Altering attributes???

[nlovertoom]

I want to make the cost and ability balance of Roman and barbarian units more realistic (I hate that German spearmen in loin clothes can cut down Triarii at will...)

I feel that barbarian units on the whole should be fairly cheap to recruit and upkeep (say a 25% decrees) to counter their reduced power (also a 25% decress) and Roman units should be higher than the present cost (say double) to counter the higher defense (again double). This will allow for larger barbarian hordes and smaller but better roman armies. This will also allow for a more realisctic game play I hope. (I know there must be others out there that are getting tired of the unkillable naked fanatics! Their johnsons can't be THAT intimidating!!!)

Also, if you use the minimod that alters the camillian recruiting system (where traditional Roman units can only be recruited in Rome and allied levies are recruited elsewhere) I believe to better represent a more realistic feel to the Roman/allied system the allied Samnite spearmen and Bruttian infantry should be fairly cheap to recruit (these were agreed upon levies that conquered or allied communities HAD to supply to Rome with little initial cost to the Romans) but the upkeep for these allied levies should be more substantial to counter the cheap recruitment cost.

Anyway, how would one go about altering unit attributes and upkeep while implimenting it into the game?? I modded the code into the EB\Data export_descr_unit file but nothing changes in game. Do I need to change another file as well? Any comments or help would be much appreciated

[Mediolanicus]

You need to alter the backup sp EDU when you use the trivial script. It overwrites the one in the Data folder each time you start EB.

You are playing on Medium battle or not? My triarii have no problem whatsoever with Germanic units. H and VH ruin the balance since it gives morale, attack and defense boni up to 7 points to the enemy. You can't win a one on one unit battle on H or VH.

The EB team made the Roman units so cheap to reflect their numbers. The Romans fielded large numbers of soldiers while tribal societies only levied their warriors for the actual battles. The latter is of course more expensive over all (more impact on the whole economy).

Of course you are free to do what you want.

Making the Romans even stronger would be making EB a bit too easy IMO, since you can win any battle with a well balanced Roman army of 10-14 units on M battle difficulty.

[nlovertoom]

I play VH/VH (I cant bring myself to play lower) and even VH/VH is honestly too easy... I never lose and rarely am I even threatened since Carthage is such a non-factor in this game. At this point I just want to make it a little more realistic for being Rome when fighting the norther barbarians (especially with the later units).

As the Romani one always has tons of money for soldiers and buildings so I dont foresee added costs to units as a problem that will restrict recruitment severly. Although Rome did field a fairly large army, especially by the 3rd century BCE, the Gauls and Germans often had far more soldier in the various battles between Romans and barbarians (although they were more last minute levies like you say). The Cimbri and the Teutones are a good example or the Roman campaigns in Spain or Caesar at Alesia.

It's not so much the size of Roman armies that made them unique, rather it was Rome's huge man reserves and their system of levies upon their allies (this made them very different from Carthage, Macedon, or the Seleucids). Unfortunately this aspect is hard to duplicate in a video game. .

The size of ones army should reflect the size of ones empire for the Roman faction. This can be done even with higher costs. Barbarian armies in general were more numerous than their Roman counterparts and less disciplined/equipped/organized. When the barbarians defeated the Romans, especially later in their history, it was due more to amazing numbers (like the Cimbri and Tuetones) or surprise (like with Varro). An evenly matched battle should heavily favor the Romans. Hence more/cheaper barbarian armies and less/better Roman armies seems to sound correct. Where it gets very tricky is with the Carthaginian, Greek, and Hellenic factions since they had relatively small armies and few reserves. This would take some thinking and a complete overhaul probably...

Alas it is only a game in the end and cannot be 100% historically accuarte; however, I hope that through some moderate tweeking of cost and attributes I can make the game play more realictic (it might make the Romans easier... but for a game that doesn't even feature competative navies or the ability for Carthage to sail to Italy or Spain... I don't feel that it can be made much easier for the Romans. Enjoyment of a more realistic balance in battle and gameplay should take priority).

Just my two cents.

[Mediolanicus]

Well yes, but on VH you can't expect your units to be balanced, can you? Improving your unit's stat just gives you the same effect as playing on M.

"It's not so much the size of Roman armies that made them unique, rather it was Rome's huge man reserves and their system of levies upon their allies (this made them very different from Carthage, Macedon, or the Seleucids). Unfortunately this aspect is hard to duplicate in a video game. . "

That's why the Roman units are cheaper.

And I have my doubt about the unorganised hordes which everyone assumes "barbarians" were. The Romans did have a history of exaggerating numbers and a tribal warrior structure should produce less and better warriors, rather than more and worse, than an institutionalized mass levy system. But we'll never know.

So you now know which EDU to edit? Or don't play with the trivial script, much easier if you know a bit about how RTW works.

Enjoy your game!