[EB] EDU Balance Proposals

[Lazy O]

Erm... Yea, majority are porrly armored.

[Kival]

Indeed. They have three units with armor above 10, one unit with 6 armor and the rest is below 4 armor with most having only 1 or 2 armor. They suffer the most from reducing of club lethality and increasing of jav-attack. Though this changes are reasonable for itself, they are making sweboz the more useless. Perhaps we should think about increasing the shield value for all big shields. It would help the poorly armoured sweboz and similar units which have a big shield which should give some decent protection vs missiles.

[vartan]

Would this be a deviation from the consistency we've adhered to so far, where all units of all factions with a certain shield/size get a certain shield value? i.e., will the changes be Sweboz-exclusive? I suppose they would have to be in order to "fix" the Sweboz, no? since applying the same bonuses to others would only bring us back to square 1...I think.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Well the difference between Sweboz and Gauls should go a little like this imo. Gauls are better armored, Sweboz are more disciplined. Unfortunately, we have a situation where armor basically trumps all, especially with archers being so powerful. Therefore, the extra discipline doesn't help them all that much.

[Kival]

Would this be a deviation from the consistency we've adhered to so far, where all units of all factions with a certain shield/size get a certain shield value? i.e., will the changes be Sweboz-exclusive? I suppose they would have to be in order to "fix" the Sweboz, no? since applying the same bonuses to others would only bring us back to square 1...I think.

I'd give all units with big shields a better shield bonus and I don't think that it needs to be sweboz exlusive to help them. In fact nearly all sweboz units have big shields, so it would help them much against missiles (face to face) which are the biggest problem for sweboz. In melee it would not help so much as other factions would have better shield values too (though not all have so big shields). Sweboz specific changes should be according to historical evidence as gamegeek suggested: Good levy units together with nearly elite retainer units. The retainer units would need better stats in skill and attack (and morale?) but this alone would not help the missile problem. We should also try to evaluate why their elites are not as useful as they should be (if my impression here is true).

Sweboz would still be highly vulnerable to missiles from the side and back but it would not be possible to devastate them with missiles face-to-face.

---

By the way I don't see the forest problem. Nearly all factions have (not only) barbarian auxiliaries which have wood fighting boni so if the players really play in a somewhat forested place they can bring those. It's also a tactical consideration in a slightly forested map not to go in the forest against sweboz and co.: what's the problem with it?

[antisocialmunky]

I'm not buying it until you tell me how often you fight on a map with more than 1% tree coverage.

http://ebwiki.tk/wiki/Category:Maps

We did it for fun :]

[Kival]

Though gamegeek improved the thracian cavalry and they are very viable as "light" heavy cavalry Getais do not have there historical cavalry in multiplayer because of the small numbers of bodyguard cavalry.

]The strong ties developed between royalty and the ktistai priesthood made these zealots the perfect recruitement basin for the king's guards. The beltistai's loyalty is unquestionable and their ferocity unmatched.

Historically, the numbers of these guards would have been greater than presented in-game, thus acting as a nucleus for the royal cavalry. (...)(

I'd suggest increased numbers for the getai bg unit to represent that and give them at least one cavalry unit with defense over 25. The best would be to make an additional non-bg unit of Phylakes Daoi but I fear that's not possible.

[Lazy O]

That is very possible. EB does not fulfill all unit slots iirc.

[vartan]

That is very possible. EB does not fulfill all unit slots iirc.

Where have you been?

[Lazy O]

Under a rock.

[raest]

i'm not sure if it was intended (or even if i'm posting in the right thread since it seems there's no thread for the 2.1.1 EDU) but i noticed that the Ambakaro have not received a boost to their javelin attack, unlike their mounted counterpart. the Jugunthiz also seem to be forgotten, as was the Taxilan Agema.

and while we're at it, is there some specific reason why some Celtic units received no charge bonus (i mean, if it hard to believe that lowly units like batacorii or batroas have more charge than pictones and eiras)?

[Lazy O]

Ambakaro are not skirmishers, they are elite troops.

[raest]

Ambakaro are not skirmishers, they are elite troops.

the same could be said of the Pheraspidai.. i mean "Peltastai" Makedonikoi. they're elite the assault troops of the Hypaspistai, not skirmishers (dunno why they changed their name). and a similar case could be made for the Komatai Epilektoi

[The Celtic Viking]

and a similar case could be made for the Komatai Epilektoi

Elite skirmishers are not skirmishers?

[raest]

Elite skirmishers are not skirmishers?

as you may have noticed, the english translations (or even the actual unit names) may deviate from the actual purpose of the unit. if you bothered to read the actual description of the unit at hand, you may have noticed that nowhere does it state that they were actual skirmishers like their lesser brethren, but actually light line infantry. plus, as the sentenced you have quoted explicitly states, i said "similar case" (not the same) and "could" as in "if one wished, one could (like i just did)" nothing else. just sayin'

EDIT: although, to be fair, there are instances of the unit description being quite a bit different than than the actual model ingame (like the thracian prodromoi mentioning shields when there are none on the model, or the lucanians mentioning knives when in fact they're equipped with spears)

[Lazy O]

Your point is...?

[The Celtic Viking]

as you may have noticed, the english translations (or even the actual unit names) may deviate from the actual purpose of the unit. if you bothered to read the actual description of the unit at hand, you may have noticed that nowhere does it state that they were actual skirmishers like their lesser brethren, but actually light line infantry. plus, as the sentenced you have quoted explicitly states, i said "similar case" (not the same) and "could" as in "if one wished, one could (like i just did)" nothing else. just sayin'

EDIT: although, to be fair, there are instances of the unit description being quite a bit different than than the actual model ingame (like the thracian prodromoi mentioning shields when there are none on the model, or the lucanians mentioning knives when in fact they're equipped with spears)

Well, unit descriptions really mean nothing for GG2's stating; in fact, some changes go directly to contradict unit descriptions. This isn't something I defend - it's just how it is.

In any case, I've read their description and I don't see anything contradicting their use as better skirmishers. In fact, considering that this is Getai, their description specifies hit-and-run tactics and that they can stand in the battle line, I would see it as perfectly fair to interpret them as such.

Your point is...?

His point is surely that if the skirmisher bonus is applied to one non-skirmisher unit, by what criteria do you deny it to others?

[Lazy O]

I do not think that was intended. Non Skirmishers are not supposed to get the bonus, that is, javeling units without the Skirmish mode option

[raest]

Well, unit descriptions really mean nothing for GG2's stating; in fact, some changes go directly to contradict unit descriptions. This isn't something I defend - it's just how it is.

In any case, I've read their description and I don't see anything contradicting their use as better skirmishers. In fact, considering that this is Getai, their description specifies hit-and-run tactics and that they can stand in the battle line, I would see it as perfectly fair to interpret them as such.

it says that Getai had a penchant for hit-and-run (as kind of a "historical excuse" for lightly armoured elite line/ambusher/flanker units). by that same logic, the Ambakaro should also get the skirmisher bonus since the Lusos are prone to hit-and-run and ambushing tactics, or at least the Caetrannan (since it even mentions they were ideal skirmishers due to their light equipment and usual tactics. and no, they don't get the +2 skirm bonus. hell, they didn't even get the +1 like the balearics). anyway, i can "let slide" the Ambakaro (and totally disagree with the Makedonikoi and Epilektoi), but i really don't understand the omission of the javelin bonus to the other 2 (and digging a bit more i saw that the Balearic Light got only +1 and not +2 and they are a light infantry/skirmisher unit), or the barbarian charge bonus deliberately applied to some units and not to others with no apparent reason

His point is surely that if the skirmisher bonus is applied to one non-skirmisher unit, by what criteria do you deny it to others?

something like that, yeah. or maybe even, "how do you differentiate light/assault infantry with 6 ammo from "real" skirmishers"

I do not think that was intended. Non Skirmishers are not supposed to get the bonus, that is, javeling units without the Skirmish mode option

neither the epilektoi nor the makedonikoi have the Skirmish mode option

[Vega]

I am suggesting to increase Cohort Pilla atack by +1, its stupid that most famous roman javelin have atack 4.... I think that this suggestion is fair because Carthage Iberians have pilla atack 5

[vartan]

Raest you make a point which I agree with. And TCV gg2 has actually come to me more than once with why a certain unit's stats should be altered because of such and such a line in their descriptions. I think he did this recently with some Lusitanian units, that were in some sort of cult of devotion and that they would fight to the death. And so he gave them a morale rating that I completely disagree with, but it's from the description. Now the description doesn't read, "Notice to all modders: You may want to increase the morale of this unit to 25 sometime in the near future." Rather, it's his interpretation of the historical description.

Regarding some units gaining a jav bonus and some not. Here's how it works. If the unit has a skirmishing ability and it's clearly noted as a skirmisher, it got the bonus. Some units I initially forgot and Kival spotted them and fixed those for me. But a unit which has only a couple of javelins that is intended to be a front line warrior that may be used as a skirmisher does not make it a 24/7 skirmisher, so to speak. As for the Germanic skirmishers (Jugunthiz), you're completely right. It's one of those that neither I nor Kival spotted. I'm sorry about that. If it is any consolation (though no real excuse), these bonuses will really be of no consequence within a month's worth of time if we're able to release a new EDU balancing system. That would not necessarily be using all of these arbitrary bonuses we're currently using. Does that help explain?

I am suggesting to increase Cohort Pilla atack by +1, its stupid that most famous roman javelin have atack 4.... I think that this suggestion is fair because Carthage Iberians have pilla atack 5

AP weaponry is meant to have a lower attack (roughly accuracy of striking) rating than its non-AP counterparts for obvious reasons. At the end of the day, the minor difference in attack rating is negligible because the effectively higher lethality (due to AP) more than makes up for it, by far, as seen in many cases with AP usage. Same applies to the pila, except only a couple are thrown and that's that, so you don't see prolonged use of them and the outcome of their effects as you would with melee AP weaponry for extended periods of time.

[raest]

Raest you make a point which I agree with. And TCV gg2 has actually come to me more than once with why a certain unit's stats should be altered because of such and such a line in their descriptions. I think he did this recently with some Lusitanian units, that were in some sort of cult of devotion and that they would fight to the death. And so he gave them a morale rating that I completely disagree with, but it's from the description. Now the description doesn't read, "Notice to all modders: You may want to increase the morale of this unit to 25 sometime in the near future." Rather, it's his interpretation of the historical description.

Regarding some units gaining a jav bonus and some not. Here's how it works. If the unit has a skirmishing ability and it's clearly noted as a skirmisher, it got the bonus. Some units I initially forgot and Kival spotted them and fixed those for me. But a unit which has only a couple of javelins that is intended to be a front line warrior that may be used as a skirmisher does not make it a 24/7 skirmisher, so to speak. As for the Germanic skirmishers (Jugunthiz), you're completely right. It's one of those that neither I nor Kival spotted. I'm sorry about that. If it is any consolation (though no real excuse), these bonuses will really be of no consequence within a month's worth of time if we're able to release a new EDU balancing system. That would not necessarily be using all of these arbitrary bonuses we're currently using. Does that help explain?

thanks for the explanation. i totally get the "his interpretation of historical description" and that's exactly why i was asking, to see if it's just a matter of disagreement over the interpretation or if it was a mistake that slipped past QC ;)

RE: skirmishing ability
iirc, if a unit has the "prec" attribute it doesn't have skirmishing, correct? well, Makedonikoi Peltastai and Komatai Epilektoi do have said attribute/cannot skirmish but they still got the bonus, that's why i asked why other units that cannot skirmish but have lots of ammo (i.e. 6; some might say a "skirmishing amount of ammo" ;)) did not receive the javelin +2 bonus (among them are the Ambakaro (which seemed weird to me since its mounted counterpart got the bonus), Caetranann, Gestikapoinann, Balearic Light Inf (they received only one) and the Taxilan Agema) and was curious behind the rationale for the "barbarian charge bonus" of some celtic units (or more appropriately, the lack of it :)), chief among them the Eiras and Pictone Neitos (since the former are quite elite and relatively similar to the Calawre which got a substantial bonus of +4, while the latter are noted in the description to have had a powerful charge)

it was mostly out of curiosity since i'm using a custom EDU for singleplayer that's for the great part based on this one (for now i do not play MP online but i though others that do might want to know about such minor details, so that they can be more easily addressed for a future version)

[Burebista]

thanks for the explanation. i totally get the "his interpretation of historical description" and that's exactly why i was asking, to see if it's just a matter of disagreement over the interpretation or if it was a mistake that slipped past QC ;)

RE: skirmishing ability
iirc, if a unit has the "prec" attribute it doesn't have skirmishing, correct? well, Makedonikoi Peltastai and Komatai Epilektoi do have said attribute/cannot skirmish but they still got the bonus, that's why i asked why other units that cannot skirmish but have lots of ammo (i.e. 6; some might say a "skirmishing amount of ammo" ;)) did not receive the javelin +2 bonus (among them are the Ambakaro (which seemed weird to me since its mounted counterpart got the bonus), Caetranann, Gestikapoinann, Balearic Light Inf (they received only one) and the Taxilan Agema) and was curious behind the rationale for the "barbarian charge bonus" of some celtic units (or more appropriately, the lack of it :)), chief among them the Eiras and Pictone Neitos (since the former are quite elite and relatively similar to the Calawre which got a substantial bonus of +4, while the latter are noted in the description to have had a powerful charge)

it was mostly out of curiosity since i'm using a custom EDU for singleplayer that's for the great part based on this one (for now i do not play MP online but i though others that do might want to know about such minor details, so that they can be more easily addressed for a future version)

1. you can use the Komatai Epilektoi to shower the enemy with javelins in a skirmish-like manner . try doing that with Ambarako. They will be focused down ASAP due to lack of shield. this unit is not made for skirmishing , but for full-on combat against highly armoured elites or heavy spearmen
1.a Balearic light infantry have the largest jav range in the whole game. I do not think that they should surpass numidian skirms in attack for example

2.on the barbarian charge bonus , i agree for the Eiras and the pictone neitos.

[raest]

1. you can use the Komatai Epilektoi to shower the enemy with javelins in a skirmish-like manner . try doing that with Ambarako. They will be focused down ASAP due to lack of shield. this unit is not made for skirmishing , but for full-on combat against highly armoured elites or heavy spearmen
1.a Balearic light infantry have the largest jav range in the whole game. I do not think that they should surpass numidian skirms in attack for example

1. i'm not sure i follow... the Ambakaro do have a shield (only -1 compared to the Epilektoi) and a significantly higher armour than the Epilektoi (overall only slightly inferior to the Makedonikoi, but significantly higher morale)

1.a) also the Hyrkanian Hillmen, Tabargane Eranshar, Ambakaro, Iabarannta all have the same range (and the Iabarannta have a better attack by 1), while it's explicitly stated that the Balearics were elite skirmishers and outstanding mercenaries so i don't see why they shouldn't have the same attack value (derived from that +2 bonus) as the Iberian Ambushers and Numidian javelinmen

[Kival]

The change of the elite skirms of the getai would be my mistake by the way. I proposed and made the change while checking the cav skirm changes. I thought that they are very strictly speaking a skirmisher unit just lacking the skirm ability and be similar to the peltastai makedoni in this regard.
That would be true for some Iberian units too though they have mostly ap- javs, a change here would be problematic. For every unit which actually has the skirm ability but did not receive the bonus it's just an application mistake not a disagreement. I did only check the cav skirms because I did not know of any missing foot skirm unit.

I think it's good to discuss some details here but as far as I know the new version will be a complete overhaul from the basic EDU by the way.

[gamegeek2]

Input from the fans is the second most important thing I take into consideration. Here is the order of priorities:

1. Historical accuracy
2. Fan Input
3. Game balance
4. GG2 and Vartan's opinion/debate

[antisocialmunky]

Hey, random questions, can we create a new thread for the new balancing system? This thread is about balance proposals and somewhat limiting. I'd like to see and talk about the system.

[Lazy O]

@raest; You look like a sensible person, why not drop by our networks? :D

[raest]

@raest; You look like a sensible person, why not drop by our networks? :D

hehe, i most surely will sooner or later. i just have to finish my master's thesis first (and practice in SP some more) :)

[Lazy O]

Practising in SP will do you no good, only harm.