[EB] How to make Western barbarian factions more balanced against Hellenic and East

[WinsingtonIII]

IMO this is why I play the original RTW multi still with one of my friends but we havn't played EB much. While the vanilla game is gimmecky, thats fine for MP, I don't care that Arcani are historically inaccurate, I just want to hide them and at the right moment spring them on his archers while he wonders where they came from. Also, it is a little more balanced cost wise for the units.

Is it really more balanced? I haven't played in a while, but I always got the impression that beating the Romans with "barbarian" troops in MP was pretty difficult.

[vartan]

Is it really more balanced? I haven't played in a while, but I always got the impression that beating the Romans with "barbarian" troops in MP was pretty difficult.

Of course RTW isn't balanced. It's just as unbalanced as, for instance, Emperor: Battle for Dune. One example of a well-balanced, unmodified game is Starcraft: Broodwar, assuming you have the latest patch.

[VikingPower]

What if the Thracian peltasts should only be accessible to Getai and Macedon, while all the other hellenic powers must make use of their other units. Pontos should manage to use the galatians, Koinon hellenon the hoplites, Egypt the Kleitarchos, and so forth, for the Hellenic powers did have inferior flanking units in comparison to the western ones.
I also do not think it is fair that the Romans should access to so many merc units after they became an empire, for most other factions are only based upon their home-region while the Italians do get all the whole world as their recruiting pool. Maybe the Polybian era should be the real one for the Romans.

In regard to the Cretans then I think they are supposed to use a short bow, so I don't understand their long range in comparison to the composite bow of the east.

About the rock-paper-scissor thing then I think that historically then:

Western infantry factions beat the Hellenic, Hellenic phalangists beat the Nomads, the mobile Nomads beat the Western infantry.

[WinsingtonIII]

Western infantry factions beat the Hellenic, Hellenic phalangists beat the Nomads, the mobile Nomads beat the Western infantry.

How does this make sense? If this were Age of Empires, then sure, maybe that is how it would work, but in a game actually based on tactics instead of just stats, this doesn't make much sense. Celtic infantry should not defeat phalanxes in a head on fight. They should be able to defeat them when flanking, but head on they would not be able to break through. Phalanxes shouldn't beat Nomadic cavalry if the cavalry keeps its distance and wears them out before striking. The only aspect that is true in this is that "barbarian" infantry really have little chance against Nomadic cavalry unless they can corner them.

A rock, paper, scissors system only works in games like Starcraft where tactics are irrelevant and the only thing that matters are stats. It doesn't make sense to employ such a system in a Total War game because, for example, there is a huge difference between a rear charge and a frontal charge in TW games. Cavalry should be able to charge spears in the rear with great effect, but they should be devestated charging spears from the front. If you have a rock-paper-scissors system where spears always beat cavalry, then you remove any incentive to use smart tactics like flanking and rear charges.

[VikingPower]

Well the Macedonians had a good success in conquering the Persians and while the Hellenic powers lasted then there did not emerge any parthian power. However when the Romans arrived as a western infantry based faction then they had easy time conquering the Hellenic powers but failed against the parthians (but at later they did get the hang of beating the parthians AFTER they became imperial and had developed better cav and archers).

[vartan]

Well the Macedonians had a good success in conquering the Persians and while the Hellenic powers lasted then there did not emerge any parthian power. However when the Romans arrived as a western infantry based faction then they had easy time conquering the Hellenic powers but failed against the parthians (but at later they did get the hang of beating the parthians AFTER they became imperial and had developed better cav and archers).

Your points are understood. But it doesn't take away from the fact that we're talking about Real Time Tactics. Not Super Mario Bros. Not Starcraft. Not Age of Empires. Not Rock-Paper-Scissors.

[VikingPower]

I agree that this rock-paper-scissor thing does not apply with EB but I was merely pointing out how some factions had more advantage against others.

But I was just wondering whether it would add more flavour to battles if none of the players had an army which were strong all round but there would always be one factor lacking. Like for an example if barbarians lack a good archers, nomads lack a good infantry, and civilized factions lack a good cavalry, so that each player would have to show more flexibility in outmanouvering the opponent instead of just waiting idly in some guard mode and shooting with cretans.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Is it really more balanced? I haven't played in a while, but I always got the impression that beating the Romans with "barbarian" troops in MP was pretty difficult.

Well, there are still "superior" factions such as the Romans, Seleucids, and Egypt. However, its quite easy to formulate a strategy for say, Gaul which revolves around the wonderful Foresters which involves ranged superiority and forcing a disjointed attack, or as Germania and its incredibly killer Chosen Axemen. Because each faction has unique units that are particularly good at certain things, but also have counters, almost any faction can be used successfully.

Of course using Numidia, Dacia, or Spain requires more skill but again, still possible.

I'm currently working on something that you might find interesting Vartan. Its non scientific and open to incredible amounts of interpretation, and so you might debate whether it is worthwhile to begin with, but it is a listing of the units and costs in a spreadsheet according to class which I can easily reference moreso than say the unit comparison program imo, in hopes to rebalance MP a bit. Its a task, but finals will be over in another week and a half and I should have some spare time coming up before the holidays hit.

I've already redone the MP edu to make various factions a little more unique and limit mercenary recruitment where it makes sense. Mercenaries are wonderful for the campaign, but I believe unneeded in multi. There are enough unit choices as is. If you want Thracian Peltasts than play as Macedon or Getai. If anyone would want to take a look at what I have so far, I'll upload it shortly. Just putting some finishing tweaks on the document.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well, there are still "superior" factions such as the Romans, Seleucids, and Egypt. However, its quite easy to formulate a strategy for say, Gaul which revolves around the wonderful Foresters which involves ranged superiority and forcing a disjointed attack, or as Germania and its incredibly killer Chosen Axemen. Because each faction has unique units that are particularly good at certain things, but also have counters, almost any faction can be used successfully.

Fair enough, you'd know better than I would, I haven't played vanilla since 2005 (I think).

Well the Macedonians had a good success in conquering the Persians and while the Hellenic powers lasted then there did not emerge any parthian power. However when the Romans arrived as a western infantry based faction then they had easy time conquering the Hellenic powers but failed against the parthians (but at later they did get the hang of beating the parthians AFTER they became imperial and had developed better cav and archers).

The Achaemenid Persian Empire was not nomadic, it was settled. They employed some nomadic mercenaries, but they did not generally employ the nomadic strategy of simply running away from the enemy and leaving empty land in front of them. They couldn't employ this tactic because they had cities, unlike the nomads, who just pack up and leave. If Alexander had tried to conquer the steppes to the North of the Black and Caspian seas, I sincerely doubt he would have succeeded, because the nomads simply would have run away. It is certainly possible for an infantry based army to beat a steppe army, but if the steppe army does not want to give pitched battle, there's not much chance of winning.

[VikingPower]

Well, the Persians did emphasis much more upon a cavalry and archers in comparison to the Macedonians, even that they did not apply horse archers tactics.

[vartan]

Well, the Persians did emphasis much more upon a cavalry and archers in comparison to the Macedonians, even that they did not apply horse archers tactics.

Which is why the Macedonians adapted.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Hmmmm, I wanted to upload my custom MP edu but apparently the file is too big...

Solutions anyone who might be interested?

[vartan]

Hmmmm, I wanted to upload my custom MP edu but apparently the file is too big...

Solutions anyone who might be interested?

Simple: Don't attach files to the Forum! Use remote file hosting; there are many free solutions available on the Internet (there have been for many, many years; I used to host files myself!) FileFront is the only one that comes to mind, but Google is your saviour.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

http://www.mediafire.com/?4w1x3xsxng8m4m9

Hopefully that works

Quick guide to factions:
seleucid = SPQR
egypt = Kart Hadast
carthage = Pontos
gauls= Aedui
scythia = Arverni
britons= Casse
romans_brutii= Baktria
romans_scipii= Hai
romans_julii= Arche Seleukia
thrace= Epiros
macedon= Makedonia
greek_cities= KH
germans= Sweboz
spain= Lusotann
numidia= Ptolemies
dacia= Getai
armenia= Sarmatians
pontus= Saka
parthia= Pahlava

I think thats it. Take a look, let me know what you think. Its really quite simple to edit.