Personal opinions

[randy_cat]

So, i played EB and many other mods quite a lot, and i wish to express my opinions about europa barbarorum I both as a player and as a modder myself.

There are things i liked a lot, things i didn't quite like, so let's start:

- Battles are slow, the killing rate is low, mainly thanks to the low weapon lethality. Even when surrounded, a strong unit can still fight, while in vanilla game for example, encircled units get slaughtered almost immediately.
- Infantry more important than cavalry. Since we are not in the middle ages where knights dominated the battlefield, it is quite right that cavalry is less important.
- Slow economy and settlement's growth. You have to choose, high taxes but no growth, or low taxes and you can upgrade your settlements.
- Many units, historically accurate and diverse.

Ok, things i think should/could be fixed to make EB even better:

- Cavalry maybe too weak? For example heavy cataphracts lose even to levy spearmen. I think this is not quite right, expecially since elite cavalry is super expensive while levy troops are very cheap. I don't like the idea of cavalry crushing infantry like in many other mods, because it's inaccurate and stupid, but here, cavalry is probably too weak and too costly.
- Balance between spears and swords/axes. I don't know why this choice but spears have a high attack but low lethality. Swords and axes have lower attack but higher lethality. Maybe it should be the opposite?... spearmen are defensive while swords and axes are more offensive, so spearmen with better defense and lower attacks should be more accurate. The weapon lethality can be changed to be the same, just give stronger units better attack ( also because the game engine when resolving battles doesn't take lethality or armor piercing factor into account, only the amount of attack/defense )
- Phalanxes too strong? Just like in vanilla RTW, units can't get past the spear wall and they are killed quite swiftly. They are weak when flanked or encircled but too strong frontally, which gives the player a powerful weapon. This is expecially true for pantodapoi phalangites, because they are cheap and very cost effective.
- Sea trade too good? When you get the more advanced shipyards you can get more trade fleets, and sea trade grows exponentially when you own cities with a shipyard. Factions with access to a lot of sea trade tend to grow exponentially, maybe too fast...


Please discuss if you like.

[mephiston]

Hey there! Nice to see somebody, things are so quiet over here.
To be honest I share most of the things you like and your concerns too. Let's elaborate a bit.

1) Low lethality and stronger infantry both contribute to having slow battles, which allows you to actually plan a strategy and do some tactical manoeuvring (unlike the blink-and-you'll-miss-it in vanilla), as well as giving some importance to stamina. This has been by far the most rewarding part of the game for me, together with the huge rosters of many diverse units.

2) Slow economy and growth. This is sort of a mixed bag for me. While I absolutely love the slow growth, the crappy early economy puts you in the weird early game situation of having either to disband your starting army and turtle up to build infrastructure, or blitz your way through AI-controlled cities until you reach positive balance. I would have liked a more balanced approach to the early game, which tends to be tedious or straight out irritating for this reason.

3) Cavalry too weak. I don't think it is the case, at least not for many units. The key is getting off a good charge: that is literally the only way a group of horsemen could reliably overwhelm more numerous infantry, which otherwise would swarm them and pick them off when static and isolated. Cataphracts can bowl over tens of infantrymen with a good charge: their problem is mostly stamina, meaning that they can't do it more than a couple of times per battle, but that is a non-issue in a game where chain routs are a factor and you can roll over a flank if you mass infantry combined with a good cata charge. Also charge cavalry has AP lances, which means that they do okay in melee vs armoured targets.
But on specific instances, namely overhand spear cavalry and javelin cavalry, I totally agree with you. Overhand spears are terrible, as are cavalry javelins.
On the other hand, there are some cavalrymen which are clearly too strong, which are horse archers.

4) Spears and swords/axes. Note that a spear has a higher (or similar) lethality compared to an axe or a shortsword. The king of lethality is the longsword, because it's a large weapon meant to hit with big and powerful swings which can easily incapacitate a man. I think that the defence skill of swordsmen is lower as a consequence, because longswords are cumbersome, whereas spearmen get a defence skill bonus.

5) Phalanxes are disgusting and you as a human player should never use more than 3, possibly of low-medium quality. A huge problem is their insane shield value (5), which isn't really justified because phalanx mode gives already a shield bonus.

6) Sea trade is the best source of income of the game after mines. I think both have historical precedents: think of how many military actions have been done to take control of the sea trade, or precious veins. I agree that in the game it is a bit ridiculous though.


These are just my two cents!

[Bladvak]

So, i played EB and many other mods quite a lot, and i wish to express my opinions about europa barbarorum I both as a player and as a modder myself.

There are things i liked a lot, things i didn't quite like, so let's start:

- Battles are slow, the killing rate is low, mainly thanks to the low weapon lethality. Even when surrounded, a strong unit can still fight, while in vanilla game for example, encircled units get slaughtered almost immediately.
- Infantry more important than cavalry. Since we are not in the middle ages where knights dominated the battlefield, it is quite right that cavalry is less important.
- Slow economy and settlement's growth. You have to choose, high taxes but no growth, or low taxes and you can upgrade your settlements.
- Many units, historically accurate and diverse.

This is a total modification, so don't think of it as an improvement over Rome total war, think of it as a re-created game using the same engine. Having the same engine comes with similar problems, as you most probably know.

As far as:
- battles slow - they are slow by design. Players want to enjoy the game, not just invest in charging units and mopping up fleeing opponents...
- infantry is important, cavalry is important, missile troops are important. each with their own. in auto-resolve, heavy-armoured infantry is king.
- slow economy and settlement growth - this is slow by design, trying to mimick the a more standard pace of things rather than the quick pace of RTW. again, done to enjoy the game. plus, now there are more buildings that give bonuses, among them settlement growth. so if you take your time, you can both grow your cities and have enough money for everything

Ok, things i think should/could be fixed to make EB even better:

- Cavalry maybe too weak? For example heavy cataphracts lose even to levy spearmen. I think this is not quite right, expecially since elite cavalry is super expensive while levy troops are very cheap. I don't like the idea of cavalry crushing infantry like in many other mods, because it's inaccurate and stupid, but here, cavalry is probably too weak and too costly.
- Balance between spears and swords/axes. I don't know why this choice but spears have a high attack but low lethality. Swords and axes have lower attack but higher lethality. Maybe it should be the opposite?... spearmen are defensive while swords and axes are more offensive, so spearmen with better defense and lower attacks should be more accurate. The weapon lethality can be changed to be the same, just give stronger units better attack ( also because the game engine when resolving battles doesn't take lethality or armor piercing factor into account, only the amount of attack/defense )
- Phalanxes too strong? Just like in vanilla RTW, units can't get past the spear wall and they are killed quite swiftly. They are weak when flanked or encircled but too strong frontally, which gives the player a powerful weapon. This is expecially true for pantodapoi phalangites, because they are cheap and very cost effective.
- Sea trade too good? When you get the more advanced shipyards you can get more trade fleets, and sea trade grows exponentially when you own cities with a shipyard. Factions with access to a lot of sea trade tend to grow exponentially, maybe too fast...


Please discuss if you like.

- which cavalry is weak and in under what conditions? this mod is taking things slower and trying to mimick reality.
when you say that heavy cataphracts lose to levy spearmen, which cataphracts, which levy spearmen, which conditions - attack in flank, attack from behind or suicidal attacks? the stirrups as far as I know were not invented yet so no "irresistible" charges like you have in Medieval Total War.
This is too vague.
Point two - I don't think you've played the game too much, otherwise you would argue that the cavalry is too OP (overpowered). Put any stack of infantry on the battlefield and I will meet you with a stack of Sarmatian Noble Horsearchers (or Companion Cavalry (Hellenic) - not Campanian Cavalry (Roman); or even Sacred Band Cavalry, or Equites Lanceari, etc) and maybe 4 elephants. Let's discuss after that if cavalry is too weak.
If you are talking about cavalry recruited from lower levels of barracks, those are for killing routing units, not charge home.

- balancing units is one of the hardest things to do as a (total) modder. if spearmen are overpowered, the factions not relying on spearmen get thrown out of history (i.e. gameplay). if swords are overpowered, everyone starts complaining about ahistoricity.
Not to mention - almost everywhere, the mark of a warrior was the spear not the sword. Swords are always overrated. Both veteran and newly recruited units used spears. The difference in prowess was gives by armour, discipline, training, resilience, not necessarily by the weapon itself. A spear is a lot better most of the times than a sword, and most of the times better at offense. After all swords are considered sidearms, most units that have spears as the main weapon have swords or axes as sidearms, but I think there are only 2 units the other way around with spear sidearms for gameplay practical reasons - Galaktoi Klerouchoi (Ptolemies) and Hypaspistai (if I remember correctly).
Ingame, swords have a higher rate of "hitting opponents", plus spears get a hidden malus against swords, if I recall correctly. Or something like this. This is a hidden thing which is not normally considered or discussed.

- Phalanxes are strong, but not being able to counter them is due to bad AI, not bad available units or tactics. Phalanxes also have strong armour and hidden bonus against archers if deployed in 5 ranks or more. But countering a full stack of Arche Seleukeia or Ptolemies midgame can be harrowing as a faction that does not use spearmen (try countering Pezhetaroi with Polybian infantry and let me know how it goes). And if you dare auto-resolve, again, please tell me how it goes. What I mean to say is that if the AI has the money and the possibility, they can be a threat to reckon with, and that is the attactiveness of the game. (BTW, AI Arche Seleukaia is counted as "White Death" for its stack-spamming, and AI Ptolemies the "Yellow Death" for its stack-spamming. I dread Ptolemies more than AS.)
Bottom point: If phalanxes are too strong for you, don't use them. But the AI needs to use them, so they have to stay.

- (Sea) trade was always too good. And factions with access to a lot of sea trade always tended to grow exponentially, like Greece, Phoenicians, Sikeli, Carthaginians, Romans (after 3rd Punic War), Byzantium, Venice, Genoa, Arabs, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Britain, USA, Singapore, etc ...

[randy_cat]

Thanks for your answers, and i see that we basically agree on most things, more or less.

Let's answer to Bladvak:

- Cavalry OP? When they charge from behind or they trample archers or slingers, they are good at this, of course. What i meant is, how is it that a squad of elite cataphracts ( let's say armenian catas ) loses in a straight fight with pantodapoi spearmen? ( straight fight i mean 1vs1, both charge frontally and no flanking or maneuvering ). Please make heavy cavalry a tad stronger at least when fighting weak infantry.

- When i said the spear/swords/axes balance is not ok, i meant that since the game calculates not the weapon's lethality or armor piercing abilities, but only the raw value of attack/defense, it means that spearmen always have an advantage because of their high attack, while swordsmen that beat spearmen usually on the field, they lose to spearmen in the autoresolve, making factions that spam a lot of spearmen a tad OP. Why not just give the same lethality to all weapons, just change the attack value?

[mephiston]

Point two - I don't think you've played the game too much, otherwise you would argue that the cavalry is too OP (overpowered). Put any stack of infantry on the battlefield and I will meet you with a stack of Sarmatian Noble Horsearchers (or Companion Cavalry (Hellenic) - not Campanian Cavalry (Roman); or even Sacred Band Cavalry, or Equites Lanceari, etc) and maybe 4 elephants. Let's discuss after that if cavalry is too weak.

Well, to be fair a full cav stack would be much more expensive than a full inf stack, and also weaker by a fair amount (unless you're talking about really imba matchups like Pahlava vs Lusos or something along these lines). If you throw in 4 elephants too then we're well beyond prohibitive budget.
Cavalry has a nice support role in this game, but when unsupported (i.e. only cavalry) it tends to die quickly vs infantry because of lower numbers and big models; also a full cav army plays completely against the usual early game mechanics which mostly revolves around getting good trades or at least a positional advantage, because cavalry trades REALLY badly with infantry unless you can consistently get in awesome charges.
But I digress. My point is that, if you exclude horse archers with cantabrian circle, cavalry isn't really overpowered, especially javelin cavalry and lights like Machimoi Hippeis; maybe a bit too strong in vanilla EB with the AP lances, but that's it really (and it's mostly an issue of secondary weapons being useless rather than the lance being actually too op).

but I think there are only 2 units the other way around with spear sidearms for gameplay practical reasons - Galaktoi Klerouchoi (Ptolemies) and Hypaspistai (if I remember correctly).

I think Solduri and Argoi also share the same peculiarity. Massaliotai Hoplitai too. I don't know if there are more, but these are the ones on top of my head.

Ingame, swords have a higher rate of "hitting opponents", plus spears get a hidden malus against swords, if I recall correctly. Or something like this. This is a hidden thing which is not normally considered or discussed.

If you talk longswords, they have higher lethality, which is usually interpreted as "the chance of a successful hit resulting in an actual kill, otherwise only knockback takes place", but slightly lower defence skill. Spears get a higher defence skill to compensate for lower lethality, but I think all spearmen have the light_spear attribute, which increases defence vs cavalry and decreases defence vs infantry (which is probably the hidden bonus you're talking about). This is e.g. the reason why phalanxes kill each others so quickly: if you combine high attack + high lethality + defence malus for being vs infantry...

- Phalanxes are strong, but not being able to counter them is due to bad AI, not bad available units or tactics. Phalanxes also have strong armour and hidden bonus against archers if deployed in 5 ranks or more.

There is that annoying "scythe-like" movement phalanxes tend to do when they get charged from the back, and turn their pikes to face the assault. If you ever saw it (I'd be amazed if you never did, considering how often it happens) you know what I'm talking about. That is frankly disgusting and indeed in MP battles it is banned.
I think the shield bonus when in phalanx mode does not depend on the number of ranks; I actually didn't test that, did you? Or you found this information somewhere? I'm really interested in this.

(try countering Pezhetaroi with Polybian infantry and let me know how it goes)

Actually in M battle difficulty Pezhetairoi vs Principes die horribly, you just need not to play into their hands and be proactive/mobile. You can beat 2 Argyraspids with 2 Principes quite easily.

how is it that a squad of elite cataphracts ( let's say armenian catas ) loses in a straight fight with pantodapoi spearmen? ( straight fight i mean 1vs1, both charge frontally and no flanking or maneuvering ). Please make heavy cavalry a tad stronger at least when fighting weak infantry.

Consider that if spearmen are "braced" against the charge, they will deflect the charge bonus into the incoming cavalry. This is a RTW 1.5 feature if I'm not mistaken. That is why frontally charging spearmen (ANY spearmen) is a terrible idea in EB, because units don't rout on contact unless isolated/threatened flanks/heavy casualties/6 morale or less/any combination of the above.

Why not just give the same lethality to all weapons, just change the attack value?

That would just mean streamlining the battle system and cutting away complexity from the balance point of view, and I don't say that in a positive way. Different lethality values contribute in the differentiation of weapons and roles in the battlefield. They also play a big, big role in the effectiveness of a charge.

[Bladvak]

I hope you are both taking this the right way - it is not meant to criticize your or anything, I just wanted to shed some light on why things happen or are "this way".

Most of the mechanics that you see belong to the Rome Total War engine, i.e. the software that powers the modification. The modders do not have the privilege of messing with these mechanics through software, only through what can be modded.
So any "silver surfer"-like bug, any "phalanx turning around on spot", etc, are from the engine and not from the mod.

Now, as a modder you modifify what you are allowed and try to cope with what you cannot.



Maybe Cavalry is not OP, but it is not weak either. I regularly play as AS and it is downright easy to beat off the 3 Eastern Factions (Pahlava, Bactria and Saka) with only half a stack of Dahae Riders (horsearchers with 0.4AP side lance that eats General Bodyguards for breakfast). Horsearchers are OP when in the hand of the players vs the AI, which is why I mostly use them against rebels, where the increased movement speed from Cavalry allows me to deal with multiple rebel stacks in fewer turns, thus keeping costs down.
But melee cavalry is also good, you just need to know when and how to use it - charging home with it even against prepared spearmen was always a bad judgment call. And the mod kinda gets that point through.

Then, there is also the battle difficulty that you are on - Very Hard gives +8 attack to all AI units, and Hard gives +4 attack to all AI units, probably other bonuses to morale as well. I might be wrong on the numbers, but if you play on difficulties other than Medium, you might get unexpected results. (I still remember years ago playing my first game of EB and having a full stack of Persian Archers (unarmoured) chewed and destroyed by 2 Pahlava Family Members and a little bit of side army. But I was playing on VH. I also remember a siege where a fullstack of Persian Archers were not able to kill off a single Pahlava Bodyguard Unit when besieging an unwalled town. I did not dare enter the town. Since then I learned my lesson that this is not vanilla and I am playing only on Medium).

The point about cavalry was not about cost, only about tactical power.
And you can afford quite easily a fullstack of Cavalry and Elephants as AS, IF that is what you truly need (you don't, but let's say you do), mostly against Ptolemies. I have roving small stacks of Companion Cavalry to deal with the small roving stacks that the Ptolemies and Saba send to me (I like to turtle to let them build up and pose a challenge). 4 Companion Cavalry can easily deal with 2 elite phalanx units and 2-3 skirmishers, anything more and the risk is not acceptable. I would not use Medium Greek Cavalry for this task since it would very unmatched. I would also not use Horse Archers for this since I would feel like cheating. So I see your point, but I hope you see my point as well.


Bottom opinion on cavalry - it is useful to win a battle, but you win wars with infantry, not with cavalry. More cost-effective, unless we talk about horse archers....Man these horse archers should be in a different category altogether.


As for swords having a higher rate of attack, or to attack, I mean the speed with which the engine calculates them swinging the sword, versus the speed of swinging the spear. This is a hidden mechanic that I know I read somewhere, but since I do not have a reference, I can only present it as best as I can.


Yeah, scythe-like phalanx movement is what kills off most of my Companion Cavalry. But I don't know how to replicate it wilfully, and I am not interested in doing that. I also don't play MP games...


Phalanx shield bonus versus archers is not a shield bonus, just a bonus I heard somewhere and just take it for granted. I did not test it, I try to enjoy the game with its visibile and invisible features, even though some of those features might be called bugs by others.



As with all other things, this is a reskin of a game from 2004 that had flawed mechanics, bugs, or just bad choices in the system. A mod can only do so much. Your points might be valid from a tactical point of view, but from a strategic point of view of looking at the balance, if you make something stronger, you might be ruining the balance. If you make the spearmen weaker against cavalry, you might be making them weaker against other infantry or against archers too, and then there is another decision to make - should the infantry be weaker too, should the archers be weaker too? And then the cavalry becomes too OP...should we make cavalry weaker? and the cycle repeats itself.

[mephiston]

I hope you are both taking this the right way - it is not meant to criticize your or anything, I just wanted to shed some light on why things happen or are "this way".

Ah, definitely! Don't worry. It's just the nature of friendly discussion, even if through the Internet it's harder to discern the tone of people you're discussing with. A bunch of posts where we tell each other "yeah sure, you're right, I agree" it's not really interesting so I prefer this way.

Most of the mechanics that you see belong to the Rome Total War engine, i.e. the software that powers the modification. The modders do not have the privilege of messing with these mechanics through software, only through what can be modded.
So any "silver surfer"-like bug, any "phalanx turning around on spot", etc, are from the engine and not from the mod.

This is both true and unfortunate. The problem is that you need to be aware of these bugs or mechanics, and try to get around them as much as possible. The "scythes of death" are one of those irredeemably unfixable bugs and we're left with just complains, but that does not mean I'm blaming the EB team for that.

Bottom opinion on cavalry - it is useful to win a battle, but you win wars with infantry, not with cavalry. More cost-effective, unless we talk about horse archers....Man these horse archers should be in a different category altogether.

Exactly - this is my point! Infantry is cost-effective, but cavalry is much more decisive. You use them at the right moment, you win - you leave them a bit too much in melee, they die.
Unless they're horse archers. Man, how disgusting they are in vanilla EB.

As for swords having a higher rate of attack, or to attack, I mean the speed with which the engine calculates them swinging the sword, versus the speed of swinging the spear. This is a hidden mechanic that I know I read somewhere, but since I do not have a reference, I can only present it as best as I can.

Ah, you mean the skeleton speed. I think it's the other way around actually. I recently saw a post on the Org where it was suggested that to make all weapons equal, you should use 0.5 as lethality for swordsmen skeletons, and 0.41 for spearmen skeletons: this means spearmen are faster and thus you're required to code a lower lethality to equalize them to swords.

Phalanx shield bonus versus archers is not a shield bonus, just a bonus I heard somewhere and just take it for granted. I did not test it, I try to enjoy the game with its visibile and invisible features, even though some of those features might be called bugs by others.

It is a shield bonus: I tested it quite thoroughtly, even if I did not get around to analyzing data with AP missile units. But I am not sure whether the formation affects the result, that's why I was asking.

As with all other things, this is a reskin of a game from 2004 that had flawed mechanics, bugs, or just bad choices in the system. A mod can only do so much. Your points might be valid from a tactical point of view, but from a strategic point of view of looking at the balance, if you make something stronger, you might be ruining the balance. If you make the spearmen weaker against cavalry, you might be making them weaker against other infantry or against archers too, and then there is another decision to make - should the infantry be weaker too, should the archers be weaker too? And then the cavalry becomes too OP...should we make cavalry weaker? and the cycle repeats itself.

What we noticed in rebalancing EB for MP is that the material was already quite good from the beginning, so we didn't have to shake things up too much unless in specific cases. The most relevant changes we applied are:
1) no more cantabrian circle for horse archers, and frighten_foot removed from most units.
2) accuracy tiers for ranged units: no more machine guns that decimate enemies from afar.
3) a general decrease in shield value for phalanxes, down to 2 or 3: the phalanx formation bonus is already enough.
4) no more ap cavalry lances, and more useful secondary weapons/cavalry javelins.
5) higher infantry charges (MUCH higher, up to 32 IIRC) in order to have an actual impact from the charge.
6) more varied unit sizes: cavalry units are not universally stuck at 100 men anymore.

And that's mostly it. You see, there are quite substantial changes at first sight, but if you think about it they're not that huge. Vanilla EB is already extremely more balanced than vanilla RTW.

[randy_cat]

One thing i also noticed is the cost of some of the high tier units like hypaspistai, cataphracts, champions etc... they surely are strong but not worth the cost. Let's take 1 band on hypaspistai and put it against 1 band of falxmen. The hypaspistai win but they lose a lot of soldiers, they are not that stronger to justify the very high upkeep and training cost. For example, hoplitai haploi are rather good even too much, they are moderately tough and very cheap. I'd rather train a lot of them instead of a smaller army of high tier units. Same goes for barbarian cheap spearmen, they are good and cost effective, while champions are terribly expensive, and they are not that stronger than cheaper units. Maybe nerf the cost of high tier units a bit?...

One thing i also noticed is the cost of some of the high tier units like hypaspistai, cataphracts, champions etc... they surely are strong but not worth the cost. Let's take 1 band on hypaspistai and put it against 1 band of falxmen. The hypaspistai win but they lose a lot of soldiers, they are not that stronger to justify the very high upkeep and training cost. For example, hoplitai haploi are rather good even too much, they are moderately tough and very cheap. I'd rather train a lot of them instead of a smaller army of high tier units. Same goes for barbarian cheap spearmen, they are good and cost effective, while champions are terribly expensive, and they are not that strong. Maybe nerf the cost of high tier units a bit?...

Same goes for archers and slingers, when they get some exp points they become machine guns and are expecially good vs light targets. They even kill armoured cavalry quick, and the AI is often prone to let their soldiers be shot from afar before countering with a charge.

[Bladvak]

One thing i also noticed is the cost of some of the high tier units like hypaspistai, cataphracts, champions etc... they surely are strong but not worth the cost. Let's take 1 band on hypaspistai and put it against 1 band of falxmen. The hypaspistai win but they lose a lot of soldiers, they are not that stronger to justify the very high upkeep and training cost. For example, hoplitai haploi are rather good even too much, they are moderately tough and very cheap. I'd rather train a lot of them instead of a smaller army of high tier units. Same goes for barbarian cheap spearmen, they are good and cost effective, while champions are terribly expensive, and they are not that stronger than cheaper units. Maybe nerf the cost of high tier units a bit?...

First, what's the point you are trying to make? Is it what you are writing, or do you just want an elite stack and pay peanuts for it?

Secondly, falxmen are highly offensive units, with AP (armor-penetrating) weapons, designed to work against units like hypaspistai. So, pitting highly armored elites against killer-elites units and they saying this is standard is not really helping your point. Put hypaspistai on walls, defend against incoming skirmishers that scale the walls, and let's talk after that. Or vice-versa, have hypaspistai assault walls defended by archers and skirmishers.
Like any unit, they are well worth the cost as long as you use them wisely. Using them as cannon fodder or like regular line infantry is not really what they were made for.
So you pay the higher cost to get a better unit for specialized tasks and needs.

Thirdly, these units are made to represent the elite class of the faction, and the upfront costs and upkeep are meant to reflect the amount of money that were usually needed to field them. You can pay peanuts to a peasant, but a noble needs gold. Lots of it.

Fourthly, and it has always been a known thing, elites in this game are not much better than medium units. You either really need to find a niche in order to field them, or you are swimming in money and can afford them.

Fifthly, (and I think it's the first time in my life I've used this word), consider that any cost increase or decrease applies to the AI as well. And I don't know if you know, but there are more AI-factions than there are player-factions. So if you want the costs for the elite units decreased, know that the AI cheats when it comes to money, so the AI will also field more of their own elites.

And lastly, (phew!), you seem to come with a Rome Total War mindset. This is Europa Barbarorum, a total modification that was developed about the same time the game was launched, up until 2017ish. The unit costs are an integral part of the game balance, with special care given to it throughout the decade-plus time the mod spent in development. Think about it, if it were something that needed to be addressed, it would have been. The cost choices were not casually taken. They were discussed and re-discussed. You should have been around 2012-2014 (I'd wager sooner than that, but 2012 is when I joined) and seen how much discussion was around here on these forums, about every little aspect of the game, bugs, features, choices, etc. There were others before you who went through what you went , and the state of the game now reflects a lot of that insight.

Same goes for archers and slingers, when they get some exp points they become machine guns and are expecially good vs light targets. They even kill armoured cavalry quick, and the AI is often prone to let their soldiers be shot from afar before countering with a charge.

The slingers usually have an attack value of 1, mainly for the reasons that you are describing. The slingers are meant to be counters for armoured units, and especially against elephants. The slingers are also getting destroyed in auto-resolve....

If the cavalry sits and allows to be decimated by archers, that's Rome Total War AI, not EB. You can give cavalry good horses, good weapons and armor, but you can only do so much, you cannot give them good brains.

As for (infantry) archers, I don't use them that often, only Kretan Archers and they are meh for me. Any enemy archers are swiftly countered or just ignored by me until I deal with bigger threats.

[randy_cat]

As far as i remember hypaspistai have an upkeep of about 850 or higher. Hoplitai haploi are at 230 or something. And élites are also fewer in Number, like 120 against 160. Let's also factor that High armor units are susceptible to armor piercing. Of course if you Put hypaspistai on the walls or in the city gate, they Will do very good buy even then they aren't worth It. I'd rather have 3 squads of pantodapoi phalangitai than 1 of hypaspistai defending the city. Yeah if It comes to attacking the walls élites are Better buy even then are they worth the cost? Not sure. Let's not talk about 1000+ upkeep elite kataphractoi that get defeated by pantodapoi spearmen in 1vs1. I'd rather have archers or slingers than spend all that money. Or some ap infantry which are all good, both vs infantry and cavalry.

There are some elites that are actually worth It but they are rare, like armoured falxmen which Will cut down everything expecially armoured élites, or briton sword masters... and a fare more but that's all

[Bladvak]

Hypaspistai are highly specialized units. I don't remember ever recruiting them. I prefer Peltastai Makedonikoi if I need them, or Rhomphaiaioioioioioioioioioi ( ).
I know what you are saying, that the cost is prohibitive for what they do.
But, just as Voltaire, just because I do not use Hypaspistai, I will defend their cost and the decision behind it.
The mod is trying to be closer to reality than Rome Total War, and the only way to recreate the scarcity of this unit is to have a high cost attached to it. Otherwise you would have stacks of Hypaspistai and you would complain that this unit should not be so common.
Sometimes the units are supposed to be so cost-ineffective, so they are not used too often. Hypaspistai are somewhat of a shiny prestige unit, not really needed since there are better options.


As for Cataphracts, they are not supposed to be used unsupported. You want tanks, but you need to practice maneuver warfare. Even the strongest unit in the game (Late Bactrian Bodyguards) gets wrecked when attacking prepared spearmen.

You somehow have a mindset that a cavalry unit should behave like an elite infantry unit and defeat any infantry that it attacks. The only time a Cavalry unit beats prepared spearmen in a frontal attack is when they are low on moral.

Put Cataphracts against enemy general bodyguards.
Put Cataphracts against Armored Horsearchers.
Put Cataphracts against Elephants.
Put Cataphracts against the behind of the enemy line and charge.
Put Cataphracts against wavering enemies.
And always strive to have a 2:1 local superiority when attacking.

Otherwise you are wasting good cavalry units.


If you want shiny units, be prepared to pay good money for them. Just know that better units exist.


Ask yourself: why do you want to recruit Hypaspistai and Cataphracts? What are their uses in your army?

[mephiston]

I'd love that the scarcity of units would be simulated via a mechanism of limited recruitment, as in Med2, but unfortunately this is not possible without excessive amount of scripting.

As for the rest, I agree with everything apart from one thing:

Put Cataphracts against Elephants.

The day this happens, my friend, will be a very sad day for the Pahlavan nobility.

[Bladvak]

I'd love that the scarcity of units would be simulated via a mechanism of limited recruitment, as in Med2, but unfortunately this is not possible without excessive amount of scripting.

As for the rest, I agree with everything apart from one thing:



The day this happens, my friend, will be a very sad day for the Pahlavan nobility.

I was talking about the AS Cataphracts, hopefully. Not that it's too much of a difference.

Also, I am putting Dahae Riders in melee against Elephants. RIP Elephants.
Dahae Riders really are OP in the East, South, West or North. They are such a cheat that I only use them for Rebel armies and settlements...