All Activity

Its a capture attack of 1, compared to 2.5 for infantry, 1.75 for cav, 5 for champ infantry, 3.5 for champ cav. Its not supposed to stop a full army, but it will do better against a small group of cavalry sent out just to cheese a CC cap.

I think bringing their damage down a little will do the trick for fanas, probably 10% less or so. For melee champcav, I proposed a relatively simple nerf over on the "champion cavalry improvements" discussion. I could make a quick PR too. It doesn't have to be perfect, we just need something.

I think over time we’ve gotten used to a more easily capturable CC, and this has actually had a positive impact on the gameplay. Rams haven’t been completely discarded, tho. Maybe it could be made a bit harder than it is now, but I wouldn’t go back to the previous state. A middle ground could work better. I remember testing this adjustment some time ago, but I’d need to try it again to know if it was actually good. Personally, I prefer that it remains necessary to use soldiers to strengthen garrisons rather than improving civilians’ capture ability. As for the changes to the Carthaginians, it’s hard for me to give an opinion since I don’t usually play that civ and I haven’t tested this community-mod enough to form a clear view. What I would like to see, however, is a nerf to the fanatics so they stop being such a multipurpose unit and instead become more focused as an anti-cavalry unit. They should remain powerful but be more limited to fighting against cavalry. Something should also be done about champion cavalry, although to be honest I’m not really sure what exactly. =) Regarding the debate on the effectiveness of polls, I appreciate the spirit of your proposal, @Atrik. However, it’s difficult to get many players to participate in them, and the most active and experienced players usually don’t. I agree with @real_tabasco_sauce that, at the moment, using the community-mod to introduce changes and receive feedback is the most effective way to get results. Maybe we should start hosting community-mod games on a regular basis.

The link for capture system is wrong

There is an existing armor bonus of 3 hack,pierce,crush

Could a piercing armor bonus be given to defenders on the wall?

Do it. As you said, we need test sometimes.

There's an idea for a "CC Fortress"(late game) version, which would be an upgrade. There's something like that in AoM.

Yes, there are more frequently capture attempts failing this alpha then when it was so much harder. That's the point, it makes it more dynamic then always going for rams just to take out a undefended civic building.

Your best units should be out on the field, defending your base. What are they doing sitting in your CC, twiddling their thumbs? The enemy tries to capture your CC? Good, he's not attacking your units! Pelt him with arrows, surround his army, etc.

Would anyone like to comment on 8? I had heard discussion that the splash wasn't very impactful or noticeable.

Oh I agree, but the primary means of doing this shouldn't be done by capturing it, but with siege. And to be clear, filling the CC with civilians doesn't get you the same defense you used to get with women. They basically grant you some time to get stronger units inside.

The best change with melee re-balance since I play this game, in my view. Again, in my view, CC should be a building to be defended, and not a defensive building. If you play greedy and recklessly, then you possibly get punished. It's not hard to garrison your best units in it or to plan some defenses either troops or minimum some palisades. But yes you have to do it. It's not longer enough to farm, ring the bell, then having your CC hold all by itself.

The current capture situation is terrible and I'm not sure how you could argue that its fine. It was an unintended consequence of a change to the capture system from a26. Capturing a CC should be a rare move, a hail mary to try and get the ultimate defeat of your enemy, absolutely not the meta. As for walls, palisades, I can tweak those for further improvements. I think palisade crush can go to 0, and palisade pierce armor can go a little lower too (just did this). In late game, even ranged units should contribute substantial damage to palisades, with walls being the more significant obstacle.

I will share interesting maps and threads from @Maptysk from twitter. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1970760638709354543.html https://x.com/Maptysk/status/1970760638709354543 Here a copy paste of his thread on the Suebi / Elbe Germanic people : Map of Archaeological Finds of the Suebi/Elbe germanic Groups and the Alamanni, with Quotes from Tacitus. The Suebi were the largest and most powerful tribal confederation in Germania, constituting of the Hermunduri, Semnones, Langobards, Warini, Markomanni, Quadi, Naristi, Marsingi and Buri. High resolution map below: The Suebi first appear under Ariovistus, invading Gaul in search of new land, possibly leaving the Suebi homeland due to pressure from the Vandals. A group of finds of the Großromstedt Culture (early Elbegermnaic) along the Rhine possibly allows tracing the Suebi of Ariovistus in the material record. The Großromstedt Culture also briefly settled large parts of Western Germany, where they possibly contributed to and were later replaced by the Weser-Rhine Germanic Groups. The Markomanni, prior to their migration to Czechia, most likely lived in the Main area, where they were defeated utterly by the Romans under Drusus that they were forced to migrate. It was after this point that they came to be ruled by Marbod, a man that parallels Arminius in almost all aspects. Marbod grew up in Rome, just like Arminius, where he learnt Roman ways, culture, and most important military strategy and organization. Marbod returned to the Markomanni after their defeat to assume leadership, although probably not with Roman consent and sanctioning. Marbod would lead the Markomanni to settle Bohemia, the land which was previously inhabited by the Celtic Boii... Or was it? Archaeological Evidence actually suggests that Bohemia had been settled by the Großromstedt Culture (Early Suebi) in 40 BC already, 30 years prior to the Markomanni migration. This early Suebi group is called the Planany Group (Plananska Skupina) in archaeological literature. It is plausible that they were the early Quadi. Comparing the early Suebic Settlement and Celtic Settlement, it is clear that the Celts were far more populous and settled than the Suebi, and the sites of the Planany Group are much fewer than those of the Boii of the La Tène Culture. The claim that the Markomanni drove out the Boii is also false. The Boii abandoned their settlements together with the Helvetii to embark to Gaul, and these early Germanic settlers found largely completely abandoned land. This is also visible for Southern Germany, where Germanic Groups moved in around 60-40 BC to find largely empty land, with no reuse of La Tène sites, and far sparse habitations. Around 10 BC, the Markomanni proper arrive into Bohemia, the time of Marbod's Empire is called the Dobrichov Group in archaeological literature, and during this time the southern part of Bohemia was temporarily abandoned. Around 5-3 BC Marbod expands his empire also toward Moravia and the Quadi. It is unclear when exactly the Quadi arrived in Slovakia, but I find it plausible to be between the times of the Markomannic arrival and the expansion of Marbod's Empire. The full extent of Marbod's Empire was massive, including the Hermunduri, Langobardi, Quadi, Semnones, Lugii, and possibly the Gotones. The Markomannic empire contested with the federation Arminius had forged, where the two men who both grew up in Rome, to both return to their ancestral tribes to lead them to greatness came to war. Marbod and Arminius were as much parallels as they were inversions of another, as Arminius was a staunch enemy of Rome while Marbod was friendly to Rome and sought alliance with them, and refused Arminius' initial offer for an alliance against Rome. After Marbod's defeat by Arminius, he was usurped by another Markomanni called Catualda, who was exiled by Marbod in his youth to live amongst the Goths until he returned to his home, probably with Gothic military support, to dethrone Marbod and assume the throne for himself. This did not last long however, as quickly after the Quadi under Vannius along with the Vandals declared war on the Markomanni and Catualda was dethroned by Vannius, who ruled over both the Markomanni and Quadi until 51 AD. Vannius himself would be deposed by the Hermunduri under Vibilus, who conquered and then settled Markomanni territory in Northern Bohemia and Moravia. The other constituent tribes of the Suebi do not have a history as well recorded as that of the Markomanni, but here are what Tacitus had to say on them. I do not wish to paraphrase Germania, as the original text is amazing and worth a read yourself: Back to the origins of the Suebi and the Großromstedt culture: The Großromstedt culture developed on the basis of the Late Jastorf "Seedorf" phase, with influence from the Celts to their south, but seemingly under occupation by the Vandals since either 150 or 100 BC. The presence of Przeworsk Culture sites in Central Germany is characterizing of the period 150 BC - 50 BC, the "Origo Gentis Langobardorum" possibly mentions this Vandalic presence in speaking of the Langobardic origin myth, in which they were previously called "Winnili", until winning a battle with the Vandals, after which they assumed the name Langobards, which was already recorded in the 1st century AD. Indeed, we do see evidence of elements moving from the North, in the Langobardic homeland, to the south, mainly the situlae of the Großromstedt Culture, although its other elements develop in Central Germany. Sometime in the 3rd Century, the Alamanni start appearing, from where they moved southwards and invade the Agri Decumates of the Roman Empire and force the Limes back to the Rhine and Alps. Around this time in the 3rd Century, another Suebic Group moves Northeast, driving out the Goths and the Lubus Culture. This group is called the Debczyno Culture, and its unclear what tribe they could be linked to. The Hermunduri and Semnones would later evolve into the Thuringians, who also settle Bohemia and as such end the Markomanni. The Langobards would migrate south and take Moravia, then Transdanubia and finally Italy, becoming the Lombards. The Quadi hold out, surviving as the "Danube Suevi", while other Suebi cross the Rhine and invade Iberia, forming the Suebi Kingdom. It is also likely that the Bajuvari, later Bavarians, develop out of the Alamanni. That concludes the thread.

1) Currently, walls are almost never used, at least not in any "pro" game I've watched. 2) Defenses are pathetically weak now. Towers are stupid easy to capture, and by the time you get Fortresses (which are otherwise useless now), the enemy has access to siege. And siege wrecks buildings in this game. I support almost every change laid out here, except adding instant stone mining to Carthage and changing Longswordsmen.

Strongly agree. Experienced players know that Alpha 24 was a big disappointment, because it was very turtle-focussed. Almost everyone hated it. This new community mod version is very similar.

On theses changes I only know about the changes to structures (The rest I haven't tested enough or have enough elements to form an strong opinion): Cheap Walls, Palisades especially spammed*, are very annoying for the game-play in current context. They just make pathfinder bug (I know it's not a bug, but a feature of the gates, but it feels like a pathfinder bug); when they are a lot of them, even breached, they kinda take too much visual space; most players don't like stalled games... Basically more walls = more frustrations. I'll rather have them actually strong, and hope for a feature to make them easier to snap with other buildings or even terrain. *In your PR you say that since they are weaker, they will be spammed less, but that's unlikely to be the case, cheaper but weaker incentivize spam, not the opposite. Fort Accuracy; defenses are already super strong this alpha, especially forts, increasing their ability to kill single units like hero doesn't make sens to me. Capture Regeneration Rate of Structures; again, defenses are already very strong currently. But if you really think some famous structures players strategically surround with defensive wheat fields needs be harder to capture, then I would rather increase capture points rather then capture regeneration. This would make capturing and defending easier to learn, because evaluating the effects of regeneration is kinda tricky. A lot of players complain that enemies always capture their structure so easily but themself can't, because they have not yet the experience of the trickiness (exponential effects) of capture regeneration.

Lack of communication. Sincerely

I was taking about polls to add stuff to the community mod ala a26, and I thought that’s what you were bringing up. It’s worked pretty well I think to use the com mod as a place to experiment and collect feedback.

Likely to be much more time managing the discussions. The goal isn't to make it easier to write changes (tweaking templates isn't really hard-work to begin with, and require minimal technical skills too, anyone could do it), more like to try to leverage the wisdom of the masses/the community to validate or not balancing ideas. Having theses polls would open discussions framed around existing PRs (and available in com mod possibly to be tested); avoid oversights, or validate changes you suggests. If all these changes just go from com mod to next release what's the point of calling them "tested". At time of writing, all changes seems to be approved, so if ever some would complain later, you would at least be able to point to the poll and say they were voted in, and players complaining should have contributed to the debate then.

Well, I'm glad that we can all agree on the Carthage changes, lol.

We did it like this for more than 25 years. In the 90's, control groups were the killer feature. Now, we have things like auto-scouting. Kids don't even want to play the game anymore, just watch pretty pictures.

You cant modify the group an unit belongs to once its on the ship, and you also can not see it in the group. This makes it difficult to keep track of the units and groups and also makes it hard to intuitively know what will happen if you try to for example merge groups that have garrisoned units in them. It might be better to change how control groups work instead, but this feature would be much easier to implement and adds some QOL.

In general I wouldn't oppose a special button or hotkey—if there's enough place for that in the GUI. I guess you will answer with QOL, but what hinders you to add your troops to a control group (CTRL+<0-9>) before garrisoning the ship with them? Then send your ship to the destination press U (unload all) followed by <0-9>?