre, unless I anticipate being outflanked by cavalry.


To reply to the "1 elite vs. 2 levies" debate, I've certainly betaten two units of Hoplitai Haploi with one of Epilektoi Hoplitai, and also one unit of Hoplitai Haploi and one of Phalangiti Deteroi with the same unit of Epilektoi Hoplitai bodyguards. However, it was a difficult fight, if my opponent had been an experienced human rather than the AI, I certainly would have lost.

[Maeran]

Personally I'm waiting for the "Eleutheroi overpowered?" thread.

Absolutely! They get Polybian Equites right from the start of the game.

[Watchman]

That armor is from the helmet, which is what many infantry get. Something like 4 for the helmet and 1 for the cheek pieces.

Yup. The Nekkid Men have armour values entirely in line with other Celtic infantry (or for that matter nigh any infantry) whose only actual armour consists of a decent helmet; compare to the other similarly equipped longswordsmen (eg. the Northern types and the Belgae equivalent) to see the pattern.

[J.Alco]

Myself, the only thing I'm going to say on this topic is this:

In my opinion, EVERY faction in EB is overpowered!

Thus, there is balance after all, since all factions are equally overpowered.

Everybody's happy!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

P.S
Note the tongue-in-cheek approach