Lusotana Campaign

[The Stranger]

What will also matter is that on huge, a unit covers more space.

Consequently, if you have more people available, they will not always find a way to actively engage with foes. Playing on smaller scale probably favours the cheaper units and ranged units to a ridiculous extent.

ye and those officers and generals will have alot more effect, this gets even worse on small settings...

[Nightmare]

Maybe this is the cause of the discrepancy then. I didn't dream unit sizes would make a balance difference. If so, that's not the fault of EB, but it is definitely the fault of the engine.

[The Stranger]

yup on normal the elite units break consistenly at 10 soldiers, that is 1/3rd of the unit. on huge they keep on fighting atleast till 20 soldiers, 1/6th of the unit and also break usually around 10 soldiers.

i am not sure how it works with covering ground, because the surround seemed similar and also the killrate was similar, just the breaking point comes alot earlier. and ofcourse what i said about officers does make a difference, they have way more impact vs 30 soldiers then vs 120.

[Kull]

You even got some cost-effectiveness out of spartans. I tested them as well, and if anything I found them to be one of the most overpriced, cost-inefficient units in the game.

If you really want a laugh, take a unit of elite dacian skirmishers and throw them at a single unit of triari. Seeing the price of the elite dacian skirmishers for the very first time caused me to literally spray coffee on my monitor, but at any rate a single unit of triari, not even adjusted for cost (triari are significantly cheaper) beats an elite dacian skirmisher unit.

You are completely missing the point. At no time did the EB team ever try to establish a linear mathematical relationship between unit cost and unit quality. And we certainly never promised such a thing. If you feel "crappy" units are the way to go, have at it. Most players realize that some mix of the two is the best approach, and that mix is often dependent upon the individual's playing style, the army mix of your opponents, and what you can afford.

I like to include elephant units in my army mix, even though they are hideously expensive and a horrible unit choice when considered purely from a clinical cost-benefit standpoint. But they are unique and enjoyable to watch, and in the final analysis, that's what counts. Elites ARE "worth it", even if only because they usually look cool and add fun and variety to your game. But they are also useful tactically as line anchors or as a reserve to throw in at a critical point in the battle.

[Arjos]

Someone is really frowning on the Komatai Epilektoi? XD
Huge shield, longswords and even too many javelins: they are a superb unit!

One can like to do these tests, but all they show is the result of a frontal charge & melee and some units don't serve that purpose...
If your only tactic is to go forward, then you are missing the whole world that EB is...

[The Stranger]

we were just debating cost-effectiveness here and it came from my first question about why roman units are so freakin cheap.

ofcourse there are different ways to use a unit other than frontal assault. and if you have the money ud be stupid to use haploi instead of epilektoi.

but at a point where you are strapped for cash its a valid question to ask if you can better have 2 normal hoplites for the price of 1 epilektoi or the other way around. and then ofcourse its depending on how you play. if you want to use hammer and anvil with 2 infantry, go for the hoplitai. if you want to pin the enemy in a city street, take the epilektoi.

[Arjos]

But as Kull pointed out, it's an unfair comparison, prices reflect history: availability of resources to build the equipment, manpower, social organization etc...

As for holding lines or streets, guard mode is so broken in this game that I've seen Pantodapoi killing stacks after stacks of heavy armoured foes...

Buy what units you want, be that for RP or looks, mnai is an issue at the beginning of the campaign, given few turns, you possess all the gold in the world XD

[The Stranger]

i know that, thats why i was asking what the reason was the romans are so much cheaper. they are outfitted pretty good and well trained so you would expect them to be slightly more expensive even tho they have alot available.

well there are still some weird things, such as pahlav cataphracts vs noble pahlav cataphracts.

the nobles are more expensive, and described as atleast better, but its weird because they have less morale but are more expensive -_- there is absolutely no reason to make them :S

dont get me wrong tho, i love the unit variety in eb. together with MTW, EB is my fav TW game.

[athanaric]

well there are still some weird things, such as pahlav cataphracts vs noble pahlav cataphracts.

the nobles are more expensive, and described as atleast better, but its weird because they have less morale but are more expensive -_- there is absolutely no reason to make them :S

The former have a lance and a mace, making them better overall vs armoured enemies, while the latter carry a lance and a "longsword", making them better against unarmoured enemies.

[seleucid empire]

Also, Romans tecnically dont have elite units, only professional ones. their only elites are the praetorians, the elite allied infantry (which are well worth their price) and and the veterans reinlisted cohort (which ive never had much use for). also it depends on the faction your using and your game goals. for example, if im seleucids, i can retrain my pandopti phalanx everywhere so and i end up finishing the campaign conditions before i train a single silver shield or hypapastai. However, i find that with elite units, my campaigns go much more smoothly and quickly than if im using only levies. Also i tend to play way past my victory conditions with seleucids so i need those silver shields when im going far west.

If you use macedon on the other hand, your training zone for your levies are restricted to an area around the aegean so you would need an army of at least a few elites to face the seleucid or ptolemy hordes. even if your good at logistics and can send a steady stream of reinforcements, it is much easier to build some elite units which are resilient.

although it is true that there are some elites im less than happy with (Armenian royal guards, and pelt-maks), most of them will be well worth it.

its very simple, if you have money, get the elites. Even if the 2x price doesnt mean it's 2x better, an elite unit will always be better than a non elite one. you cant simply test one unit against another in custom battle, that is a bad way to do things. Its like theory vs practicality. in theory (custom maps) one unit of elites my lose to 4 units of levies, but when your fighting on the campaign map with real armies, the true value of the elites will show and you will see that IN A REAL battle, the elites are worth more than their 2x price

[Nightmare]

You are completely missing the point. At no time did the EB team ever try to establish a linear mathematical relationship between unit cost and unit quality. And we certainly never promised such a thing.

Hi! Are you an EB team member? If so, if you don't mind, could you state what sort of mathematical relationship you did try to establish, if any?

Also, if you didn't try to establish any sort of mathematical relationship at all, was their any particular reason why?

Also, you said I missed the point. Could you state the point as seen by you and your colleagues?

Thanks.

Most players realize that some mix of the two is the best approach....

Well, I guess that's the point of this exercise - to realize what mix is the best approach. But I don't think you can get to the realization without working it out mathematically and doing testing. When I did all of that a while back and concluded the mix for the best approach was all low tier stuff and never any higher tier stuff, I thought something must be wrong somewhere. Why would the designers have designed it that way? As you said above, perhaps I missed the point?

What we are doing is pretty standard fare in most circles. Every serious gamer I know does this sort of thing with every game they play, and in every serious game unit values are determinable and make rational sense. For instance, in chess the value of each piece has been worked out for centuries - queen 9, rook 5, knights and bishops 3 (with certain caveats applying), and pawns 1. And if you ever sit down and play a chess game without knowledge or care of those piece values, it's a game you've lost unless you played against someone equally uncaring/unknowledgeable/unserious about it.

If you go to certain computer gaming forums, it's all people talk about there. Hell, even if you go to the Starcraft 2 site, balance and unit stating are 90% of what you'll see on the first page you pull up.

@Stranger, are you saying that with repeat testing on smaller unit sizes you got results more in line with my own results?

[The Stranger]

Also, Romans tecnically dont have elite units, only professional ones. their only elites are the praetorians, the elite allied infantry (which are well worth their price) and and the veterans reinlisted cohort (which ive never had much use for). also it depends on the faction your using and your game goals. for example, if im seleucids, i can retrain my pandopti phalanx everywhere so and i end up finishing the campaign conditions before i train a single silver shield or hypapastai. However, i find that with elite units, my campaigns go much more smoothly and quickly than if im using only levies. Also i tend to play way past my victory conditions with seleucids so i need those silver shields when im going far west.

If you use macedon on the other hand, your training zone for your levies are restricted to an area around the aegean so you would need an army of at least a few elites to face the seleucid or ptolemy hordes. even if your good at logistics and can send a steady stream of reinforcements, it is much easier to build some elite units which are resilient.

although it is true that there are some elites im less than happy with (Armenian royal guards, and pelt-maks), most of them will be well worth it.

its very simple, if you have money, get the elites. Even if the 2x price doesnt mean it's 2x better, an elite unit will always be better than a non elite one. you cant simply test one unit against another in custom battle, that is a bad way to do things. Its like theory vs practicality. in theory (custom maps) one unit of elites my lose to 4 units of levies, but when your fighting on the campaign map with real armies, the true value of the elites will show and you will see that IN A REAL battle, the elites are worth more than their 2x price

ye only im showing that in a custom battle some of the elites are worth even more than 2x times their price!

[The Stranger]

Hi! Are you an EB team member? If so, if you don't mind, could you state what sort of mathematical relationship you did try to establish, if any?

Also, if you didn't try to establish any sort of mathematical relationship at all, was their any particular reason why?

Also, you said I missed the point. Could you state the point?

Thanks.



Well, I guess that's the point of this exercise - to realize what mix is the best approach. But I don't think you can get to the realization without working it out mathematically and doing testing. When I did all of that a while back and concluded the mix for the best approach was all low tier stuff and never any higher tier stuff, I thought something must be wrong somewhere. Why would the designers have designed it that way? As you said above, perhaps I missed the point?

What we are doing is pretty standard fare in most circles. Every serious gamer I know does this sort of thing with every game they play, and in every serious game unit values are determinable and make rational sense. For instance, in chess the value of each piece has been worked out for centuries - queen 9, rook 5, knights and bishops 3 (with certain caveats applying), and pawns 1. And if you ever sit down and play a chess game without knowledge or care of those piece values, it's a game you've lost unless you played against someone equally uncaring/unknowledgeable/unserious about it.

If you go to certain computer gaming forums, it's all people talk about there. Hell, even if you go to the Starcraft 2 site, balance and unit stating are 90% of what you'll see on the first page you pull up.

@Stranger, are you saying that with repeat testing on smaller unit sizes you got results more in line with my own results?

i didnt do much testing, but i redid the elite african vs the haploi and they lost vs 4 on normal, while they won fairly easy vs 5 on huge. i didnt bother to do more but my prediction is if i did, it would be more in line with your results yes.

[Blxz]

Also, you said I missed the point. Could you state the point?

Thanks.

You have been told many times. You would have even seen this if you hadn't blocked half the forum. You don't want to hear what the reason was as long as it does not agree with your quite hastily made judgement.

You sir, have well and truly missed the point of this entire game.

[Ca Putt]

Oh by the way is there a "real" statistics thread? Because this has somewhat evolved into one plus the old efficiency of elites question.

so anyway^^

I ran some AI Tests(both armies controlled by everyones favorite Artificial idiocy) with 12 Haploi against 7 hoplitai, an epic clash to say the least.

the results are somewhat clear:
out of ten battles the Hoplitai won 8 times. When winning they got around 1450 kills vs 600 losses when loosing they had about equal kills at about 800.
In 4 battles the Hapless (:D) general fell the Hoplite general never died.
in all but 2 battles the Hops got flanked one was so chaotic that you could not speak of a front the other one was due to extremely poor command on the haploi side.

some not nealy as thorough tests with epilektoi vs Haploi show that these eventho outnumbered more than 5:1 (or rather 12 haploi vs 3 Epilektoi) these guys have great potential against their levy equivalent. The softspot here was got getting flanked but loosing the general which is quite easy when surrounded, yet having the greater pushing power. However with the results of the previous test this supports my theory that, Expesive troops do not just preform better because they beat up their cheaper counterparts but because they are more likely to defeat a general in melee.*

*however this only goes for spear units as their main attack stat does drastically change (12-17) making them more deadly to the general as opposed to generally better warriors in which other branches(iberian AP inf eg.) get different "upgrades".

All tests were conducted on huge size and with a unit of Lusotanian BG as observer

PS: I also wanted to test Komantai epilektoi against Peltastai. Tho I don't have the resultes yet, however for all you testers: NEVER NEVER give the AI 20 units of skirmishers NEVER!

[The Stranger]

how about epilektoi vs hoplitai :P

Anyway, 3 TAB or Dosidataskeli take out 9 Hoplites without trouble.

the elites also do better in bigger numbers, 1 epilektoi will lose vs 2 hoplitai but 3 epilektoi will win vs 8 hoplitai if a full surround can be avoided.

[Nightmare]

@ca putts, what unit sizes did you test on, and can you do the tests on normal unit sizes?

Also, I have no idea what all the greek names are (besides hoplites), but I'm just curious whether you are throwing the same unit classes at each other but different tier (i.e. scrub hoplite vs. medium or elite hoplite) or are you doing something like throwing sword units at hoplites?

Thanks.

[The Stranger]

he tested on huge, he said it somewhere in his post.

and he is testing the right tiers. he has been testing levy hoplites vs normal hoplites and levy hoplites vs elite hoplites.

ive just run 2 tests of elite hoplites vs normal hoplites and the normal hoplites won when they got a full surround and lost when they didnt.

i also did the seleukid elite thorakitai vs 9 hoplites and the elites won it.

these guys are ruthless, they took out 6 regular thorakitai easy, no full surround tho, but still.
1 taking out 2 also relatively easy.

[Ca Putt]

Yeah the AI seems to concentrate on reinforceing it's line and catching free units. I've often seen a unit standing by waiting for their chance to do either rather than flanking the enemy or Free up other troops(by attacking the weakest part in the enemy line).

Well I did 5 tests with normal unit size and the result is that the Hoplitai win against the Haploi with 350-400 vs 150-200 kills. 3 times the Haploi general fall, 0 times did the Hoplitai general. Not much of a spectacle tho.

[The Stranger]

hoplitai are not elite tho. i think its the medium units that will prove most cost effective. all tho elites like the TAB and Dosidataskeli do a tremendous job and are virtually unbeatable. I guess you need armour piercing units vs these guys!

[Ca Putt]

True which is why I was mainly testing the Rank and file hoplitai which are "supposed" to be efficient and(for KH) the Line/spam unit of choice. TAB are real evil, ye really need a hell of a can opener to get to their soft underbelly.

The Question I wanted to attend with my statistic actually was IF Levy Units are the way to go in terms of Cost efficiency in a pitched battle.

[Nightmare]

The Question I wanted to attend with my statistic actually was IF Levy Units are the way to go in terms of Cost efficiency in a pitched battle.

And your answer was no?

[seleucid empire]

u cant just consider a pitched battle, you have to ask yourself, how many battles can i win with this levy army and far far do i intend to take this army

[d'Arthez]

Not entirely true seleucid empire. If it is a defensive position you'd try to defend against whatever may come your way, the cheapest army may be financially speaking the way to go, especially if you abuse merge functionality after the battle, so you can retrain more than 1000 soldiers in a single turn.

Even if 4 units of levies beat the Elite Thorakitai, what you are left with may well be but a single unit of levies. So you need to retrain those (at a cost, and at a cost in time), you leave your defensive line somewhat more susceptible to additional attacks (second and third full-stack). The same applies to the Elite Thorakitai, but less so, since you may have a few additional units to cover for them (say, 3 levies), which would also positively affect the outcome of the initial battle.

If you want to defend a defensive position, that costs you a lot of Mnai. The cheaper option would naturally be to take out the problem faction / city / region; not only does it add to your treasury, it also means you don't have to defend said position from incursions, since there is no one left to bother you in the first place.

If you want to go on the offensive, it is not just a matter of winning battles, but also how comprehensively you win. Sure you may win with the levies, but replenishing troops tends to become a bigger concern then (especially on the steppes, or the eastern portion of the map, where settlements are further apart), as well as the bigger limitations of a levy army to deal with armies of a different composition than tested for. And we won't even mention sieging settlements ...

You get what you pay for. If you want to be a money - grubbing player, then you'll have to sacrifice some dynamic capabilities of your army as a rule.

[The Stranger]

meh i never merge :P unless i know i will have atleast some soldiers left in both the merging units.

[Ca Putt]

And your answer was no?

My tests support the answer "no" however they may all have been funny coincidences especially as all but one of the huge battles had some battle turning event, be it the Haploi general falling or either side behaving extremely stupid(more than normal). In this one battle however the hoplitai were not as badly flanked as in the others but just melted away at some point giving the Haploi their second(and last) victory. As I said it's just statistics and with a sample group of only 10 battles who am I to say "It's like that!"

u cant just consider a pitched battle, you have to ask yourself, how many battles can i win with this levy army and far far do i intend to take this army

I very well can, afterall there is a multiplayer mode where the pitched battle is all that counts :P

However you're right in that point that this does in not accurately represent their Campaign value, which is the Grail we're looking for. However I do not know an ample method for me to gather enough usable data to compile a significant statistic on campaign value of levy vs regular vs elite troops. If you however like to play the same campaign over and over again with as few differences as possible while relying on one unit level each time, be my guest. I'd like to see at least 10 goes at each tier, then maybe a different faction...

[seleucid empire]

both of you (d arthez and ca putt) have valid points, however, i tend to play really offensively no matter what the situation. For example, if im facing the huge roman or lustanian empires i do form a defensive line with levy or local armies but i always send at least one offensive army which that is of a much higher quality because i need them to do a lot of work As i said before it really depends on your goals. in a seleucid campaign, you can win with just your levies cause you can recruit them in every province of your victory conditions but i find this too boring as a seleucid campaign is quite easy so i tend to go west, and then, those levy armies quickly disintegrate outside their recruitment zones. this wont be a problem with most barbarian factions or KH though

Also, i like to roleplay with my armies

i am currently in a seleucid camapign and i have roleplayed that each faction leader has a different style of warfare.

my first great king, theordoros syriakos (10 star general on death) conquered all of egypt, ethiopia, asia minor, greece, macedon, epirus and armenia before dying on his way to parthia. he used the starting seleucid army of levy pikes, slingers and a few prodomoi and hellenic spearmen to conquer all of that, but as stated before, these units are easily re-trainable in all of the seleucid VC lands

my second king nikeratoes syriakos (9 star general on death) used an elite army of syrian archers, Pezhetairoi, 1-2 silver shields, 2 Hypaspistai, thoraktai, 1-2 cataphracts and medium cavalry to conquer all of the east including the furthest province of chingu in only 10 years. this eastern campaign renew my faith in elites and meant that i finisehd my victory conditions by 211 BC. nikeratos then switched to an all horse archer army and swept through the north destroying the sarmatians and conquering all northern provinces. he then traveled to epirus overland and sailed to sicily conquering the island and making his way up to Rome. His last great victory was the sacking of Rome and he died peacefully the next turn, which i thought was very fitting

my third king Cleon Kolesyriakos (10 star general at death) used an all mercenary army. even before he was king, he used mercs to destroy the dacians, before landing at taras to support Nikeratos. Cleon completed the conquest of Italy and the alps, thus cutting the Roman empire into two factions (one in spain and one in central europe and germania). By this time, the Romans controlled all of spain except for one province which was owned by the lusotanians (who were about to be wiped out). Cleon marched to massalia and sacked the city before moving onto the coastal cites of iberia. However, i only wanted to kick the romans out of spain so i just sacked every city and gifted them to lusos. Cleon managed to defeat over 20 Roman fullstacks in Iberia and sack every city before givng them to lusos (now they are a superpower fml =.=). He then started sacking Aedui cites and died peacefully after sacking the gallic capital.

my current damdas syriakos (5 star general) is using an army of local germans and i must say, compared to nikerato's elite army, he isnt having much luck

But yeh considering the huge distacnes in the east and the fact that Nirkeratos took only around 10-15 years to conquer bactria, india, parthia and the saka provinces, i would say that in campaign elites are definitely worth it

[The Stranger]

how did u get catas so fast :O and silver shields n such :P what difficulty do you play on?

anyway, imo elites are worth it in any standard occasion vs levies, they are more than worth it in special occasions such as like you say far venturing missions that need endurance, they are more than worth it when holding a city or the line on a special point. some are better than others ofcourse. but anyway, once you get so much money you can make 10 armies of medium or levy troops or 5 of elites... all doesnt really matter anymore :P

[d'Arthez]

There is an additional benefit for levy armies in cities though. They will more easily get the 80% public order bonus. Either you have less issues with rebellion then, or you can crank up the tax rate.

Part of the value of higher end troops would be that they are more dynamic than levies. It is difficult to attach a numerical value to dynamism, since it depends on so many factors (total army composition, geographic location, foes one might have to wage battle against, the value of holding said position). The usefulness of a unit once the threat subsides is in principle dynamic as well. Levies make great garrisons while elites are a bit overpriced for such a job. However, if you want to go on the offensive, the levies may not be as useful as the higher end troops, though having a few levies in your army can lead to rapid conquest, especially if you share MICs with the faction you are campaign against.

[Kull]

Hi! Are you an EB team member? If so, if you don't mind, could you state what sort of mathematical relationship you did try to establish, if any?

Also, if you didn't try to establish any sort of mathematical relationship at all, was their any particular reason why?

Also, you said I missed the point. Could you state the point as seen by you and your colleagues?

Thanks.

Cost was established by assigning values to various weapons and pieces of equipment, and the unit statting spreadsheet used that to establish the price in much the same way it established offense and defense stats. For example, leather armor is better than cloth, but worse than bronze, and the price obviously rises as you go up the quality chain from cloth to metal. Same with helmets, greaves, types of swords, etc. The key is that, in general, greater cost also means better performance, but there's no direct correlation. Elites are "better" than levies, but you cannot use unit cost as a means to determine HOW MUCH better. That's just not how things work.

And that's the point you are missing. There is no linear correlation between cost and quality. We consulted the archaeological and (where possible) the historical record to determine the equipment that any given unit in any given faction would have used in this period, and then statted them accordingly. EB is neither chess (all factions identical in strength and composition at the start) nor some kind of "rock-scissor-paper" game in which strengths and weaknesses are deliberately calculated for gameplay purposes. EB was designed to be as historically accurate as possible, with the underlying assumption that this would also lead to interesting game play. It was the right approach, and I think time has proven it correct.]