Barbarians- An unbalanced Race of Praetorians.

[JASHAN]

When i was playing in single player, barbarians used to be my fav. race of this game. I loved abilities of every troop.

But when i started multiplayer, i found that barbarians is 50%+ weaker to egyptians and romans. Even after trying many tactics i couldnt win even 10% of games. Although when i switched to other races, my win ratio was much more. Moreover I dont find any player using barbarians.

After making a research on barbarians race, i have found these issues:-

1) Starting units of Barbarians are worse.
2) Barbarians infantry has no special ability.
3) Pikeman are worse, even roman infantry can kill them.
4) Archers (16 vs 32(egytians) or 16 vs 30(romans))

They are weak as compared to time and village population ratio too. they take minimum 32 population to recruit.

I will only talk about Barbarians infantry else, it will be too long.

Barbarian infantry (32 Seconds-32 population) --- Roman infantry (30 seconds) --- Egyptians slaves (16 seconds)

For barbarians i get 16 people.
For Romans i get 30 people.
For Egyptians i get 32 people.

Now let me explain how they are bad in every aspect:-

1)They are bad in building machines. 1 Ballista = 8 people. So barbarians can make only 2 machine out of 1 troop. while Romans and Egyptians can make 4 machines out of single unit.

2) Talking about combat, barbarian infantry cant kill any troop expect scouts :D

3) No Single advantage of barbarian infantry. Egyptians slaves has advantage to build faster. Romans infantry has advantage of pilum. but barbarians infantry has no single advantage.

Now referring to other units, I really hate the numbering of barbarians troops (16 people out of one unit) which make them unbalanced and players have to enjoy game with only 2 races.

Main unbalance of barbarians lies in only between these 4 troops (infantry, pikeman, warriors,archers) and these are core units of every race. If core units are bad, possibility to win is bad.

Have a look at this site, these are recently played games.
link :- http://abacvs.praetorians.me

You will find very less sequences where player has used barbarians. If player has used barbarians. he will be mostly in losing team because of unbalanced units.

If anyone thinks any of my points are pointless, I can even proof them in multiplayer (just message me for challenge :P ). I know these are issues with old praetorians.

But it will be there in new Praetorians too, if we have units numbering as 16(barbarians) - 30(romans) - 32(egyptians).

I hope developers can look into this issue. Mainly the issue is with these 4 troops (infantry, pikeman, warriors,archers). So, we can enjoy 3 races of this game rather than be bored of just 2 races.

Thanks.

[~PAUL~]

This subject has reached consensus in the community. Praetorians is a two-race game. There is no doubt that Barbarians are a underpowered race which cannot be used in Multiplayer.

Pretty much 90% of the matches use Romans and Egyptians only. Check match replays on http://abacvs.praetorians.me.

As a Praetorians mod maker myself, I spent quite a while reading the game files and comparing the numbers that determine troops' aspects. There is some bad math there which disfavor Barbarians completely. Pyro Studios made a mistake. They designed the troops balance for campaign mode (Barbarians are the main enemy there), not for online multiplayer and team matches.

[Kumpelblase]

yes, barbarians are weaker in "most" games, but since when? do you remember what was the point that changed praetorians-tactics most since the start of the game? exactly at the same time the games was more and more without barbarians...

it was the start of "reloading"
who doesnt know what it means: Reloading is/was the most powerfull and important tactic of all. without a good reloading you didnt have any chance against players in same level who do a good reloading
basic of reload means: : at least 1 roman and 1 egypt. the egypt is the "reloader" with his medic who has the ability to give a fast stanima-push to all units in the near...
the roman use pilum with infa in start and later legions, in the right time egypt "reload" them with his medic(s) and roman can do more pillum...

some players were able to do up to 5 pillums before they start to fight.


so maybe not the "weakness" of barbarians are the problem, but some overpowered tactics of romans/egypt? before the "reload" started, much more played and won with barbs...

i dont know if someone here remember me, i would say i was "a good" player :))

on hurricane map, we allways played at least 1 barb + 2 egypt, sometimes 2 barb + 1 egypt
we had much fun if enemy come with roman+egypt ;)

bye the way: on a population of ~300 barbs are stronger then roman, so if a barb attack roman with 300 they will win ;)

the point with war-machines... yes barb only can do 2 war machines with infa and roman 4.
but that barbs have MUCH MORE defense against catas than roman and egypt you didnt tell ;)


greetings from an old player who is looking for some matches with the remastered praet :P

[~PAUL~]

I would agree that the so called "Reload" gives romans and egyptians extra advantage. However, as someone extremely familiar with the game's def files, I can assure there is a lot more than that.

The real issue is: the core troops and combat definition completely disfavor Barbarians. Without getting too technical, there is basically some bad math going on in the def files, mostly related to: barbarian troops getting 16 units instead of 30/32; how the damage is calculated; and finally the 3/1 combat constraint (no more than 3 units can attack a single unit).

Barbarians balance could be fixed at a modding level. The problem is, the community would never agree to use a mod incompatible with the original game. Mods in Praetorians have historically been incremental and backwads compatible. And that is why they suck and never gained traction in the community to this day.

With the new version and new engine, Kalypso has the chance to solve this once for all at the core level. Although I really doubt they care about that.