Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Odrysian Kingdom - Never Forget!

2

Comments

  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 471
    edited January 2015
    Marijan wrote: »
    You have read the source mentioning spear-men accompanying javelin-men as well as I did, which even mentioned them as possible predecessors to the Macedonian Sarissa because of their length. There were Thracian spear-men, at the very least on a tribal level as part of unorganized raiding bands, who used whatever they had as in probably most other Barbarian societies as well. They would neither be far-fetched in terms of historical accuracy nor imbalance the faction and wouldn't even require actual work to be implemented, since Dacian Spearmen would be a reasonable addition as well. In reality Greek Hoplites or Macedonian Pikemen often acted as the heavy infantry core of the armies the Thracians ended up fighting in. There is absolutely no reason to assume though, that if their allies would have been braindead idiots that blindly charge into their enemies or get stuck at the edge of the battlefield without even paying attention to your own troop movement, that they would have used the previously existing alternatives to protect themselves against cavalry instead, especially if their anti-cavalry tactics of Peltasts do not work in this game either, where cavalry just smashes into their enemies.

    I did read the thing that mentioned some spears. Firstly, it was conjecture. Secondly, it was referring to a period centuries before Rome 2. Thirdly, sources at or around the time of Rome 2 mentioned no spears at all. And you'll probably go "well, why would they mention spears? They're a given!" Well, why the hell would you mention peltasts or cavalry? They're a given! Why would you mention hoplites in a Greek army? That's practically all they used! If that's how ancient historians wrote about battles, they would all be written like this "There were a bunch of guys on both sides. One side had some mercenaries, which was interesting. They fought. Side A won." They didn't do that. They painstakingly listed the components of each army in almost every case and would have specifically referred to spearmen if they had been used.
    For the most part, Thracians used their famed cavalry to deal with enemy cavalry. When enemy cavalry did try to attack their infantry, historians specifically describe tactics that did not utilize spears.
    Marijan wrote: »
    How does their bonus vs cavalry relate to the indirect buff of spear-infantry, I mentioned, which weakened the Odrysian Kingdom? The slight buffs they received afterwards barely make up for that loss, especially since the units of many other factions received additional bonuses as well. Be proud of yourself that you "did it", but that is no real achievement against the braindead AI, which is why it is hardly relevant, as I already stated. You could spam Eastern Spearmen and win a campaign at ease, but that doesn't mean a faction which has access to Eastern Spearmen is therefor perfectly fine otherwise. They certainly did not make any aspect of this game "easier" to place "people like me", who are constantly criticizing the complete lack of late-game challenge and campaigns that are usually lost to extreme boredom instead of actual enemies and consider the starting situation of a faction as the only part of the game that could be considered as kind of challenging.

    It relates because it's also an indirect buff to OK. So, they were nerfed by the removal of bonus vs infantry and buffed by the indirect buff to units with bonus vs cav. They came away kinda even because they retain their ability to wreck cav and are less vulnerable to the enemy throwing in sword infantry as a way to support said cav.

    Besides, you're kind of defeating yourself here. On one hand, you're complaining that the OK's roster makes it way too difficult to succeed in campaign, but on the other hand you're saying that it's no accomplishment to beat the campaign as OK because it's extremely easy to do...Either it's too hard to play as OK or it's too easy...which is it, man? You can only have it one way.
  • MarijanMarijan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,001
    edited January 2015
    I did read the thing that mentioned some spears. Firstly, it was conjecture. Secondly, it was referring to a period centuries before Rome 2. Thirdly, sources at or around the time of Rome 2 mentioned no spears at all. And you'll probably go "well, why would they mention spears? They're a given!" Well, why the hell would you mention peltasts or cavalry? They're a given! Why would you mention hoplites in a Greek army? That's practically all they used! If that's how ancient historians wrote about battles, they would all be written like this "There were a bunch of guys on both sides. One side had some mercenaries, which was interesting. They fought. Side A won." They didn't do that. They painstakingly listed the components of each army in almost every case and would have specifically referred to spearmen if they had been used.

    No, they did not painstakingly listed the components of each army. Some historians did this for some battles, mainly the big and significant one. They did not roam through foreign lands to witness and record each instance of insignificant tribesmen raiding each other, which nobody else really cared about. There are records of the components and their use of the big, organized Thracian armies and Thracian professionals as part of other armies, whether as mercenaries or allies. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the Thracians, out of all factions, would be the ones that did not use spears at all, despite having sources even mention long spears being used in combination with and as protection for javelin-men, because it predates the time-frame of the game, which by the way includes units that were recorded to have been destroyed beforehand (the Sacred Band of Carthage for example) or nonsensical to begin with (whole units of women, Cultists or all sorts of unusual artillery) - for the sake of diversity, variety and to enable the player to restore such units (referring to units like the Sacred Band, not the obvious nonsense) if they felt the need or simply want to, since it is well within the realm of realistic possibilities. Combine that with unreliable allies, who certainly won't provide the heavy infantry core for your army, an inconsistent and stupid trait, which makes using mercenaries instead even less viable than usual, although it makes absolutely no sense, and the way cavalry works in this game and the addition of Thracian spear-units or at least access to Dacian ones is more than justified.
    It relates because it's also an indirect buff to OK. So, they were nerfed by the removal of bonus vs infantry and buffed by the indirect buff to units with bonus vs cav. They came away kinda even because they retain their ability to wreck cav and are less vulnerable to the enemy throwing in sword infantry as a way to support said cav.

    We asked for that bonus and we got it, but that doesn't mean that the faction or its units would be fine now, as much as replacing one of three flat tires of your car doesn't mean it is good to go now.
    Besides, you're kind of defeating yourself here. On one hand, you're complaining that the OK's roster makes it way too difficult to succeed in campaign, but on the other hand you're saying that it's no accomplishment to beat the campaign as OK because it's extremely easy to do...Either it's too hard to play as OK or it's too easy...which is it, man? You can only have it one way.

    I never complained about succeeding on the campaign map with any faction being too difficult. You really need to learn to differentiate between different issues, problems and aspects of the game, as I already said. You can probably win with nothing but agents, but that doesn't mean that your navy is fine and vice versa. That you do not "need" anything really besides Eastern trash units to steamroll the AI on the campaign map does not prove any kind of point, except for that the AI is still pretty bad. There is absolutely no contradiction in saying that a regular campaign as Odrysian Kingdom or with any faction for that matter is not that difficult at all and stating that the faction should receive more units among other changes for various reasons.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,107
    edited January 2015
    Pink. You are basically the only one who takes your "other side". :-/
  • SebideeSebidee Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,801
    edited January 2015
    Organised regiments of a unit is not required to include that unit. If that was the case then none of the barbarians would have anything. Just the fact that they used that weapon is needed. Thracians used spears, give them spears.

    They don't have to be hoplites, triarii or noble spears. Just a dirt cheap levy that you can use for countering cavalry. That's not hard.
  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 471
    edited January 2015
    Marijan wrote: »
    No, they did not painstakingly listed the components of each army. Some historians did this for some battles, mainly the big and significant one. They did not roam through foreign lands to witness and record each instance of insignificant tribesmen raiding each other, which nobody else really cared about. There are records of the components and their use of the big, organized Thracian armies and Thracian professionals as part of other armies, whether as mercenaries or allies. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the Thracians, out of all factions, would be the ones that did not use spears at all, despite having sources even mention long spears being used in combination with and as protection for javelin-men, because it predates the time-frame of the game, which by the way includes units that were recorded to have been destroyed beforehand (the Sacred Band of Carthage for example) or nonsensical to begin with (whole units of women, Cultists or all sorts of unusual artillery) - for the sake of diversity, variety and to enable the player to restore such units (referring to units like the Sacred Band, not the obvious nonsense) if they felt the need or simply want to, since it is well within the realm of realistic possibilities. Combine that with unreliable allies, who certainly won't provide the heavy infantry core for your army, an inconsistent and stupid trait, which makes using mercenaries instead even less viable than usual, although it makes absolutely no sense, and the way cavalry works in this game and the addition of Thracian spear-units or at least access to Dacian ones is more than justified.

    CA likes to sometimes include units to represent something cool, unique, or interesting despite the fact that the unit in question may have only been mentioned as being used only once and even then not in a large organized body. This is how you get things like beehive onagers or some of the women units or flaming javelins. And sometimes they put in things like Carthage's Sacred Band because it's an interesting thing for their faction that has a historical basis, however slight. Moreover, every time they do this, they only do it if they think that it fits the tactical feel of the faction that they have in mind. However, this does not obligate them to include everything that was ever even passively mentioned. Flaming pigs and Arcani were included in Rome 1 and had some historical basis, but that doesn't mean they need to be included in Rome 2. While both of those units would certainly increase variety, they don't fit the feel of Rome that CA was going for this time around.

    Yes, there is some evidence that some spearmen might possibly have been used by Thracians literally multiple centuries prior to Rome 2. That's the best evidence we can get for that, by the way. Not even a solid yes in an obscure case. A maybe for multiple centuries before the target date. However, there are no particularly interesting or unique spearmen that could be included on that basis (like **** shield women, for instance), and the inclusion of spearmen does not match the tactical feel of the faction that CA is aiming for (obviously, or they would have found an excuse to include them from the get go).
    Marijan wrote: »
    We asked for that bonus and we got it, but that doesn't mean that the faction or its units would be fine now, as much as replacing one of three flat tires of your car doesn't mean it is good to go now.

    What bonus did you ask for? They've had a bonus vs large since the launch of their faction pack.
    Marijan wrote: »
    I never complained about succeeding on the campaign map with any faction being too difficult. You really need to learn to differentiate between different issues, problems and aspects of the game, as I already said. You can probably win with nothing but agents, but that doesn't mean that your navy is fine and vice versa. That you do not "need" anything really besides Eastern trash units to steamroll the AI on the campaign map does not prove any kind of point, except for that the AI is still pretty bad. There is absolutely no contradiction in saying that a regular campaign as Odrysian Kingdom or with any faction for that matter is not that difficult at all and stating that the faction should receive more units among other changes for various reasons.

    Ok, well I know that you've made comments about how you think that the faction is unmanageable in early campaign and that those comments have been the centerpieces of points that you've made, which speaks directly against what you just said. Moreover, I do know that the difficulty of the faction in campaign is a primary motive for the suggestions of many people posting in threads like this on your side.
    However, I'll bite. If your complaint about OK is not that they're too difficult in campaign, what the heck IS your complaint? Is it that they don't have enough variety? If so, why aren't you whining about the Nomad factions? Is it because they don't have spears? Why is it fine that Sparta doesn't have swords? Is it because their navy sucks? What about all of the other factions with worthless navies? (Nomads, Iberians, Suebi, even Armenia and Parthia to an extent)
    If you don't think the campaign with them is too hard, what reason do you have for requesting new units? The historical basis isn't strong enough and everything else I can think of leads you to inconsistencies and/or hypocrisy.
  • MarijanMarijan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,001
    edited January 2015
    Yes, there is some evidence that some spearmen might possibly have been used by Thracians literally multiple centuries prior to Rome 2. That's the best evidence we can get for that, by the way. Not even a solid yes in an obscure case. A maybe for multiple centuries before the target date. However, there are no particularly interesting or unique spearmen that could be included on that basis (like **** shield women, for instance), and the inclusion of spearmen does not match the tactical feel of the faction that CA is aiming for (obviously, or they would have found an excuse to include them from the get go).

    There is evidence for the use of such weapons, which is probably more than for entire factions or units at the date the game starts. Most of the units of the game are basically made up and based on assumptions, what seems to be reasonable and realistic units for them to have, not actual evidence or explicit sources, especially in terms of different tiers of organized Barbarians units. There is absolutely no reason for one of the most reasonable additions in terms of basically everything, historical accuracy, balance, variety and work required to implement such a unit, to be the exception to that, while nonsensical units like beehive onagers ridicule the ancient battlefields. There are so many parts of the game which aren't only badly implemented, but badly designed that "working as intended" or "CA wants it this way" are hardly arguments when discussing suggested changes or improvements.
    What bonus did you ask for? They've had a bonus vs large since the launch of their faction pack.

    That is not true. The bonus vs large, which I among others had asked for, was supposedly implemented with Patch 13.1, after it has been pointed out that the Rhomphaia could be long and straight enough to be used similar to a spear and the Dacians were able to pull horsemen out of their saddles with the curved Falx.
    Ok, well I know that you've made comments about how you think that the faction being unmanageable in early campaign and that those comments have been the centerpieces of points that you've made, which speaks directly against what you just said. Moreover, I do know that the difficulty of the faction in campaign is a primary motive for the suggestions of many people posting in threads like this on your side.

    Quote me on that or refrain from making such accusations. I neither think that any faction is "unmanageable in early campaign" or that winning a campaign in general would be too difficult with any faction, nor can I remember mentioning it, let alone making it the "centerpiece" of any point I have made. Furthermore I, as much as everyone else, can only speak about myself and my own motives, but in that case your assumptions couldn't be further from the truth.
    However, I'll bite. If your complaint about OK is not that they're too difficult in campaign, what the heck IS your complaint? Is it that they don't have enough variety? If so, why aren't you whining about the Nomad factions? Is it because they don't have spears? Why is it fine that Sparta doesn't have swords? Is it because their navy sucks? What about all of the other factions with worthless navies? (Nomads, Iberians, Suebi, even Armenia and Parthia to an extent)
    If you don't think the campaign with them is too hard, what reason do you have for requesting new units? The historical basis isn't strong enough and everything else I can think of leads you to inconsistencies and/or hypocrisy.

    I have countless of complaints about this faction and related mechanics, including the lack of variety you have mentioned. I am kind of tired of repeating that being able to defeat the absolutely horrific AI is neither an achievement nor an actual argument for general balance. Who said that it is fine that the Spartans have no access to the swords that all of their Hoplites carried in reality? It is another of the many shortcomings of this game, but two wrongs don't make a right. Just because other factions might be suffering from nonsensical, historically inaccurate, imbalanced or simply bad design as well, doesn't make this one in specific any better. That nomads have no access to Greek ships, doesn't mean that the Odrysians shouldn't have access to them either. Learn to differentiate between different aspects of the game and factions please. What is a huge imbalance or historical inaccuracy for one of them doesn't have to impact another one at all - and the Odrysians had access to Greek ships and the knowledge and facilities to construct more of them were available to them, so why would they construct inferior and utterly useless Celtic ships instead, regardless of what nomadic tribes did simultaneously elsewhere? Denying Barbarian ships the ability to ram in general is a separate balance issue, which made this one only worse. In addition to that single units can be imbalanced, even if the unit roster in general is not imbalanced, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's fine either.
  • SebideeSebidee Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,801
    edited January 2015
    Marijan wrote: »
    Most of the units of the game are basically made up and based on assumptions, what seems to be reasonable and realistic units for them to have, not actual evidence or explicit sources, especially in terms of different tiers of organized Barbarians units.

    I think CA's actual policy, which they have mentioned before, is that if they find only one legit source that mentions a unit then they are allowed to include it. This makes for some strange stuff (like for example incendiary pigs) but I think it's a good policy for a video game because it allows for some cool units that a wider player base would enjoy.

    This would also definitely allow for Thracian spearmen.
  • PhilBowlesPhilBowles Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,237
    edited January 2015
    Intrigued both by this thread and the Odrysian bonuses/maluses, I've just started an Odrysian campaign. I'm only a turn in so can't comment on the campaign beyond noticing that, based on the Odrysian starting position, they'd lose a popularity contest with the Barcids. But given the Balkan faction rules, shouldn't they be relying on quick-to-hire, quick-to-dismiss mercenaries for a lot of their military strength?

    If that's the case, I wonder whether focusing on changes or additions to their roster is the best approach - maybe give their buildings a bonus to mercenary replenishment rates? That way, if they need spearmen they have readier access to mercenaries. The same would apply to ships, and if their fleets were supplied by the surrounding Greeks (why do they have a diplomatic malus with Greek factions?) it would seem to make more sense to treat these as mercenaries rather than Thracian recruits.
  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 471
    edited January 2015
    Marijan wrote: »
    There is evidence for the use of such weapons, which is probably more than for entire factions or units at the date the game starts. Most of the units of the game are basically made up and based on assumptions, what seems to be reasonable and realistic units for them to have, not actual evidence or explicit sources, especially in terms of different tiers of organized Barbarians units. There is absolutely no reason for one of the most reasonable additions in terms of basically everything, historical accuracy, balance, variety and work required to implement such a unit, to be the exception to that, while nonsensical units like beehive onagers ridicule the ancient battlefields. There are so many parts of the game which aren't only badly implemented, but badly designed that "working as intended" or "CA wants it this way" are hardly arguments when discussing suggested changes or improvements.

    There is at least one direct historical reference to beehives being fired from onagers during the time span of Rome 2. That cannot be said for Thracians using spears. While it might have been smarter to make beehives an ammo choice, the point is that it has better historical backing than Thracian spear units, which again, I must remind you, is only a mere suggestion for a period centuries prior to Rome 2. Remember that no primary sources ever mention Thracian spears. The discussion of that possible use of spears during that particular time period was entirely conjecture on the part of the author of the article. Stop holding onto that like a life raft 'cause it isn't a very good one.
    And as I've told you a thousand times, the fact that you don't like something does not mean that it's bad or wrong.
    Marijan wrote: »
    That is not true. The bonus vs large, which I among others had asked for, was supposedly implemented with Patch 13.1, after it has been pointed out that the Rhomphaia could be long and straight enough to be used similar to a spear and the Dacians were able to pull horsemen out of their saddles with the curved Falx.

    Interesting, did not know that. Still, because of the inclusion of a bonus vs large regardless of the timing of that inclusion, they did come away pretty even from a practical standpoint after the removal of most bonus vs infantry.
    Marijan wrote: »
    Quote me on that or refrain from making such accusations. I neither think that any faction is "unmanageable in early campaign" or that winning a campaign in general would be too difficult with any faction, nor can I remember mentioning it, let alone making it the "centerpiece" of any point I have made. Furthermore I, as much as everyone else, can only speak about myself and my own motives, but in that case your assumptions couldn't be further from the truth.

    Ok...
    Marijan wrote: »
    The Odrysian Kingdom is very far from "fine", especially on the campaign map, although some individually very powerful units, for example their Thracian Nobles with ridiculously high stats, make it competitive in multiplayer.
    The topic of multiplayer here was directly focused on the efficacy of the faction in multiplayer. Particularly the trope of players bemoaning the apparent insurmountable difficulty of using the faction effectively in multiplayer and my counterproposal that the faction, in fact, is quite easy to use effectively when one ceases to adhere to the standard tactics used by most other factions. You juxtaposed the faction in multiplayer with the faction in campaign and said that the units that you think make the faction viable in multiplayer don't help in campaign because they are only available in late game. Because the multiplayer discussion was clearly and openly about ease of use, your juxtaposition only makes sense here if your discussion of the campaign was also about ease of use, particularly about how you think that the faction in campaign, unlike in multiplayer, IS unreasonably difficult to use.
    You also said that the recent changes to navies "crippled the faction even further", verbally implying that they were crippled already. If that's not what you meant, then there was no reason for you to word it that way. Even if that wasn't what you meant, you did say clearly that the faction is at least crippled with the current state of navies.

    And these are just from this thread. You've made comments like that every time we've talked about this.
    I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, but it's kind of your own fault for poor wording.
    Marijan wrote: »
    I have countless of complaints about this faction and related mechanics, including the lack of variety you have mentioned. I am kind of tired of repeating that being able to defeat the absolutely horrific AI is neither an achievement nor an actual argument for general balance. Who said that it is fine that the Spartans have no access to the swords that all of their Hoplites carried in reality? It is another of the many shortcomings of this game, but two wrongs don't make a right. Just because other factions might be suffering from nonsensical, historically inaccurate, imbalanced or simply bad design as well, doesn't make this one in specific any better. That nomads have no access to Greek ships, doesn't mean that the Odrysians shouldn't have access to them either. Learn to differentiate between different aspects of the game and factions please. What is a huge imbalance or historical inaccuracy for one of them doesn't have to impact another one at all - and the Odrysians had access to Greek ships and the knowledge and facilities to construct more of them were available to them, so why would they construct inferior and utterly useless Celtic ships instead, regardless of what nomadic tribes did simultaneously elsewhere? Denying Barbarian ships the ability to ram in general is a separate balance issue, which made this one only worse. In addition to that single units can be imbalanced, even if the unit roster in general is not imbalanced, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's fine either.

    My question is this. If you are just as mad about Spartans not having swords, why aren't you making and trolling threads about Spartans needing swords to be balanced? Why aren't you making and trolling threads about how the nomad factions are crippled by their inferior navies?

    I know how to differentiate between aspects of the game and different factions. I've already told you that the Odrysians didn't have any navies at all! CA gave them a ****** navy because they HAD to give them SOME navy, but they didn't want you to be incentivized to use their navies for much if anything because that would have been historically inaccurate without adding enough to the game to justify the breach. If nomads ever built ships, they wouldn't have been Celtic style ships. Why aren't you getting mad about that? The reason they Have Celtic style ships is that it's a placeholder for barbarian factions in the event that the real faction didn't have any navies at all (like Odrysian Kingdom). You're not supposed to use any navies because the actual faction didn't, but they obviously can't put a faction in the game with literally no navy to speak of. What is so hard to understand about this?

    By the way, I will reiterate...find a historical reference to Thracians engaging in naval warfare or stop mentioning navies. From here on out, I will entirely disregard anything you say in this thread involving Thracian navies until and unless you are attempting to provide me with said historical reference. (by the way, I am wholly confident that you will never succeed in this task)

    Now, if indeed you don't think that the campaign is too difficult as OK, I am really confused as to why you think they need new units or where the imbalance comes from. After all, correct me if I'm wrong (actually, don't because I will just quote you contradicting yourself), but you have already ceded to me that the faction is viable in multiplayer, ergo no outstanding balance issues there. No more than other non-power factions, anyway. And you claim that the campaign is easy no matter who you play, so there's apparently no need for rebalancing for the campaign's sake either. Since the campaign is always as easy as counting to 10 according to you, every faction must be plenty powerful for that purpose. So, where's the balance issue? You're clearly not asking for the units solely because you think they'd be cool and you think they have sufficient historical grounds because that would be precisely as strong an argument as one for the inclusion of flaming pigs or Arcani, and you seem to think your argument is stronger than that.
    Basically, if you can't demonstrate that the campaign is unreasonably difficult when playing as this faction, then you have no balance-based argument for the inclusion of these other units. What's more, you seem to believe the opposite, that the campaign is actually unreasonably easy when playing as this faction, thereby defeating yourself.
  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 471
    edited January 2015
    Itharus wrote: »
    Pink. You are basically the only one who takes your "other side". :-/

    Itharus, do you go surfing forums to talk about how you think something in a game is good or as you'd expect it to be? No, you don't. Sometimes, you might post about how you really really love the **** out of something, but you don't typically talk about things that you just aren't upset about.
    There are a lot of people who agree with me. I've made a few converts with my arguments. Most of them, though, have never bothered to look at these threads simply because they don't want to complain.
    I'm not going to try to talk for PhilBowles, but based on what he said in his one post, he seems to at least actually understand the purpose and usefulness of the Balkan cultural traits. Unlike SOME people I know...*cough*Marijan*cough*

    @Sebidee
    You're right. Organized bodies aren't necessary, but they strengthen the historical basis. What I mean by organized body, by the way, includes things like the hordes of spear weilding melee infantry that were fielded by Briton, Celtic, or Germanic peoples and are the basis for units like Levy Freemen. No such hordes of spear weilding melee infantry existed in Thrace so far as we know.
    As I've pointed out, the historical evidence for Thracian spears is especially slim...even by CA's standards for inclusion. Still, I might agree that their policy could potentially stretch to allow such a unit. However, they only WOULD include it if there was a good reason (e.g. conceptually interesting, unique stylistic or gameplay concept, recorded to have been significant in some battle of the period, necessary for faction balancing, etc.). I claim that no such reason exists.

    By the way, OK already has units for countering cavalry. Not only are the Thracian Cav great for fending of enemy cav, but Thracian Warriors and Nobles eat cav for breakfast. Even heavily armored cav! You just don't really want them to get straight-up charged by enemy cav. Same is true of levy freemen, though, so I don't really see the problem.

    @PhilBowles
    To answer your question, there were a couple Greek cities that would have been overshadowed in their region by the intermittent and relatively short-lived Odrysian Kingdom. Odessos is one and probably the only one larger than a fishing village. However, by the time of Rome 2, the time of Alexander had come and gone and Odessos came out of that period as basically a town of Thracian nobility rather than a bastion of Greek culture.
    The Greeks to the south, however, were historically terrified of the Thracians, fearing that they might at any time unite and sweep south to end civilization. I believe (might be misremembering) Herodotus who claimed that if they should ever unite, they could field enough men to wipe out the entire Greek world. That's why they have a diplomatic penalty with Hellenic factions.
  • PhilBowlesPhilBowles Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,237
    edited January 2015
    Itharus, do you go surfing forums to talk about how you think something in a game is good or as you'd expect it to be? No, you don't. Sometimes, you might post about how you really really love the **** out of something, but you don't typically talk about things that you just aren't upset about.
    There are a lot of people who agree with me. I've made a few converts with my arguments. Most of them, though, have never bothered to look at these threads simply because they don't want to complain.
    I'm not going to try to talk for PhilBowles, but based on what he said in his one post, he seems to at least actually understand the purpose and usefulness of the Balkan cultural traits. Unlike SOME people I know...*cough*Marijan*cough*

    I wouldn't go that far - I lost that campaign in record time (but then, starting a new campaign with the same settings, it seems Macedon doesn't always start with a large army parked in your province capital, and I got unlucky that time. Not sure I'm much luckier now, being besieged in said capital by a large Macedonian army with another one in position to reinforce it next turn, and very low odds of surviving a breakout...).
    @Sebidee
    You're right. Organized bodies aren't necessary, but they strengthen the historical basis. What I mean by organized body, by the way, includes things like the hordes of spear weilding melee infantry that were fielded by Briton, Celtic, or Germanic peoples and are the basis for units like Levy Freemen. No such hordes of spear weilding melee infantry existed in Thrace so far as we know.
    As I've pointed out, the historical evidence for Thracian spears is especially slim...even by CA's standards for inclusion.

    CA isn't above completely inventing units where they see a gap in the roster that needs filling for balance purposes. I'm not aware of even isolated documentation for barbarian (in the game context) artillery, onager ships, or indeed any of the naval vessels available to most barbarian and nomad factions (let alone for the use of Egyptian chariots during R2's time period). It is at least possible to argue that spearmen also fill a niche that's needed by most armies in the game, and so they should get a similar exemption from historicity.
    By the way, OK already has units for countering cavalry. Not only are the Thracian Cav great for fending of enemy cav, but Thracian Warriors and Nobles eat cav for breakfast.

    This is useful to know. R2's stat system is opaque at the best of times and the descriptions of units like Thracian Warriors are almost uniquely unhelpful even by the standards of R2's woeful (in stat terms; its historical information is quite welcome) encyclopedia. It's not altogether clear the unit is essentially a swordsmen unit without seeing the icon in battle.

    I'll definitely need to read up on threads like this - the Odrysian roster is very different from that of the other factions I've played (and I've played a fair variety of them).
    @PhilBowles
    To answer your question, there were a couple Greek cities that would have been overshadowed in their region by the intermittent and relatively short-lived Odrysian Kingdom. Odessos is one and probably the only one larger than a fishing village. However, by the time of Rome 2, the time of Alexander had come and gone and Odessos came out of that period as basically a town of Thracian nobility rather than a bastion of Greek culture.
    The Greeks to the south, however, were historically terrified of the Thracians, fearing that they might at any time unite and sweep south to end civilization. I believe (might be misremembering) Herodotus who claimed that if they should ever unite, they could field enough men to wipe out the entire Greek world. That's why they have a diplomatic penalty with Hellenic factions.

    Thanks. Nice to know this is a case with historical rationale rather than a malus or bonus added for balance, as a number of them seem to be.
  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 471
    edited January 2015
    PhilBowles wrote: »
    I wouldn't go that far - I lost that campaign in record time (but then, starting a new campaign with the same settings, it seems Macedon doesn't always start with a large army parked in your province capital, and I got unlucky that time. Not sure I'm much luckier now, being besieged in said capital by a large Macedonian army with another one in position to reinforce it next turn, and very low odds of surviving a breakout...).

    Haha, I never claimed it was the easiest campaign. Honestly, though, I personally find Germanic campaigns to be even harder. Especially in CiG and IA.
    PhilBowles wrote: »
    CA isn't above completely inventing units where they see a gap in the roster that needs filling for balance purposes. I'm not aware of even isolated documentation for barbarian (in the game context) artillery, onager ships, or indeed any of the naval vessels available to most barbarian and nomad factions (let alone for the use of Egyptian chariots during R2's time period). It is at least possible to argue that spearmen also fill a niche that's needed by most armies in the game, and so they should get a similar exemption from historicity.

    Outside of generic artillery units for factions that didn't really use them, I don't think I can come up with a case of them inventing something. Egyptian chariots are included because chariots were available to all Hellenic kingdoms at the time, though they were almost never used. Greek commanders took them to be more harmful than beneficial. They were only really used against poorly trained infantry like asiatic tribal infantry. Antiochus III (of the Seleucid Empire) used them once against Rome because he knew they hadn't faced chariots before. It didn't work out as well as he had hoped, though.
    Still, even the units that CA adds with no historical backing aren't particularly useful. I never once used a ballista in my Iceni campaign, for instance. There are some campaigns where the only time I ever use them is when I happen to accidentally capture them in a battle. I think the only reason they included them for all factions is that some players would feel gimped if they couldn't use artillery on a walled city. Honestly, I don't think they would have been gimped and so I don't think that's a good enough reason.
    PhilBowles wrote: »
    This is useful to know. R2's stat system is opaque at the best of times and the descriptions of units like Thracian Warriors are almost uniquely unhelpful even by the standards of R2's woeful (in stat terms; its historical information is quite welcome) encyclopedia. It's not altogether clear the unit is essentially a swordsmen unit without seeing the icon in battle.

    I'll definitely need to read up on threads like this - the Odrysian roster is very different from that of the other factions I've played (and I've played a fair variety of them).

    Yeah, bits of the stats of some units are kind of hidden. While Thracian Warriors and Nobles are sword units, they do have 20 bonus vs large, which is hidden. Falxmen have 15 bonus vs large, which is hidden. There are two archer units in game that wield spears in melee and get a 25 bonus vs large as a result. That's hard to notice if you're not zooming in and their bonus vs large isn't listed anywhere in game.
    Go to the wiki at honga.net/totalwar/rome2. it lists most of the hidden stats on the unit pages.
    PhilBowles wrote: »
    Thanks. Nice to know this is a case with historical rationale rather than a malus or bonus added for balance, as a number of them seem to be.

    Honestly, I can't think of a cultural or factional bonus in game that doesn't have some historical rationale. Yeah, some of them are picked for the purposes of interesting gameplay, but CA has a policy of not including anything unless they can rationalize it historically.
  • PhilBowlesPhilBowles Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,237
    edited January 2015
    Haha, I never claimed it was the easiest campaign. Honestly, though, I personally find Germanic campaigns to be even harder. Especially in CiG and IA.

    I'm not really sure where to begin with Odrysia. It seems you can't buy off Macedon, and the only way to get enough money to get stacks that can hold them off (temporary mercenaries being in somewhat short supply in Thracia) is to take either the capital from the Macedonians or one of the minor settlements. Yet leaving Odessa for any length of time means risking public order penalties and further reduced income, and warring against another faction and trying to hold that settlement as well seems inadvisable. So far, however much the Getae like me, I haven't been able to interest them in joining a confederation.

    Outside of generic artillery units for factions that didn't really use them, I don't think I can come up with a case of them inventing something.

    There was a recent thread pointing out that the Celtic ships in existence at the time bore no resemblance to the Classical-style rowboats the factions use in the game. I'm not aware of any examples of heavy artillery such as onagers being used on ships, and even the encyclopedia doesn't justify them - just uses copy-and-paste text about the ship hull, and about the artillery piece.
    Egyptian chariots are included because chariots were available to all Hellenic kingdoms at the time, though they were almost never used.

    I hadn't heard of any advanced state of the time using chariots that late. In the game, though, only Egypt and the Seleucids use chariots of the Hellenic factions, and there doesn't seem any clear justification for Egypt having them while, e.g., Macedon doesn't.

    Then there are hoplites. Macedon may still have been using them at the very start of the game's time period, though more correctly they'd have been phalangites and so shouldn't be modelled with the obsolete hoplon. Practically nobody else would have been, and yet the game not only gives them to factions that seem to have no historical record of their use - such as Massalia - but adds unique variants for those factions; even if we accept that the game decision to link military rosters to culture group requires hoplites to be more widespread in Hellenic factions than they would have been in reality at this point, it doesn't seem to require the invention of new faction-specific variants.
    Still, even the units that CA adds with no historical backing aren't particularly useful. I never once used a ballista in my Iceni campaign, for instance. There are some campaigns where the only time I ever use them is when I happen to accidentally capture them in a battle. I think the only reason they included them for all factions is that some players would feel gimped if they couldn't use artillery on a walled city. Honestly, I don't think they would have been gimped and so I don't think that's a good enough reason.

    For the Iceni, you may be right - that faction has an easy time generally. But do you really fancy having to climb the walls with your nomad horse roster, especially given that horse archers of any kind tend to be massacred by any units with equivalent range firing from the walls (such as bowmen and defensive artillery)? Eastern Spearmen certainly aren't going to cut it, even with a siege tower. There are the infamous torches, of course, but those never worked against a human player with enough units to send a sacrificial spear unit or two to kill the torchbearers, and I think the AI now knows the same trick.

    For some reason, all the attention on barbarian artillery focuses on the Celtic and Germanic factions, but it's just as out of place historically for the Scythians (and speaking of units Sycthians shouldn't have, I wonder what the evidence is for Scythian ships). And as to the western factions, you've already noted that the Germanic tribes can have a hard time. Not just against walled settlements, though that's most important, but also against large concentrations of enemies in field battles.

    None of which really explains why everyone gets scorpions, which are of no use in sieges and I find to be of little use elsewhere.
    Yeah, bits of the stats of some units are kind of hidden. While Thracian Warriors and Nobles are sword units, they do have 20 bonus vs large, which is hidden. Falxmen have 15 bonus vs large, which is hidden. There are two archer units in game that wield spears in melee and get a 25 bonus vs large as a result. That's hard to notice if you're not zooming in and their bonus vs large isn't listed anywhere in game.
    Go to the wiki at honga.net/totalwar/rome2. it lists most of the hidden stats on the unit pages.

    The specific weapon bonuses themselves aren't listed in the encyclopedia or unit stats either, and R2 has a host of units with identical unit stats at different costs, or lower stats at higher costs, that presumably relate to some equipment change. In only a few cases, such as the fact that scorpion ships contain scorpions as well as the javelin-armed crew, is this obvious.
    Honestly, I can't think of a cultural or factional bonus in game that doesn't have some historical rationale. Yeah, some of them are picked for the purposes of interesting gameplay, but CA has a policy of not including anything unless they can rationalize it historically.

    Perhaps not in R2 (though it's hard to argue the veracity of Barcid bonuses when I've seen people point out that there was no such Carthaginian dynasty), but at least in Shogun 2 there were clans given invented specialties just because they needed a clan for each unit type, such as the arbitrary association of the Uesegi with warrior monks.
  • SebideeSebidee Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,801
    edited January 2015
    Honestly, I can't think of a cultural or factional bonus in game that doesn't have some historical rationale. Yeah, some of them are picked for the purposes of interesting gameplay, but CA has a policy of not including anything unless they can rationalize it historically.

    Well "rationalise it historically" isn't that difficult. It's easy to use one teeny, tiny piece of evidence to justify something. CA's historical accuracy was never the same as a historian's with a PhD. (Nor should it be).
  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 471
    edited January 2015
    PhilBowles wrote: »
    I'm not really sure where to begin with Odrysia. It seems you can't buy off Macedon, and the only way to get enough money to get stacks that can hold them off (temporary mercenaries being in somewhat short supply in Thracia) is to take either the capital from the Macedonians or one of the minor settlements. Yet leaving Odessa for any length of time means risking public order penalties and further reduced income, and warring against another faction and trying to hold that settlement as well seems inadvisable. So far, however much the Getae like me, I haven't been able to interest them in joining a confederation.

    What I did was make friends with the Getae, crush Tylis early, and then play the Greek states against Macedon so that they were spread thin. Then it wasn't long before I had control of Thracia and Macedonia and it was pretty easy for me to move south and take Athens and Sparta since they didn't have any reinforcements or support so I could choke them off. The hard part for me came later when Egypt declared war on me, Royal Scythia declared war on me, Rome was not very amenable to diplomacy and wound up declaring war on me, and then Armenia (which was huge with a ton of satrapies further east) declared war on me. By then, though, I had access to Nobles, so my armies were the bees knees.
    PhilBowles wrote: »
    There was a recent thread pointing out that the Celtic ships in existence at the time bore no resemblance to the Classical-style rowboats the factions use in the game. I'm not aware of any examples of heavy artillery such as onagers being used on ships, and even the encyclopedia doesn't justify them - just uses copy-and-paste text about the ship hull, and about the artillery piece.

    Yeah, I'm not sure what real celtic/other barbarian ships would have looked like at the time. However, I'm pretty sure none of them had much in the way of naval power. I think their navies are mostly filler since CA couldn't find a way to fairly put in a faction with literally no navy, so I let it slide.
    I'm not sure about onagers, but ballistae were pretty common on Roman ships after about 80 BCE. A little late to be something that's available inthe first 10 turns or so, but they were definitely there. I'm not sure about other factions, but it's such a huge advantage in naval warfare that I think they just had to add it to most navies or risk Rome having an absolutely unbeatable navy. Alternatively, they might have been able to restrict it to Rome, put it on the highest dock tier so you can't get it till late game, and then made it a lot more expensive...but I think they also wanted to include them to give you more incentive to support your land armies with navies.
    PhilBowles wrote: »
    I hadn't heard of any advanced state of the time using chariots that late. In the game, though, only Egypt and the Seleucids use chariots of the Hellenic factions, and there doesn't seem any clear justification for Egypt having them while, e.g., Macedon doesn't.

    Then there are hoplites. Macedon may still have been using them at the very start of the game's time period, though more correctly they'd have been phalangites and so shouldn't be modelled with the obsolete hoplon. Practically nobody else would have been, and yet the game not only gives them to factions that seem to have no historical record of their use - such as Massalia - but adds unique variants for those factions; even if we accept that the game decision to link military rosters to culture group requires hoplites to be more widespread in Hellenic factions than they would have been in reality at this point, it doesn't seem to require the invention of new faction-specific variants.

    Well, the Greek states never used them for war because the rocky terrain of Greece caused them to break down as fast as you could get them rolling. That's also probably most of the reason that the Macedon of this period never used them. Alexander had used them in his wars, though. The Seleucids were known to use them, Pontus used them, and Egypt used them some during this period. They weren't a mainstay for anyone, but they were an available tool.
    PhilBowles wrote: »
    For the Iceni, you may be right - that faction has an easy time generally. But do you really fancy having to climb the walls with your nomad horse roster, especially given that horse archers of any kind tend to be massacred by any units with equivalent range firing from the walls (such as bowmen and defensive artillery)? Eastern Spearmen certainly aren't going to cut it, even with a siege tower. There are the infamous torches, of course, but those never worked against a human player with enough units to send a sacrificial spear unit or two to kill the torchbearers, and I think the AI now knows the same trick.

    For some reason, all the attention on barbarian artillery focuses on the Celtic and Germanic factions, but it's just as out of place historically for the Scythians (and speaking of units Sycthians shouldn't have, I wonder what the evidence is for Scythian ships). And as to the western factions, you've already noted that the Germanic tribes can have a hard time. Not just against walled settlements, though that's most important, but also against large concentrations of enemies in field battles.

    None of which really explains why everyone gets scorpions, which are of no use in sieges and I find to be of little use elsewhere.

    When I play nomads, I don't fight sieges at walled settlements. I put a good amount of research into siege techs so that I can siege people out quickly. That's how real nomads probably would have done it, I think.
    It's difficult to actually storm a walled settlement when you have a ****** army of eastern spearmen, but that's why they give you the option to starve the enemy out. It's a legitimate part of the game, so I don't think we should forget about it.

    On Scythians, yeah they probably didn't have much artillery and they definitely didn't have a navy, but CA included a navy because they didn't think they could make the game fair without including some sort of navy and I think they treated artillery the same way. Personally, I think that was a mistake, but it's ok 'cause building those things as a nomad faction isn't effective enough to be worth the money, anyway.

    Scorpions are difficult to use, but they have long range, they're more accurate than other artillery, and they have insane ap damage. What scorpions are great for is targeting elephants, chariots, or cataphracts early on so they're less of a threat when the enemy brings them in. Even then, though, they require a solid plan to keep them intact and firing long enough to make them worth it. The thing is, most people in the ancient world had the knowledge to build artillery of some sort. The problem was that artillery just didn't have enough range to be effective enough in actual battle. It was too easy for the enemy to get around your lines and threaten them. So nobody typically ever bothered. Rome is the one major exception to this, as they made artillery a major component of their army after Caesar.
    PhilBowles wrote: »
    The specific weapon bonuses themselves aren't listed in the encyclopedia or unit stats either, and R2 has a host of units with identical unit stats at different costs, or lower stats at higher costs, that presumably relate to some equipment change. In only a few cases, such as the fact that scorpion ships contain scorpions as well as the javelin-armed crew, is this obvious.

    Well, sometimes different factions will have access to identical units at different costs, and this has to do with how that particular unit interacts with the rest of their roster, making it more valuable/effective for one faction than it is for another. Sometimes, CA does this because, for one of a host of reasons, they want you to be more sparing with your use of the unit for one faction than you would be for another. These reasons are also sometimes why units of differing stats to be at counterintuitive relative price points. If there's an equipment change, you'll usually see it in the stats. Another thing to keep an eye on is the mass of each unit. All you have to do is hold the cursor over the symbol (square with a sword in it, for example) and a tool tip will come up showing you the unit's mass.

    Basically, it's unfair to compare the price/cost of different units across factions unless the difference is outrageous...like if Royal peltasts only cost like 300 talents for one faction. Typically, you should only compare stat/price differences of units within the same faction.
    PhilBowles wrote: »
    Perhaps not in R2 (though it's hard to argue the veracity of Barcid bonuses when I've seen people point out that there was no such Carthaginian dynasty), but at least in Shogun 2 there were clans given invented specialties just because they needed a clan for each unit type, such as the arbitrary association of the Uesegi with warrior monks.

    I'm not familiar with Japanese history, so I can't speak to the Uesugi issue.
    While there was no great Barcid dynasty like there was a Magonid and Hannonid, the Barcids kind of made themselves a house after the first punic war when Hamilcar carved out his own region in Iberia. (which started to happen before the start of Rome 2) After that, the Barcids were treated with the respect of a great house, albeit as a newcomer. This along with the fact that the Barcids kind of drove the fate of the Carthaginian people from the start of Rome 2 on make for ample support for the inclusion of them as a dynasty. Plus, everyone wants to be Hannibal. And the bonuses chosen for that house do reflect the known characteristics of the Barcids.

    @Sebidee
    You're right, it's not THAT difficult to rationalize something historically for the purposes of this game, but there are limits. For example, they're not going to include the old Egyptian style chariots in Rome 2 because, while they were certainly used in history, there is no evidence that they were used anywhere near the time period of Rome 2. Similarly, there is no evidence that the kinds of spears that Marijan is suggesting were used anywhere near the time period of Rome 2. Furthermore, what evidence exists for their use at any point in history is tremulous at best. I really don't believe that this particular inclusion passes CA's historical standards. What's more, it's not necessary enough for the balance of the game to bypass the historical standards.
  • SebideeSebidee Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,801
    edited January 2015
    @Sebidee
    You're right, it's not THAT difficult to rationalize something historically for the purposes of this game, but there are limits. For example, they're not going to include the old Egyptian style chariots in Rome 2 because, while they were certainly used in history, there is no evidence that they were used anywhere near the time period of Rome 2. Similarly, there is no evidence that the kinds of spears that Marijan is suggesting were used anywhere near the time period of Rome 2. Furthermore, what evidence exists for their use at any point in history is tremulous at best. I really don't believe that this particular inclusion passes CA's historical standards. What's more, it's not necessary enough for the balance of the game to bypass the historical standards.

    Ok well I think this is a misunderstanding that the thread is failing on. What kind of spears do you think Marijan is talking about? I'm thinking about light spearmen with peltast shields and no armour.
  • MarijanMarijan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,001
    edited January 2015
    There is at least one direct historical reference to beehives being fired from onagers during the time span of Rome 2. That cannot be said for Thracians using spears. While it might have been smarter to make beehives an ammo choice, the point is that it has better historical backing than Thracian spear units, which again, I must remind you, is only a mere suggestion for a period centuries prior to Rome 2. Remember that no primary sources ever mention Thracian spears. The discussion of that possible use of spears during that particular time period was entirely conjecture on the part of the author of the article. Stop holding onto that like a life raft 'cause it isn't a very good one.

    There are plenty of sources mentioning long Thracian Spears of all kinds, vase paintings depicting them and archeological finds of spear-heads, which were definitely used for thrusting, that is not "mere suggestion". The author made multiple suggestions about how exactly they were used, whether they carried javelins in addition to the long spears or not, whether they were used in combination with Peltasts to protect them etc. or in separate units depending on the preferences of the tribe that lead them, but he never doubted the fact that they were used, especially since it is most likely that they made use of both depending on the situation and their needs. It's not an article either, it is an actual book by an actual historian, who talked about it with other actual historians and visited and examined actual archeological finds in Bulgaria - if I have to decide between that "life raft" and a single guy on a website disagreeing with it as more reliable source, I choose the life raft, which is far from "tremulous".
    And as I've told you a thousand times, the fact that you don't like something does not mean that it's bad or wrong.

    There are many decisions and designs in this game that were or are simply bad, regardless of personal preferences. For example their initial idea of putting 2 ships in one unit, which they fortunately god rid of before release, and I don't think I even need to explain why this idea was ridiculous to anyone who played a naval battle in Rome 2. The original intentions of the guys that came up with something like that couldn't matter less to me when discussing suggestions for improvements for a game.
    Ok...

    The topic of multiplayer here was directly focused on the efficacy of the faction in multiplayer. Particularly the trope of players bemoaning the apparent insurmountable difficulty of using the faction effectively in multiplayer and my counterproposal that the faction, in fact, is quite easy to use effectively when one ceases to adhere to the standard tactics used by most other factions. You juxtaposed the faction in multiplayer with the faction in campaign and said that the units that you think make the faction viable in multiplayer don't help in campaign because they are only available in late game. Because the multiplayer discussion was clearly and openly about ease of use, your juxtaposition only makes sense here if your discussion of the campaign was also about ease of use, particularly about how you think that the faction in campaign, unlike in multiplayer, IS unreasonably difficult to use.
    You also said that the recent changes to navies "crippled the faction even further", verbally implying that they were crippled already. If that's not what you meant, then there was no reason for you to word it that way. Even if that wasn't what you meant, you did say clearly that the faction is at least crippled with the current state of navies.

    And these are just from this thread. You've made comments like that every time we've talked about this.
    I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, but it's kind of your own fault for poor wording.

    You could just stop to jump to conclusions, after people told you explicitly that they are not accurate at all multiple times already. I also told you multiple times already that there is more to consider for balancing and the unit rosters of or entire factions in general than whether you are able to defeat the braindead AI with what you got, which proves absolutely no point.
    My question is this. If you are just as mad about Spartans not having swords, why aren't you making and trolling threads about Spartans needing swords to be balanced? Why aren't you making and trolling threads about how the nomad factions are crippled by their inferior navies?

    Are you falling back to personal comments and insults now or are you just trying to discredit me as a troll for disagreeing with you? Why would I be required to criticize something in order to talk about the problems and flaws of something else? Do I have to crititze a poor selection of Chinese restaurants in my city to talk about the lack of Italian ones, although that isn't actually related at all? It is plain nonsense, especially since I in fact did just mention that Spartans not having access to their swords is indeed another shortcoming of this game and have already talked about that in other threads. I also mentioned already that the fact that Barbarian ships can not ram anymore creates balance issues for most affected factions, but that is a separate issue and what kind of ships the nomadic tribes use is completely irrelevant for the Odrysian Kingdom, since they do not have tribute-paying Greek colonies that were able to provide and create such ships to them as their capitals.
    I know how to differentiate between aspects of the game and different factions. I've already told you that the Odrysians didn't have any navies at all! CA gave them a ****** navy because they HAD to give them SOME navy, but they didn't want you to be incentivized to use their navies for much if anything because that would have been historically inaccurate without adding enough to the game to justify the breach. If nomads ever built ships, they wouldn't have been Celtic style ships. Why aren't you getting mad about that? The reason they Have Celtic style ships is that it's a placeholder for barbarian factions in the event that the real faction didn't have any navies at all (like Odrysian Kingdom). You're not supposed to use any navies because the actual faction didn't, but they obviously can't put a faction in the game with literally no navy to speak of. What is so hard to understand about this?

    By the way, I will reiterate...find a historical reference to Thracians engaging in naval warfare or stop mentioning navies. From here on out, I will entirely disregard anything you say in this thread involving Thracian navies until and unless you are attempting to provide me with said historical reference. (by the way, I am wholly confident that you will never succeed in this task)

    I already told you that this is not even of any relevance. They had access to Greek ships through tribute-paying colonies, which had the necessary knowledge and facilities to create more of them and are in this game not only part of their faction, but even their capital. It makes still absolutely no sense that they would construct Celtic ships if they had to (if for example nonsensical artificial restrictions like army limits would force them to recruit navies instead), instead of the superior Greek ones they were used and had access to. What they historically did with those they had doesn't matter, they could have burned them for giggles and it would change nothing at all about this issue. It would be equally stupid to give the Suebi Greek instead of Celtic ships, because they just gave them whatever since they didn't really make use of any in reality.
    Now, if indeed you don't think that the campaign is too difficult as OK, I am really confused as to why you think they need new units or where the imbalance comes from. After all, correct me if I'm wrong (actually, don't because I will just quote you contradicting yourself), but you have already ceded to me that the faction is viable in multiplayer, ergo no outstanding balance issues there. No more than other non-power factions, anyway. And you claim that the campaign is easy no matter who you play, so there's apparently no need for rebalancing for the campaign's sake either. Since the campaign is always as easy as counting to 10 according to you, every faction must be plenty powerful for that purpose. So, where's the balance issue? You're clearly not asking for the units solely because you think they'd be cool and you think they have sufficient historical grounds because that would be precisely as strong an argument as one for the inclusion of flaming pigs or Arcani, and you seem to think your argument is stronger than that.
    Basically, if you can't demonstrate that the campaign is unreasonably difficult when playing as this faction, then you have no balance-based argument for the inclusion of these other units. What's more, you seem to believe the opposite, that the campaign is actually unreasonably easy when playing as this faction, thereby defeating yourself.

    You are once again just looking at one aspect of balancing, which isn't even all which is to consider when talking about the unit roster of a faction. If there was a new Eastern faction with nothing but Eastern Spearmen and Archers you could still wreck the stupid AI, but does that mean the faction would be fine, balance- and otherwise? No, it does not and there is absolutely nothing that "defeats" or contradicts itself when pointing that out. I have also already mentioned that imbalances of specific units or in specific aspects of the game do not necessarily affect the others. You're still not differentiating between different aspects of the game, besides "multiplayer / singleplayer" and trying to use "I can beat people in multiplayer" and "I can beat the AI" as argument that this faction is perfectly fine, as if there was nothing else to it.

    We already had this discussion at multiple occasions though and it never really got anywhere, except for personal insults, which is why I am not going to continue this in this thread to prevent its derailment.
  • PhilBowlesPhilBowles Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,237
    edited January 2015
    What I did was make friends with the Getae, crush Tylis early, and then play the Greek states against Macedon so that they were spread thin.

    I haven't even met Athens, the most likely ally against Macedon - my spy is kept busy sabotaging Macedonian armies and my dignitary's on permanent adminstrative duty (currently civil, but military may prove to save more money) so I can't scout out the area and meet people (I disbanded the fleet to allow me to build up an army). Tylis seems to start with a large army, they're already fighting Macedon and their settlement is too accessible from Pella, so I'd considered hitting the already hostile Tribalii instead. The Getae are currently friendly but not helpful - they're not interested in any of joining the war, forming an alliance (defensive or military) or forming a confederation.

    I'll definitely bear your approach in mind in what I expect will be my third playthrough since I doubt I'll survive the Macedonian siege - at the very least, hitting Tylis may make the Macedonians more friendly and less inclined to attack at all , but I'll still need the capital they hold at some point. I'll probably lower the difficulty to Hard for this campaign, which is a definite turnaround since when R2 was released I was swarming the map on Legendary as Carthage (then considered a difficult faction).

    EDIT: I couldn't bear to go down to Hard, or resist trying another approach, so this time I went for an attack on the Tribalii, only for Macedon to declare war before I got there. The declaration is always turn 5 or 6, so it seems very hard to do anything within that timeframe that will help. I used the fleet to make contact with other Greeks, but only Epirus was even moderately amenable and certainly I couldn't provoke any wars with Macedon. I'm not at all sure I could pacify Tylis that quickly; if I break the non-aggression pact on turn 1 I doubt I'll have time to wait for the attack to become diplomatically safe, unless the Macedonians appreciate the gesture enough to avoid declaring war.
    Yeah, I'm not sure what real celtic/other barbarian ships would have looked like at the time. However, I'm pretty sure none of them had much in the way of naval power.

    Sailing boats, for a start, rather than ships with oars. And those ships that fall into the category R2 treats as transport ships; they wouldn't have had naval vessels at all.
    When I play nomads, I don't fight sieges at walled settlements. I put a good amount of research into siege techs so that I can siege people out quickly. That's how real nomads probably would have done it, I think.
    It's difficult to actually storm a walled settlement when you have a ****** army of eastern spearmen, but that's why they give you the option to starve the enemy out. It's a legitimate part of the game, so I don't think we should forget about it.

    I agree, it would be nice if actually besieging was a more widely-used part of the game, but I can see why CA avoids it. In any TW game, most battles are siege battles, and given that the focus of the games is on the tactical layer I think it's fair enough if they want to give factions ahistorical tools that allow them to actually play tactical battles. I think it's fair to say from a gameplay perspective that artillery for everyone is important for playing the game in a way that - say - ships for everyone isn't. Scythians can win a campaign without setting foot in the sea, but they can't win one without capturing walled settlements.
    On Scythians, yeah they probably didn't have much artillery and they definitely didn't have a navy, but CA included a navy because they didn't think they could make the game fair without including some sort of navy and I think they treated artillery the same way. Personally, I think that was a mistake, but it's ok 'cause building those things as a nomad faction isn't effective enough to be worth the money, anyway.

    I think it's fine for gameplay for a faction with no overseas objectives to have a navy - the game already allows captured ports to produce ships, and mercenary hire, so having native ships in the roster is wholly unnecessary.
    Scorpions are difficult to use, but they have long range, they're more accurate than other artillery, and they have insane ap damage. What scorpions are great for is targeting elephants, chariots, or cataphracts early on so they're less of a threat when the enemy brings them in.

    That would explain why I haven't seen the value - I've rarely seen the AI make much use of any of those units except elephant generals, which I focus down with most of the missile fire in my army. Being able to hit these units seems poor justification for giving them to quite so many factions, though - unlike artillery vs. walls they aren't required to deal with armoured units.
    Well, sometimes different factions will have access to identical units at different costs, and this has to do with how that particular unit interacts with the rest of their roster, making it more valuable/effective for one faction than it is for another. Sometimes, CA does this because, for one of a host of reasons, they want you to be more sparing with your use of the unit for one faction than you would be for another.

    I'm thinking of cases where the apparent duplicates are in the same roster. I had an example from Massilian cavalry where the higher-tier, more expensive cavalry appeared to have lower stats almost across the board than the lower-tier unit, but can't check it as the site you linked to with unit stats is down, apparently suspended.
  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 471
    edited January 2015
    Marijan wrote: »
    We already had this discussion at multiple occasions though and it never really got anywhere, except for personal insults, which is why I am not going to continue this in this thread to prevent its derailment.

    Lol. "I am not going to contribute to the derailment of this thread...after I get the last word..."

    These, my friend, are the words of a man who knows his position is poor.
  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 471
    edited January 2015
    PhilBowles wrote: »
    I'm thinking of cases where the apparent duplicates are in the same roster. I had an example from Massilian cavalry where the higher-tier, more expensive cavalry appeared to have lower stats almost across the board than the lower-tier unit, but can't check it as the site you linked to with unit stats is down, apparently suspended.

    If you're talking about Celtic Light Horse vs Massilian Cav, that is an odd case. The price difference is only 50, so it's not a big one. Massilian Cav, oddly, actually has a lower upkeep cost, so factor that in, as well.

    The statistical losses that Massilian Cav sees relative to Celtic Light Horse are pretty small and almost insignificant. Here's the thing, though. Massilian Cav has a higher bonus vs large, which actually winds up putting them ahead of Celtic Light Horse when fighting against other cavalry. Massilian Cav also have more than twice the armor of Celtic Light Horse, higher hp, and higher morale. Armor going from 15 to 35 and morale jumping from 45 to 55 are actually really significant changes. More significant than the dips in their melee stats, I'd say.
    Then Celtic Light Horse does have the Frenzied Charge ability, so that adds a little to their value, though it's not the best ability you could have. Especially not on a light cav unit. All in all, I think Massilian Cav is a better unit, but not by much. So I think the price difference is reasonable.

    ANYWAY, this is kind of off topic for this thread haha
  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 471
    edited January 2015
    Sebidee wrote: »
    Ok well I think this is a misunderstanding that the thread is failing on. What kind of spears do you think Marijan is talking about? I'm thinking about light spearmen with peltast shields and no armour.

    First off, the issue is that the spearmen you just described probably didn't exist.

    Marijan is referring to a couple different bits of historical evidence that support a couple of different things. I'll list them here:

    1. Some historians (a very small number) think that around the 8th or 9th century BC, Thracian skirmishers were supported by men with long ash spears who would run in front and brace them against the ground if the skirmishers should be charged by cavalry. The evidence for this is really non-existent. The theory doesn't appear to be based on anything aside from an obscure reference to "Thracian Spears" in The Iliad, which doesn't even deal with Thracians. The passage also doesn't make any mentions of specifics. It just uses the phrase "Thracian Spears" in passing.

    2. There is a story of how Philip of Macedon got the idea for the Sarissa Pike after he was wounded while on horseback by a long spear during a battle in Thrace. The problem with this is that the story takes place on a trip between Illyria and Macedon in what would have been the far south-west of Thrace. This is not only as far away from the Odrysian Kingdom as you can get in Thrace, but it doesn't even indicate more than one single spearman. Firstly, the spear may very well have been a javelin that was used to thrust in that instant. Even if it weren't, the Greeks did not make a habit of charging cavalry into dense masses of infantry. That was a huge military no-no, so Philip most likely would not have been anywhere near a large number of spear-carrying infantrymen while on horseback. If the story is actually true, then what's most likely is that the soldier who wounded him was armed in typical Thracian fashion (javelins, shield, light armor, and secondary melee weapon) and his secondary melee weapon happened to be a spear. We are pretty sure that these soldiers sometimes carried spears, but it would be one man in a sea of soldiers who were carrying anything from spears to daggers to swords to axes to rhomphaia to clubs. They were primarily peltasts who just grabbed whatever they could to carry as a melee weapon.

    3. There are spearheads found at Thracian archaeological sights that are not clearly from javelins. Now, if you see a spearhead that is particularly long and narrow, it is pretty much definitely a javelin head. However, when you see a spearhead that is not particularly straight and narrow, it could just as easily be a javelin as a regular spear. It's hard to tell. The other thing is that all of the Thracian archaeological finds that we have come from the tombs of the wealthy nobility in northern and western Thrace. The significance of this is that we know that the nobility always went into battle on horseback. So, there may very well have been spears meant for hand to hand combat found in these tombs, but that's no surprise. Spear-armed cavalry is not what's at issue.
  • SebideeSebidee Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,801
    edited January 2015
    First off, the issue is that the spearmen you just described probably didn't exist.

    So you're saying the Thracians NEVER used a spear as a melee weapon? They NEVER got a long piece of wood, put a point on the end of it and used it to stab men on top of horses? NEVER in the entire 300 years of Rome 2's timeline did a Thracian EVER use a spear?

    Alright, you've lost me.

    - "I say Spartacus! I can't quite reach that guy on top of that horse! In fact he's hacking me to death!"
    - "It's a puzzler my friend, if only you had something longer you could use."
    - "Indeed! This is crazy! Too bad it's not part of our culture to use long pointy weapons"
    - "'Tis a shame!"
  • ThejoebThejoeb Member Registered Users Posts: 87
    edited January 2015
    Remember right after they became playable how all of greece and thracia would turn light blue every campaign?

    Ye gods I recall several times seeing Thracian Nobles with 120 attack power and 90+ damage
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,107
    edited January 2015
    Have Romphaia been reclassified as swords recently? Or does the army trait that you get early on that gives +5% weapon damage to sword armed units still not apply to Thracian Warriors? The whole barbarian-wide naval upgrade fiasco of improving ramming when barbarian ships can no longer ram bit is sort of crazy, too. Although honestly, Greek Ships would be more fitting for the Odrysian Kingdom.

    Regarding Thracian Peltasts, it seems that there as many here who would like to see TP remain loose-formationed skirmisher units rather than make the transition to true hybrids. If they're to stay as they are - they should (as mentioned previously) probably get a proper charge bonus added in (what, 25ish?), because the Odrysian Kingdom seems to inordinately rely on strong charges for their melee capacity (ie: they are glass cannons).

    However, if TP were to remain skirmishers, I'd suggest that Thracian Bowmen get a similar treatment to Dacian Bowmen, in that after a certain point of research they become "Thracian Heavy Bowmen".

    Thracian Heavy Bowmen: Increase range to 150, increase melee attack to 20-ish, increase melee defense to 15, increase base morale to 40, equip unit with "balkan swords", and increase charge bonus to 20. No armor increase. Adjust price as necessary.

    Reasoning: If TP remain skirmisher sized units, the OK will continue to be rather outnumbered when comparing armies directly unless you just spammed a ton of Thracian Warriors. That said, it becomes important to utilize every soldier to their utmost. Once the arrows are gone, archers are currently useless. Some improved stats would allow them to at least be useful as flankers. As for the increased range - Thracians were dominated by Persians for quite a while. They had frequent war/contact with steppe nomads. Where the Odrysian Kingdom is situated, and taking into account their former domination of a wider region that stretched northwards into Dacia - composite bow access just makes sense. Besides, with half or more of your army being skirmishers in many cases, range becomes drastically important.

    Another issue is the whole thing with mercenaries. First of all - what gives with the factional mercenaries? You get to choose up to four dacian bowmen. DACIAN bowmen. First of all, that should be THRACIAN bowmen. Second - why stop there? There should be Thracian Warriors, Skirmishers or Peltasts, and one or both of the earlier cavalry options available, too. Thracians are a rather huge and warlike population who are renowned for being hired out as mercenaries. But they have to rely on Dacian Bowmen when they need mercs? What?
  • Aurelian777Aurelian777 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,688
    edited January 2015
    Alot of factions need a roster update, not just the Odrysians. The Ardiaei, Pontus, Armenia etc sure could use a few new/unique units.
  • SebideeSebidee Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,801
    edited January 2015
    Aurelian wrote: »
    Alot of factions need a roster update, not just the Odrysians. The Ardiaei, Pontus, Armenia etc sure could use a few new/unique units.

    I suppose this is off topic but what kinds of units do Armenia need?
  • SuperfilSuperfil Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 171
    edited January 2015
    Sebidee wrote: »
    I suppose this is off topic but what kinds of units do Armenia need?
    Some better sword/axe infantry. but that may be personal. I don't really like axemen. A spear unit maybe possible too but persian hoplites have been buffed since patch 15 so it is not very much needed
    And hats. More hats. More hats can never hurt. Hats are love. Hats are life.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 22,818
    edited January 2015
    Sebidee wrote: »
    I suppose this is off topic but what kinds of units do Armenia need?
    It's just the usual chorus of people who think every faction needs 100+ units and must have every niche filled out with 5-6 variations. because YUNEEK!

    Mods, people, MODS! Don't force your kid-in-candy-store attitude on the rest of the playerbase, thank you. For factions diversity and personality it's just as important to have certain types units not be represented in their rosters.

  • SebideeSebidee Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,801
    edited January 2015
    ?
    It's just the usual chorus of people who think every faction needs 100+ units and must have every niche filled out with 5-6 variations. because YUNEEK!

    Mods, people, MODS! Don't force your kid-in-candy-store attitude on the rest of the playerbase, thank you. For factions diversity and personality it's just as important to have certain types units not be represented in their rosters.

    I asked about Armenia because I'll eventually make a mod for them ;)
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,107
    edited January 2015
    Personally I think Armenia is pretty strong. They have axemen who are every bit the match for legionnaires, powerful cataphracts, and good archers. Their spears are nothing special, but they are more than sufficient to handle cavalry. What they need most is basically cosmetic to make them appear more Armenian and less Persian. Same way Colchis and Cimmeria need more to make them appear more Greco-Scythian.

    In almost all of my games the AI usually conquers the whole eastern world with Armenia - which always strikes me as a bit odd. You'd think the game would be in favor of the Parthian or Seleucid Empires winning the battle over there... but nope! Armenia. Or Galatia. Pontus on rare, rare, rare occasion manages to get big for a minute before Armenia crushes it.

    Hell. I wouldn't mind seeing Armenia's start nerfed a little. They just steamroll.

    But this thread is about the Odrysian Kingdom getting it's cultural due :D
Sign In or Register to comment.