Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Hellenistic Cataphracts - More Expensive, Weaker?

  1. #1

    Default Hellenistic Cataphracts - More Expensive, Weaker?

    So I am playing Parthia (was doing a bit of a run through the Nomadic factions, and decided to stick with them), and Cataphracts have been quite valuable for my all cavalry army, so I got interested in the unit and decided to check other cataphracts in the game. Basically, there's a handful: Sarmatian (pseudo-cataphract, but cheap), Sakan (pretty good), Parthian (apparently the best), Hay (pretty good), and Hellenic (pretty good).

    Now, the the matter at hand is, despite the Hellenic cataphract not being (from my point of view) the best, it is as expensive as the Parthian one. They are even stated to have better armor, but all (real) cataphracts have the same value, 10. So maybe it was an oversight when applying the cost calculation formula? Because as far as I know, the formula only takes account the attributes and tactical characteristics of the unit -- availability or campaign access don't weigh at all.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Hellenistic Cataphracts - More Expensive, Weaker?

    The nationality or culture of a unit also matters. Hellenistic cavalry is more expensive, and there are few more such adjustments.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Hellenistic Cataphracts - More Expensive, Weaker?

    The description of the hellenistic cataphract is a copy paste from the EB1 version, it isn't updated for EB2 at all, so it isn't representative of the unit. The reason for the cost is just the formula, which perhaps takes in to account that one comes from settled professionals while the other is a natural part of their society (steppe aristocracy). The reason for the kataphraktoi being worse at the charge is becuase they are imitation cataphracts, not the original ones.

    There may be medians and other nations with a tradition of mounted warfare among them, but the way of cataphract fighting is very specific (ex. charging at the trot) and would be alien to anyone but the steppe people it originated from. EB2 tries to represent how the hellenistic cataphracts aren't natives at their way of fighting but are instead of a hodpodge of eastern people who have been trained in a foreign way of cavalry combat. They're still very powerful, as few units could break roman infantry from the front like they did in Magnesia. They just aren't the original people born with this military tradition, but late adopters who are imitating a style they see as successful.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Hellenistic Cataphracts - More Expensive, Weaker?

    It is more that I was under the impression that unit costs are always based on that formula, so there's no trully cost-effective unit on the mod, as you are always getting what you pay for, and paying for what you are getting.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Hellenistic Cataphracts - More Expensive, Weaker?

    werent the seleucid cataphracts parthian/median though?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts