The Absolutely Best Heavy Cavalry in EB...

[Cbvani]

I don't have any other troops to use, I blitzed like crazy, lost everything except my FMs.

Try stopping those Saka FMs from getting gold XP! They kill so many they get there in three or four battles..

Like you, I don't retrain my troops, I only merge them with fresh recruits.

Only thing I've ever found able to counter Kat-Archers (besides more Kat-Archers) is massive numbers. I mean MASSIVE. Huge, even.

Although I'm tempted to try a new strategy - Regular HA's with good, swift shock cavalry backup, with a 2-1 ratio in numbers. That is, 1 HA plus 1 Shock Cav for every 1 Kat-Archer. I figure the HA's could engage and confuse the Kat-Archer while the shock cav engages and withdraws, with HA's firing to cover their retreat. It would require a lot of microing, but I think it might be doable. If it is, it would be cheaper than a single Kat-Archer, too.

[Ibrahim]

@TPC: don't worry-all you need to do is just got to the sp, and mp file backup, take the EDU, and look up steppe_grivpanvar (or grivapanvar, 3rd entry), look up its sec_weapon_attr, change "no" to "ap" ==> voila!

[Tyrfingr]

Death in the shape of a panzer cataphract...

[NeoSpartan]

TPC why should they Parthian late FM have AP just because they have a long sword????

The Casse Kluddargos (Casse Sword Masters) and Kludda Lugiae (Lugian Swordsmen) have big two hand swords and they DON'T have AP. They do however have a really high lethality.

I think the issue here is game engine limits, I am sure the Parthian Katas carried additional side arms. (just like the Thureophoroi only have javenlings and spears, but they also carried swords)

As for the Greek Katas, they rollout with a falcata type sword, which is AP, but has a really low lethality.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Because as weird as it might sound this appears to be the case. I recently play-tested a custom-game with the Late Parthian Bodyguards, and the Bactrian Bodyguard. Of course, given the AI's inability to switch to secondary weaponry, I expected to win.

I didn't. I lost against the Hetairoi Kataphraktoi, using swords, while they were still using lances. They massacred me. They would butcher me totally, while all the swords would earn me was maybe two, three or at most four kills. This included the fact that I was the one charging the formation. I mean let that soak in for a moment, they massacre me with lances while I get to barely scratch them with a sword.That is a very serious problem, which is very tied to mechanics. This is also why a lower-grade Parthian cataphract such as the mace-bearers also will win in any fight against the Grivpanvar, when in the player's hands. Try it yourself. I tried this against the Armenian and Sacae bodyguards too (Losing each battle too), and switched roles even by playing them. Their secondary weapons work like they should. A unit like this would clearly appear to be unintentionally under-powered, without any chance of winning through tactical mastery. Of course unless we let the tug with lances looking like complete idiots

In fact, it has little to nothing to do with the swords that these units should be effective against armour, even though there are arguments for such a proposition (Such as if a rather short-lengthed Kopis can affect armour, why not a gigantic sword with a superior reach?). They carried around maces and axes as well, and due to game-engine limitations we must settle for two weapons. That is not exactly what hallmarks a unit-type known for its striking power. The problem is that with such high armour ratings, side-arms without the AP attribute increasingly become worthless, which translates into stupidity. All of the game's five high-end cataphracts should be comparably strong. This means that if the player has the advantage he should even be able to use Late Saka Bodyguard against Hetairoi Kataphraktoi and emerge victorious. Turn this around, and it's equally true.

I do have an alternative suggestion which may sound less baffling, but potentially make even less sense. Because the Grivpanvar champions already are the game's only recruitable high-end cataphract, with a fixed figure of men, they can do without AP-attribute because the Pahlavân already sit on what is arguably the strongest asset in the game. The Late Parthian Bodyguard though needs this. Of course taking lethality into account (Kopis has a normal value of 0.11, while the arming sword has a whopping value of 0.225), it might need to be adjusted accordingly though still taking into account the weapon's characteristics (A range of between 0.17 - 0.2 would appear suitable especially considering the weapon's reach and given tactical flexibility). I think it's no more than a fair proposal until something more elaborate can be devised for the cataphracts in EB2.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Only thing I've ever found able to counter Kat-Archers (besides more Kat-Archers) is massive numbers. I mean MASSIVE. Huge, even.

Does anyone else have the feeling that Kat-Archers overemphasize the "Kat" a bit? I have made the experience that they generally don't waste much time shooting but charging head on instead alongside the "real" Cataphracts...

[lobf]

Why are FMs so disproportionately strong? I understand them being better than regular cavalry, but maybe some balancing needs to be done when they can get kill ratios like 70 or 100 or more to 1.

[Ibrahim]

Why are FMs so disproportionately strong? I understand them being better than regular cavalry, but maybe some balancing needs to be done when they can get kill ratios like 70 or 100 or more to 1.

IIRC, one parthian= 3 romans...at least so i was told.

logically, 50 grivapanvar can massacre 150 men with ease (i.e, without losing more than a man or two), so imagine a guard cataphract .bear in mind, the parthians evidently struggled versus eastern kingdoms, so logically they are also equivalent in strength.

does that explain it?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Why are FMs so disproportionately strong? I understand them being better than regular cavalry, but maybe some balancing needs to be done when they can get kill ratios like 70 or 100 or more to 1.

A very powerful tool in the hands of a crafty player? What chance does the poor AI stand?

Really, you can accomplish similar devastating effects with other units (non-fm) as well; only you don't get that massive bonus from having a highly trained, extra-hit-points, experienced general. Who happens to be nearly always in the front, and hence: where most of the action happens?

It's more like: there is a general ergo there is a very strong officer. The individual bodyguards go down about as easily as any other soldiers of their class/type, but the generals don't.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

In truth it is the generals that are the best units in EB. However there always only 1 of them making their awesomness limited to how many pitiful infantry they can get their hands on. 1 general = 25 infantry.
But still it is far easier to actually kill them than you think. I have done so with one javelin volley.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Why are FMs so disproportionately strong? I understand them being better than regular cavalry, but maybe some balancing needs to be done when they can get kill ratios like 70 or 100 or more to 1.

This is of course a very loaded question, so I will only answer what appears to be boldfaced in the quote.

We were planning a rather extensive stat-revamp which unfortunately was put on ice. It's a pity, because the concept in itself was absolutely fantastic, but due to circumstances that just simply were out of our hands, it just didn't materialize as intended.

Now, my own answer to the question is that, if there are any truly elite d'elite troops, a unit meant for the role of a spearhead, literally aching for that role in either leading a decisive charge to absolute glory or fight to the death to protect their masters, either by aiding him at the breach, or helping him escape from the fray if he is found in trouble... These guys are not just cream of the crop, they were made for this. A fine early example of this chivalric, selfless behaviour is found in Oxathres, the brother of Darius III Codomannus, who ushered his dying horse to block a lance-charge from Alexander III The Great, a motif which has been immortalized in the Alexander Mosaic. No guts, no glory.

To offset their martial ardour, high armour and proficiency and ownership of cutting edge contemporary weapon's technology, each high noble gets roughly around twenty of these guys, as opposed to recruits who are fixed to a given figure. So more than often, the size of this squadron is likely to be smaller than that of a recruited or levied contingent.

In other words, I don't think they are that over-powered at all. Of course, traits will also decide how strong such a unit truly is. A bodyguard contingent revolves entirely upon the existence of a master to bodyguard. Once family members proper kick the bucket, the retinue will disband. So really, if the family member dies on impact, the unit itself is forfeit.

[desert]

Maybe if the FM bodyguard limit was less than 124...

[Obelics]

in relation to the Persian Cataphract post, i say that personally, i loved the 0.225Leth swords of the grinpanvar, it terms of EBism, is like to have some gallic neitos on a cataphract, that means that they kill a lot faster, i always loved that but i must say i never tryed to compare them to other cataphracts, so i dont know.
Just discussing in term of game experience, i must say that when you play is somewhat nice to have for example one unit of standard Zradha Pahlavans "Mace" kata, and you think that they have the nice AP bonus, and then you think your general has the nice 0.225 long sword, i dont know, but it gave me some nice feeling of powerness.
in terms of EB infantry, is like having in the same faction a unit of Neitos and a unit of iberian assault Infantry or pedites extraordinari.

Regarding the Cataphract vs Cataphract question, have you tryed primary weapon vs primary weapon who wins?

anyway just for the reason i sayd above i wouldnt give the late bodyguards the AP, cause for variation, i love to have a 0.225 cataphract near the Mace cata, as i sayd the mix give you this strange feeling of power. But if the 0.225 Cata loose with others AP Cataphracts that is not correct, so in substance i dont know, peraphs 0.175 or 0.200 AP is a good choice, but then the EB system of "0.225" vs "AP" vs "common weapons" would be a bit screwed... dilemma.

or the 0.175/0.200 AP sword could add a new element to the "System" so we would have:

0.175 or 0.200 + AP ==> sort of a bastardized mix (swords+maces simulated on the same elite unit)
0.225==>slashing sword (the kind of swords that have the Brihentin for example)
AP ==>Mace and other heavy short swords
0.13 ==>other common swords

[The Persian Cataphract]

Yes, very true and correct, thus why I suggested that only the Late Parthian Bodyguards get the added AP-feature. In any case, leaving them as they are currently without the AP-feature makes them totally worthless once they are committed in melee combat in the player's hands against other bodyguards. I have a zero-tolerance policy for such cases. Because the Grivpanvar are recruits, the Pahlavân already sit on a gigantic asset, and for that I am willing to make an exception.

However, if my personal point-of-view should account for anything, my belief is that all high-grade long-swords exceeding a full metric unit in length, presumably of wootz-steel technology (Parthian arms and armour are peculiarly referenced to as that of "Margianian steel", which might either be a Roman exaggeration for high-grade iron, or of actual steel; it can only be conjectured), should be effective against armour. Little if anything armour-wise will stand against mounted troops armed with heavy swords, with or without stirrups.

There is even evidence of Iranic-style swords being used like spears in cases of lunging with a sword in some Sassanian dishes (Indeed, out of frame of time, however it can not have been an unknown technique, and may have been applied in an improvisatory manner). In such cases, heavy Celtic-style swords, and heavy Sarmatian broadswords should also apply. The importance of armour was in practice only secondary. However, my basic understanding of Celtic arms is that the scholarly opinion of their quality is mixed, so I can't elaborate more on such examples.

However there is little to no dispute that a long arming sword with superior reach was steadily replacing the Kopis or other Greek-styled sabres amongst Iranic cavalry, and would dominate the role with only slight modification until the mid-late Sassanian times, where the Turco-Avar inspired sabre began to influence the Sassanian cavalry sword to its classical characteristics. The Parthian style did continue to survive and may have been the historical role-model behind the Sassanian "Zweihänder"-style saddle-sword encountered in Aphrodisias (Which measured over 1.8 metres). It must certainly have been effective, and the European counter-part certainly enjoyed a successful legacy as well.

And then again, the armour. We're not talking about Renaissance era plate-armour, we're mostly talking about chain-maille, Greek linen armour, padded and quilted cloth and leather, scale-maille, lamellar, banded armour, early maille-and-plate, and the occasional one-piece cuirass. Most of these will only provide a slight hindrance to such a weapon. A high-grade longsword is at worst capable of inflicting blunt trauma because of its added distribution of momentum.