[EB MP]3.0 Thread - Testing and Updates

[Lazy O]

Lazy. He's mixing up modern terms of nationality and ancient cultures. I also had some impulse to ask if he really wants to base his criteria for marksmanship on genetics after his last post.

Hmm, I cant really say, but the general conception is that the Easterns trained with the bow since they were children, and hence, "should" be much better than anything else, Cretans included, note, I am not referring to bosporans, as I think they are fine as is, my only issue is with the machine gunning cretans which are somehow better than any eastern archer unit bar the Bosporans.

@GG2; What are you talking about? Since when did I say we should not be using history as a base for stats? Besides the cretans I have not even been talking about stats. Oh and, Indian Archers need a buff, they were a class of professional soldiers trained from birth to fight.

And the thing I posted before, It actually has no order, I just said that all of them are more or less the same people.

[vartan]

Hmm, I cant really say, but the general conception is that the Easterns trained with the bow since they were children, and hence, "should" be much better than anything else, Cretans included, note, I am not referring to bosporans, as I think they are fine as is, my only issue is with the machine gunning cretans which are somehow better than any eastern archer unit bar the Bosporans.

Right and Westerners trained with the Nintendo so they should be "much better" gamers?

Nice.

EDIT: Please don't post any claims about history if you don't have a respectable idea of what you will be posting. Thank you.

[Lazy O]

Tell Herodotus. Im not saying that :P


----

Come on hamachi, I know youre not doing anything right now.

[vartan]

Tell Herodotus. Im not saying that :P


----

Come on hamachi, I know youre not doing anything right now.

You do not need to know what I'm doing right now. Herodotus is problematic, to make a great understatement with regards to historiography. I'm not going to lecture you, this is an EDU-related thread.

[Lazy O]

Why? I like your overly philosophic lectures. Really

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Herodotus is a problem, but he is also one of the only glimpses we have into the non-Greek world before Xenophon shows up. I wouldn't believe all that much that he says as he is prone to exaggeration and is not a first hand observer much of the time, however there are likely grains of truth in just about everything he says, we just have to sift through and pick out the facts from the fiction.

We all know the line that Persians are taught three things from youth: to shoot a bow, to ride a horse, and to speak the truth. Well this probably applies only to the Persian nobility first off as most people would not own horses. As such, it is not necessarily true that the general levy (i.e. Persian Archers/Archer Spearmen) would be trained in using the bow any more than a western levy of Celtic Archers. Obviously there was a tradition of archery in Persia that did not exist in the West so bows were a more prevalent weapon in warfare, therefore the Persians come in larger sizes. Also, they had access to superior bows and therefore they have better range. However, it does not necessarily make them any more accurate with that weapon as individuals.

The Heavy Persian Archers may be a more professional fighting force though I am unsure of this and would defer to others. However, they are already represented as such in game so no problems there.

[Arjos]

Speaking of archers, why KH doesn't have the thureopherontes?

[TheShakAttack]

Herodotus is a problem, but he is also one of the only glimpses we have into the non-Greek world before Xenophon shows up. I wouldn't believe all that much that he says as he is prone to exaggeration and is not a first hand observer much of the time, however there are likely grains of truth in just about everything he says, we just have to sift through and pick out the facts from the fiction.

We all know the line that Persians are taught three things from youth: to shoot a bow, to ride a horse, and to speak the truth. Well this probably applies only to the Persian nobility first off as most people would not own horses. As such, it is not necessarily true that the general levy (i.e. Persian Archers/Archer Spearmen) would be trained in using the bow any more than a western levy of Celtic Archers. Obviously there was a tradition of archery in Persia that did not exist in the West so bows were a more prevalent weapon in warfare, therefore the Persians come in larger sizes. Also, they had access to superior bows and therefore they have better range. However, it does not necessarily make them any more accurate with that weapon as individuals.

The Heavy Persian Archers may be a more professional fighting force though I am unsure of this and would defer to others. However, they are already represented as such in game so no problems there.

Sorry for double post. This is a very good post and I would agree with this with the exception of 1 point.

1) I think the levy persian archer accuracy should basically be a bit better than celtic levy archer accuracy. It's like how gaul and germania raises decent quality melee troops as levy. These melee levy troops, would not be able to beat the more expensive persian infantry (like babylonian spearmen), but, they provide decent stats for their cost compared to other factions.

Secondly, it was my understanding that stats were based on weapons used, and in the case of archers, this would attack and range. In this, I would imagine the persians levy unit would have good stats. I am not saying they do not already as I have not looked at them in any detail. I will do so and get back to you guys.

Lastly, I think this is a good point and is imp that it gets highlighted:

"The Heavy Persian Archers may be a more professional fighting force though I am unsure of this and would defer to others. However, they are already represented as such in game so no problems there"

I feel their bows are pretty sucky (range and attack).