Unit balance in vanilla-problems & solutions?

[Whiskeyjack]

This thread was born out of a discussion I had recently with a few friends. Periodically we congregate at someones house and play some mp against each other with modded versions of rtw, however on saturday we ended playing vanilla out of a sense of nostalgia(i will admit i was against this idea). After a few games to reclimatise we all ended up using what i would call "cheap" or exploit armies, which if you have ever played online you will probably be familiar with. This prompted many snorts of derision around the table and it wasn't long before we where slagging off the vanilla gaming experience.
It was at this point however that one of my friends commented that although vanilla has its problems its was certainly not beyond saving and once the initial surprise wore off we realised that this may well be true and subsequently spent much of the afternoon discussing this over a few beers.
Here are the problems and possible solutions that we came up with:

1: Kill rate, morale and movement speed- we felt that kill rate and movement speed are to fast(slightly) and morale too low(again only slightly)
Solution- change kill chance to 80-90%, increas emorale by 2-4 points and lower move speed slightly.
2. Chariot archers-the problem with these guys is that they are cheaper than many "elite" archers while being significantly better, and there is not a strong enough counter to them as they are effective vs cavalry & cantabarian circle gives them defence vs missiles.
Suggsted solution-increase in cost, possibly combined with loss of cantabarian circle.
3. Archers or more specifically non elite archers-the problem with these is that they are head and shoulders above other missile troops at basically the same cost added to which they are to strong for their cost, for example you can have three regular archer units for less than 1 elite archer.
Suggested solution-double cost and in addition make it more expensive to upgrade weapons.
4. Romans-Urban cohorts and praetorian cavalry and to a lesser degree praetorian cohort. These units are blatantly op and in my opinion are a hangover from the singleplayers attempt to be noob friendly.
Solution-remove urbans and pratorian cav and forget they ever existed, increase cost of praetorian cohort.
5. Long pike vs spear phalanx-hoplites seems to be better than longpike units and walk through long pikes which is a bit odd.
Solution-possibly make same stat wise as long pike units or change spear attribute to light_spear so they have less "push".
6. Non phalanx spearmen(e.g libyans, triarii)-not very useful, they vanish in an instant vs swords and there are better counters vs cavalry.
Solution-increase to 60 men unit size possibly combined with a small defence increase, they would still lose vs swords but may gain some usefulness as a defensive or pinning unit in addition to their anti cav status.
7. Melee Cavalry-not dramatically op but probably underpriced in most cases.
8. horse archers-again not dramatically overpowered but could do with price increase, also it was felt they should have less range than foot archers and remove cantabarian circle, they should be a unit that rewards skill, not the click of a button.
9. Elephants-some of us felt that they were a problem others didn't-inconclusive.
10. There where a couple of other minor points but they were lost in a beery haze, will update if i remember.

For any of you who made it this far i would like to say this is not an attempt to "bash" vanilla, though i have been critic of vanilla in the past this discussion did make me look at vanilla differently and i am interested in others opinions on this.
So hypothetically if CA announced that they were going to release a mp rebalance patch(i can dream) and these were the planned changes, which points would you agree or disagree with?

P.S Apologies for being a bit long winded

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Solution-increase to 60 men unit size possibly combined with a small defence increase, they would still lose vs swords but may gain some usefulness as a defensive or pinning unit in addition to their anti cav status.

Spearmen are strong enough, and a specialist unit that still gives rewards if you deploy and use them correctly. They're not for melee against infantry, right, but then the majority of your armies will not be composed of spears unless they can form phalanx. Again, an auxilia unit may be better against Cataphracts than a Legionary Cohort, although the Legionary Cohort has better morale and better melee vs. other units.

9. Elephants-some of us felt that they were a problem others didn't-inconclusive.

They can be easily routed, their morale is low and they are not units to be trusted upon during the heat of the battle. I almost never use them unless to shoot enemy Horse Archers, and they excel themselves against heavy cavalry.

5. Long pike vs spear phalanx-hoplites seems to be better than longpike units and walk through long pikes which is a bit odd.
Solution-possibly make same stat wise as long pike units or change spear attribute to light_spear so they have less "push".

Yes, a common vanilla flaw. Fortunately most Pikemen civilizations have better cavalry, and the pikemen can give a good amount of themselves before running away, thus giving you time to flank the enemy phalanxes, especially if these are Greek phalanxes. Against Carthage, and to a lesser degree Egypt, you'll have to rely on sheer numbers from your phalanx to win.

4. Romans-Urban cohorts and praetorian cavalry and to a lesser degree praetorian cohort. These units are blatantly op and in my opinion are a hangover from the singleplayers attempt to be noob friendly.
Solution-remove urbans and pratorian cav and forget they ever existed, increase cost of praetorian cohort.

Despite what many may say, I still think Urban Cohorts were made as a supreme assurance of the strenght of a Roman legion. They're indeed difficult to train, but if you've read the Multiplayer AAR's from our members, then you'll know there is a way to defeat them even with the Greeks. Brute force won't work, but thoughtful tactics will.

7. Melee Cavalry-not dramatically op but probably underpriced in most cases.

Most Melee cavalry, no matter how expensive, still will have a difficult time fighting infantry in melee. All cavalry is exceptionally fragile, can't face most Spearmen out there and need to keep moving in order to not be slaughtered. Cavalry is a supporting troop for infantry, not the opposite, and the prices seem reasonable and balanced.

3. Archers or more specifically non elite archers-the problem with these is that they are head and shoulders above other missile troops at basically the same cost added to which they are to strong for their cost, for example you can have three regular archer units for less than 1 elite archer.

I don't find most archers worth the slot and the price unless they have Long Range Missiles. Or else they just won't have time to shoot before the enemy reaches them, so it is reasonable to keep them cheap. Plus most ordinary archers won't damage heavily heavy infantry and some heavy cavalry, while elite archers such as Foresters and Cretans will literally crush the enemy at distance and rain arrows on them.

2. Chariot archers-the problem with these guys is that they are cheaper than many "elite" archers while being significantly better, and there is not a strong enough counter to them as they are effective vs cavalry & cantabarian circle gives them defence vs missiles.

Light Chariots can still be easily slaughtered by cavalry and heavy infantry, especially if they're ambushed. I've had no trouble chasing and routing them with cavalry, and I play on Hard and sometimes Very Hard.

Heavy Chariots are a different matter, but they can't shoot neither form a Cantabrian Circle... But they'll dodge missiles quickly.

1: Kill rate, morale and movement speed- we felt that kill rate and movement speed are to fast(slightly) and morale too low(again only slightly)

That depends on particular taste. Longer battles will increase the time needed to win a campaign, but that can be manageable depending on RL.

8. horse archers-again not dramatically overpowered but could do with price increase, also it was felt they should have less range than foot archers and remove cantabarian circle, they should be a unit that rewards skill, not the click of a button.

Reducing the range of Horse Archers would be not true historically, as they used compound bows with a greater range than shorter European bows. Cavalry Archers are fine as they are, being restricted to few factions on the edge of the campaign map and only being totally effective in open terrain. In the woods, or in less open terrain, better for you to buy foot archers and infantry

[Whiskeyjack]

Hi marcus, thanks for taking the time to respond. Firstly let me say i fear i may not have been entirley clear-this discussion was based purley on Multiplayer balance(10k limit) with complete disregard for singleplayer(which would require a thread of its own). However as you have taken the time to post i will respond to your points (please note: I am not claiming to be right, just stating my opinion).

Regarding spearmen: They are simply not worth the cost or unit slot in an army for anything other than against the ai imo, what i hoped for with this change was another use for spearmen similiar to the older TW games where they could have some utility(though even then they were underused).
Re elephants: I more or less agree, i don't really rate them either.
Re hoplites: You may be right i would need to test this more to see, i still dont like the "push" they have though.
Re Urbans: Disagree, Legionary cohort represents roman strength fairly, and tbh if you cant win with legionary cohorts you probably didn't deserve to win.
Re cavalry: Show me a human player who allows his cavalry to become bogged down in protracted melee or caught by spearmen and i will show you a bad player. At their current price in mp it is too easy to spam cavalry imo.
Re archers: I can only assume you are referring to singleplayer here, unless thing's have changed dramatically in mp since i last played the most common armies would have as many archers and cav as they could fit in with infantry basically playing a supporting role.
re chariot archers:I still believe they are op for cost and that not a strong enough counter exists for them as they are currently. In sp of course any unit is easily defeated.
Lastly on horse archers:the suggestions were based purley on gamplay balance with "realism" being ignored for the sake of this discussion. If we were discussing realism chariot archers and urban's wouldn't be an issue because they wouldn't be in the game, though i think that discussion would be more appropriate to another thread.
Thanks again.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Hi marcus, thanks for taking the time to respond. Firstly let me say i fear i may not have been entirley clear-this discussion was based purley on Multiplayer balance(10k limit) with complete disregard for singleplayer(which would require a thread of its own). However as you have taken the time to post i will respond to your points (please note: I am not claiming to be right, just stating my opinion).

Regarding spearmen: They are simply not worth the cost or unit slot in an army for anything other than against the ai imo, what i hoped for with this change was another use for spearmen similiar to the older TW games where they could have some utility(though even then they were underused).
Re elephants: I more or less agree, i don't really rate them either.
Re hoplites: You may be right i would need to test this more to see, i still dont like the "push" they have though.
Re Urbans: Disagree, Legionary cohort represents roman strength fairly, and tbh if you cant win with legionary cohorts you probably didn't deserve to win.
Re cavalry: Show me a human player who allows his cavalry to become bogged down in protracted melee or caught by spearmen and i will show you a bad player. At their current price in mp it is too easy to spam cavalry imo.
Re archers: I can only assume you are referring to singleplayer here, unless thing's have changed dramatically in mp since i last played the most common armies would have as many archers and cav as they could fit in with infantry basically playing a supporting role.
re chariot archers:I still believe they are op for cost and that not a strong enough counter exists for them as they are currently. In sp of course any unit is easily defeated.
Lastly on horse archers:the suggestions were based purley on gamplay balance with "realism" being ignored for the sake of this discussion. If we were discussing realism chariot archers and urban's wouldn't be an issue because they wouldn't be in the game, though i think that discussion would be more appropriate to another thread.
Thanks again.

Ah, I was talking about Single Player, by the way. I don't play MP, but some points still apply.

In sp of course any unit is easily defeated.

Does difficulty apply to MP? Because I still find some AI units tough to beat. Bull Warriors, Berserkers, Chosen Axemen and War Elephants; plus they get a combat bonus the higher the difficulty level you play, my experience says.

Re cavalry: Show me a human player who allows his cavalry to become bogged down in protracted melee or caught by spearmen and i will show you a bad player. At their current price in mp it is too easy to spam cavalry imo.

Realism modifications allow for cavalry that has utterly-powerful charge bonuses but very weak melee capabilities. Yet in Vanilla I would never charge cavalry from the front unless against light enemy units or when I have cataphracts.

The point about cavalry, you can still spam cavalry in your flanks to protect against enemy heavy cavalry. If you infantry is heavy enough, then they'll suffer severe casualties before being able to go through your line, and they'l expose their flanks to your cavalry by leaving them empty.

[Whiskeyjack]

Hi marcus,
No difficullty lvl's dont apply to mp. I believe in sp ai units get +3 attack on hard and +7 on vh though it could be slightly more.
Thanks for reminding me about beserkers i meant to include them in my list . Regarding the units you mentioned they are very strong but typically very vulnerable to missiles, particularly from the rear when engaged at the front(chosen axemen are just vulnerable to missiles generally). With war elephants its often easir to panic them with flaming arrows than to bother trying to kill them.
On cavalry, yes cavalry are not really meant for frontal charges in most cases, in MP people tend to use a small amount of Heavy infantry to pin enemy units and use massed cav charges to the flanks or rear for an instant rout, the problem as i see it is that because the low price of cav means that infantry are relegated to secondary role which doesn't really reflect the era of warfare the game is based upon(except for a couple of factions obviously.) The reason i dont like this is because the game becomes archer wars and who can micro their cav the best with very little tactics used, which is a shame.