PyrrhicVictoryGuy

Yeah Ptolemy Soter's bonus is dope, and he also has an elephant which is just icing on top.

Ranged infantry having different roles make sense to me although it kinda seems pointless because if you have archers you're gonna use the archers no matter what ( this ain't total war were javelineers have limited ammo but have armor pierce or archers that counter other ranged infantry) but melee is melee cav, like if we give sword cav to ptol , mac and sel, nobody will make spear cav with these civs anymore. It will be like the prodromos/ hippikon thing in AOM , as the prodromos is so specilaized against cav that is worthless to use since hoplites do their job better and cheaper. I don't wish to see this happen again here.

What i don't understand is why there has to be a diference in roles , i mean there aren't many roles melee cav could have

"Pirrians" ? You mean the mollossian epirots surely but no way they are too close to macedon both culturally and strategy wise, maybe in the future could be a hero idk as he did rule macedon very briefly. The numidians are inserted in the carthage faction as well as phoenicians , i mean Tyre is know for the dye and being besieged like all the time.

Who ? The iberian fellow?

Cleo boots cav? Everyday is a school day i guess

Perhaps I'm exaggerating, I did a 4 man FFA with sneaky rams and companions.

Even my boy phillip synergizes better with the champ xbows and thracian swordsmen than with the companions. Meanwhile Gaul has the "superior cavalry" bonus that gives their cav 10% more attack.

well gameplay wise i prefer sword cav too but my love will always be shock cav. I agree that maharbaal's bonus is better period, seleucids have the extra upgrade but that is another investment on top of the first upgrade plus the cost of making champ cav in the first place (and the less efficient type of cav at that). Another thing the that upgrade also increases training time by 10% therefore you must also take the training time upgrade.

Thats boring . get maharbal and go nuts with merc cav

What do you think is better? Maharbaal plus both types of merc melee cavalry or antiochus megas plus CS spear cav?

i've downloaded it tried to put in the data/ mods folder but it ain't showing up.

your kind is a rarity in the lobbies these days but to be honest i also do not wish to see skirmishers be the new meta CS

yeah but nobody plays iberians now

but nobody uses stone walls

You are right , i omited mercenaries because i was considering early game.

Well there is also the opportunity cost of attacking early. If your units have to move to the front line and fighting they aren't able to collect resources, the enemy's soldiers are. Also if you decide to make melee cav and the map has barely any hunts then again the opportunity cost for you is doubled for the same reasons as before but are compounded to the fact that cav can only hunt and cost 100 food and 40 (?) wood. If they ca´t harass very early then they will neve pay for themselves and even so killing 4-5 women won't win you the game. Whereas infantry will always pay for themselves without risk by simply collecting resources.

Very true.

First of , thank you for taking the time to read this. The questions might seem silly but Im just curious. Also i know that standardization of goods wans't a thing at the time so that migth explain some things My first question is why some call the phrygian helmet thracian? I tought the thracian was this: I also the same for the attic and the thracian: Another thing, I have the impression that both of these last helmets wer phased out for the pilos and the konos helmets while the phrygian remained popular, is this true? If so , any theories why? One would think the thracian helmets , specially like the one found in the prodromi grave were the epitome of protection and visibility, so much that millenia later , people came up with the burgonet and the morion with seem to harken back to these. Also is it correct to say that multiple types of helmets kinda merged in the late hellenistic period? I base my assumption on these images, which are obviously beotian helmets with an eastern flair : Also what's up with this one? I have seen some frescos that depict these , i'm guessing that they were easier and cheaper to mass produce.

Yeah i know eheheh, just messing with him.

sorry bud but it aint gonna happen, booming with citizens and going for 50 women max is the norm. " Booming is turtling " a sentence that fits the game very well as you can develop your eco and not fear being molested by cav since cavs sucks ( weakens your eco because they can only hunt, are made of paper, don´t kill ranged troops effeciently and most maps are just hell for their pathing) and because past age 2 citizens and towers/forts are everywhere so no unprotected women. Better go with AOM if you like the rock papper scissors counter. Also i predict skirms will be in fashion for A25

Come to think about it ,the game feels like aoe 3 now , just replace skirms with musketeer skin and javelineers with the aoe 3 skirmisher skin and its pretty much the same ahahah

I first played a few alphas back but didnt even playing online so i can't really say anything. But what i get from the opinions on the forums is that they are kinda afraid of nerfing ranged hard. I dont see what is the problem , ranged civs are always going to be powerfull due to well having range.

Actually i did just that against these two mauryas but i difnt throw more than 2 elephants.Ended up doing towers ,whatever pikes/skirms i had ,merc cav and merc swords , only used the elephants as rams really.

I realized that my opinions about balancing are too biased after being conditioned by aoe3,aom and total war so I can't tell what would be better.