PyrrhicVictoryGuy

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.

Huh maybe I don`t know defensive buildins may get a nerf but they are still kinda cheap and has their is no limit to them you aren't punished for placing them wherever. Another thing nobody uses the tier 2 towers , buts thats a different subject.

Team games are often so laggy that again ranged inf and elephant armies always win because the most played maps are just awfull for anything micro intensive like cav or artillery. Also archer civs dont even make champion archers , their eco is basically wood and food.

I never played with an archer not because of being anti meta , it's just because I came to pay as macedon and the diadochoi. But it's really frustrating , after so much work and micro to finally get the upper hand the *****s just disconnect.

This is a rant. Why even play 1v1 if you don't want to risk losing your ranking? Ffs after archer and elephant spam people still disconnect after 20 minutes when their "strat" doens't work. Really here i am trying to rush age 3 to get towers before i get an avalanche of arrows in my face vs them only having to gather wood and food for most of the game. Plus making cavalry ain't gonna help against archers or elephants cuz spear cav sucks against everything that ins't a woman, hell even skirmishers kill elephants faster than spear cav. Seriously this is ridiculous as it happened twice today. " oh well better alt-F4 , he can't win if there is no opponent " I just can't fathom why even do this in a community made game that is not mainstream.

Kinda beat you to the punch there eheheh.

I think i was not very clear, sorry about that. I meant to say that spear cav do tend to fair worse against ranged infantry than sword cav, in that way they do outperform in the traditional cavalry role. As you seem like a sceptic, letswaveabook provided a few tests:

Yeah it is something i could get behind but the problem is that changing champ pikemen can make the ptol and seleucid rosters bloated.

thanks, this post seems to be more about making it possible to ahve a working syntagma, and the scale of objects in game. As someone already pointed that formations are not a priority and will remain as eye candy for the most part so I already quit trying to advocate for working formations .

Since changing up the standard pikeman would upset the balance so much why not give the champion pikeman a bigger sarrissa ando so , more range , in exchange for less armor?

Ranged Infantry: Archer civs: Eastern Empires( kush , maurya and persia) Skirmisher/javelineer civs: Greek States, Successor kingdoms #Like the pike/spear dichotomy I presented earlier these will fill the same roughly the function with some specialization here and there, but also be exclusive to some factions with exceptions of course in the form of mercenaries/champs. · Archers Archers should have minimum range and way less damage than what they currently have (these values could be restored to archer civilizations via two upgrades: archer tradition, and a new one, or maybe just raise the cost of archer trad.). . Javelineers The dedicated heavy infantry and elephant killers, contrary to the archers these shouldn't have a minimum range but have their attack interval increased to 2 seconds. Also dedicated skirmisher civs could have an upgrade that improves their armor a bit ( "iphicratian peltast" or whatever). I still don't have an idea how to make them less effective against spear cav ( other than giving spear cav more armor) , which they should be. . Slingers Slinger civs: Barbarians Keep the ability to dmg buildings as normal but could inflict a bit more damage to other ranged troops than what they do now, namely archers due to their lower armor. This will make the slinger a tad bit more specialized to counter archers and buildings. #With these changes I hope to make ranged infantry a minority in most armies save for Athenians, Mauryans and Persians. Where the archer would be all around unit, the skirmisher and slinger would be more specialized troops. #Carthage and iberians are omited because they are/should be jacks of all trades in regard to ranged troops. #Slingers would be the primary response to ranged infantry for the barbarian factions.