Cav balance

[seienchin]

maybe we'll got multiple HP system in EB II to compensate that, and get longer fight

But that would make arrows strange? I recall the LotR Mod for Rome were sauron was nigh impossible to beat in melee, but could be killed by like 2 or 3 arrow volleys...

[Cute Wolf]

But that would make arrows strange? I recall the LotR Mod for Rome were sauron was nigh impossible to beat in melee, but could be killed by like 2 or 3 arrow volleys...

Sorry OT: Elven archers had insane damage that's it! Try the result with normal Gondorian or worse, orcs...

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

Cataphracts were later used by both the Eastern Roman Empire (Basileia ton Romaion) and the Sassanids as meat grinder thus i believe they were very fierce as melee units.

[Cute Wolf]

Where is Sonic the Necromancer.....

Cataphracts were later used by both the Eastern Roman Empire (Basileia ton Romaion) and the Sassanids as meat grinder thus i believe they were very fierce as melee units.

Yeah, unit terms - not catafractii, but clibinarii (solely armed with mace and bow)

[Watchman]

Yeah, unit terms - not catafractii, but clibinarii (solely armed with mace and bow)

That would be the late Sassanid "universal" cavalry, and IIRC my reading they still kept some lancer squadrons on the side. The Byzantines actually at one point devised a serious meatgrinder tactical array for rolling over infantry which IIRC had maces in front of the blunt wedge, lancers in the flanks, and archers making up the rear. Worked pretty well apparently.

Anyway, there's good reasons people quite universally preferred to armour their elite shock cavalry to the gills.

[satalexton]

I remember reading somewhere they actually 'remade' the checkerbox with cavalry instead of infantry.

[Cybvep]

You don't have to do that. There is nothing wrong in adjusting certain unit stats after the application of the stat system, as "Excel balance" is one thing, but not necessarily the same as the game balance. We must judge the unit by its REAL effectiveness...

[Cybvep]

The point is that "logical" stats would lead to balanced/realistic combat only in a perfect simulation. In case of RTW stats can be very logical in Excel, but it does not mean that they will give desired results in gameplay. There are engine, animation and practical reasons that, when considered, makes it illogical to pursue the "logical" stat system ;) . Look at it like this - if a given stat system gives great results in 75% cases, then there is absolutely no reason to change those 75%, but there IS (or SHOULD BE) one to change the 25% that are inaccurate. We will not achieve 100% accuracy, but it does not mean that we cannot make the gameplay results more fitting.

[Genava]

Frankly, I fail to see where the problem lies. You can do all that in EB I too. I've taken out cataphracts with flank charges by light cavalry (Arabs, who are slightly worse than Leuce Epos). Still the cataphracts are superior to other cavalry in real melee, just as they were in real life. Pahlava's cavalry is superior to that of the Aedui, get over it.

I'm not agreed with you. I test a battle: 1 Grivpanvar, no bonus. VS 1 brihentin (bodyguard) and 1 brihentin, both without bonus. 100 cataphracts against 143 celtic cavalrymen.
I ambush the cataphracts with the brihentin (not bodyguard) and the cataphracts were surprised and stop. I charge them with the Brihentin and the Brihentin bodyguards on two sides. After a long fight, I lose. There remain 33 cataphracts and 13 celts.

Conclusion: Without charge, 100 cataphracts can kill 143 good cavalrymen.

[athanaric]

I'm not agreed with you. I test a battle: 1 Grivpanvar, no bonus. VS 1 brihentin (bodyguard) and 1 brihentin, both without bonus. 100 cataphracts against 143 celtic cavalrymen.
I ambush the cataphracts with the brihentin (not bodyguard) and the cataphracts were surprised and stop. I charge them with the Brihentin and the Brihentin bodyguards on two sides. After a long fight, I lose. There remain 33 cataphracts and 13 celts.

Conclusion: Without charge, 100 cataphracts can kill 143 good cavalrymen.

Grivpanvar are the best heavy cavalrymen in EB, except for some bodyguards. Brihentin are not designed to combat such a foe, moreso as Celts of that period didn't have to deal with Parthian knights, unless some fat idiot dragged them to the Middle East for his own personal glory and left them to perish in battle against those same Parthians.
I've managed to rout Hellenikoi Kataphraktoi with sandwich charges from 2 units of Bedouin cavalry.
You would have needed two units of regular Brihentin, both charging home, to destroy those Grivpanvar. The bodyguard version of Brihentin is of course tougher but numbers count more.

I think, having used all kinds of cavalry in this game, that EB's system is the most balanced and historically accurate of all games or mods I know. Every cavalry unit has strengths you can utilize and weaknesses you can exploit. Your Brihentin are well armoured, fast, and have great stamina. Not to mention two deadly melee weapons. What more do you want?
Cataphracts are designed to withstand even numerically superior forces. Of course they will win a head on cavalry fight. If you want to beat them, use superior numbers, speed, and stamina. Or infantry.

[gamegeek2]

For all interested, I'm working on balancing the Broken Crescent units to function like units in EB. I've been pretty successful so far, and will post some screenies.

It is for medieval units, but it's on the M2TW engine and there are analogous units.

[gamegeek2]

One thing I didn't do was make the lances AP - I tested it and it had significant balance problems, mainly being overpowered since lethality can't really be adjusted to EB levels anymore. The charge values are still high, but not as high as EB ones, though significantly higher than M2TW ones; the base attack of lances is small, making them nigh-useless in melee. This gives units that have a lance as a secondary a problem in melee, while those that use a small spear in melee get significant advantages over the ones with lances.

The following trial is on VH battle difficulty, which does not give unit bonuses/penalties in M2TW AFAIK.



These are the Khwarezmian Cataphract Lancers, our stand-in for sword-armed cataphracts. Here are their stats:

Primary: Lance; Atk 1, Chg 20
Secondary: Sword; Atk 6, Chg 2
Defense: 23 armour, 8 skill, 4 shield
Mount Mass: 3.9



These are the Royal Ghulam lancers, our stand-in for Hetairoi (and very analogous in stats compared with other units). They have a lance, and their secondary weapon is an armour-piercing mace, which receives the same stats as a kopis under my system. They use their shield in melee, but not when charging.

Primary: Lance; Atk 1, Chg 18
Secondary: Mace; Atk 4, Chg 2; ap
Defense: Armour 17, Skill 8, Shield 4
Mount Mass: 3.2

On defense skill, under my system they both get a +4 skill bonus for being upper-tier elite troops, but a -1 penalty for being mounted. As they are heavily armoured, no bonus is awarded (a +1 is given for medium armour and a +2 for light armour). The base defense skill for all units in my system is 5.



Our cataphracts charge into the Ghulams and cause 3 casualties upon impact, before the melee ensues. It ensues continuously, and both sides reduce each other to half strength (25 out of 50 starting troops) at the same time.

I ran a reverse trial, with me commanding the Ghulams and the AI with the cataphracts. This time, both sides lowered lances and charged, but the cataphracts were a bit late in doing so, and only some got the charge bonus. 2 Ghulams and 4 Cataphracts were killed on impact. The melee was again continuous, and the Ghulams had 30 men remaining when the cataphracts were reduced to half strength.

I re-ran the trial, but this time, the Cataphracts fought the Monaspa Lancers, shown below:



Under my system they have the following stats:

Primary: Lance; Atk 1, Chg 18
Secondary: Sword; Atk 6, Chg 2
Defense: Armour 17, Skill 8, Shield 4
Mount Mass: 3.2

Their stats are identical to those of the Ghulams, except with swords instead of maces.

First I fought twice as the cataphracts, who both smashed into the Monaspa, causing 5-6 casualties upon impact (suffering none of their own), as the Monaspa were late in lowering to charge. It was a slaughter, with the Cataphracts having 41-42 men left when the Monaspa were reduced to half strength.

I switched sides and fought as the Monaspa twice. The cataphracts were a bit late in lowering to charge, but still dealt the Monaspa 2-3 casualties on impact, while the Cataphracts took 1-2. Both times the Cataphracts had 41 men when the Monaspa were reduced to half strength.

So, this system passes one test the EB system fails - making ap weapons good at their job (piercing armour).