This is what I was referring to. Forgive me for not pointing it out.
Right. I see two broad cases:
In Case A, we see match-ups wherein Faction A and Faction B consistently field similar armies. Thankfully, this occurs more often due to inherent qualities rather than cost-effectiveness. These match-ups include Celt/Celt, Gallic/Gallic, Diadochi, and so on. It is clear why army compositions and units tend to be similar amongst these factions on the field.
In Case B, we see match-ups wherein Faction A and Faction B consistently field widely different armies. Again, this occurs due to inherent qualities. That is, for instance, the Aedui could not field a very similar army to that of Carthage simply because they do not 'own' the same troops.
Harkening (mind the U.S. spelling) back to an important note by our good friend Ludens...
...indeed they do. And thankfully, every player plays slightly differently, and every group of factions plays out differently on the field. So some of the worst case scenarios would be from Case A, where AS would fight Mak, for instance. The only saving grace in this case might be a Thraikan Peltast here and some eastern unit there, not to mention the differing playing styles and speeds of the opposing players.
OP: "How to make Western barbarian factions more balanced against Hellenic and Ea[stern factions]"
A combination of varying one's personal inventory of playing styles, adapting one's style to the faction of choice (e.g., one style for a Gaul, another for a steppe faction), varying one's army composition (as they say, to "spice things up", if you wish), and of course to partake in discussion on why certain units should be added or removed to certain factions on the so-called "Factional Unit Lists" (convenient nomenclature!)
Bookmarks