Jump to content

Grugnas

Community Members
  • Content count

    303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Grugnas last won the day on February 1 2017

Grugnas had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

202 Excellent

About Grugnas

  • Rank
    Duplicarius

Recent Profile Visitors

1,096 profile views
  1. Redesign Rams

    siege rams shouldn't be able to attack organic units. This would give more flexibility to the current attack system specially for organic units. If buildings would have enough attack sustain, they could incentive the attackers to garrison the rams.
  2. Attack stats

    At regard, if sieges wouldn't be allowed to attack organic units, crush armor on organic units could be used to balance in more details crush damage dealers like slingers. I am pretty sure that units attacked by a ram ( which is heavy an slow ) could easily dodge any of its attacks.
  3. Stoas and champions

    Dear Hannibal, i meant that Amon temple and Apedemak have the same icons. It isn't relevant though as those are just icons. What is way more relevant is that there are 2 buildings, basically acting at same way, that may be avoided. While it is not the case of the temples, as romans also have 2 different type of temples ( one has 1 entity limit though ). The pyramids are basically the same building with different size and an additional aura effect. Would be nice to merge those 2 pyramids in 1 unique upgradeable building, which actually requires some city planning. I am not asking to remove a redundant building, I am just asking to let a building upgrade into another one which seems not compromise any history detail, isntead of let it be just an optional feature like happens for sentry tower upgrade.
  4. Attack stats

    Lag is due the units path continuous recompute, i guess. Well, I kinda agree with the fact that spread breaks balance as introduces randomness but imho it is necessary for a realistic return. With formations and projectiles hitting the unit near the target within formation would also prevent the exploitable dance ( with dance i mean the repetitive movement back and forth of an unit in order to move away from the thrower trajectory), i hope. In previous alpha there was a bug where a missed unit would still take halved damage, which, despite it was a bug, I didn't dislike it at all. There is already such a mechanism in many RPG games, where a projectile can hit for its full damage, half hit ( it is considered like a scratch. I am sorry for my lack of english skill and grammar ) or simply miss for no damage at all. Having Fully hit and "scratchy" hit conditions would partially reduce randomness without removing too much realism avoiding such dance. The con is that would be weird to see an unit being damage by a projectile at few meters of distance from it.
  5. Stoas and champions

    This is more a question for artists rather than gameplay related. Kushites have an overflow of stuff ( buildings and units ) which are basically redundant. Pick the 2 pyramids and the 2 temples as example, from a historically point of view they are completely different structures ( someone states that makes no sense to upgrade a small pyramid to a bigger one ) but in game they even share the same icon, just making more confusion in the mind of a player. Would make sense, from a game mechanic pov, being able to upgrade i.e. the temple of Apedemak into the Amun one in order to have different actors depending of its upgrades ( scouting such a building would give some knowledge on the opponent state ), and access to new technologies and units ( the champions, just 1 of the 2 which are imho a surplus ). In that way we would also be able to represent more iconic buildings even if not perfectly in scale (There are always to be compromises, somehow) and eventually have AI getting into account that buildings can be upgraded. If those upgrades aren't acceptable, some buildings should just be used in single player campaigns, when implemented, or as scenario buildings like in the new Elephantine map.
  6. finally someone got the point. Heroes aren't unbalanced at all. They try to incentivize a strategy over another with auras that may be considered as morale bonus for the nearby units(it may even be extended with a morale malus when a hero dies ). Sure, some hero auras are bad designed but it is just a matter of tweaks.
  7. Attack stats

    As others said, ranged units have higher damage and lower hp than melee units for convention. Instead of using a hard counter to represent the fact that melee units, once they reach a ranged unarmored unit, are able to kill them in a close quarter fight, they simply have high armor and health as they can absorb up some damage with armor and shield. About the movement, it is realistic to have armored units with slow movement ( despite someone stated that it isn't necessarily true ) and ranged with more dexterity. Still for convention some ranged units move slower than expected to give melee untis the time to reach them. If ranged units had same hp of melee units and more damage ( as they do now ), would just be a more efficient unit in any situation rather than a weak unit with a high dps doing their best while protected by heavier melee infantry. Also, ranged units have high damage with a chance to miss depending on their accuracy (spread) and projectile speed. This means that their real damage is, most of times, lower than the one shown on the structure tree as they can miss 1 hit of 3. Accuracy is something realistic but I am not a real fan as it simply too many other factors like units moving back and forth resulting in an exploitable dance. I guess that, when formations will be fixed, spread will be a lesser factor as units within formations are displayed in row and columns very close each other.
  8. Stoas and champions

    Well, persian mercenary champ spearmen probably are with no doubts the least trained units in the game. Obviously training Immortals is way more convenient. About the new civ, there is something about Kushites triggering me.
  9. actually persian and seleucids have nice techs and auras available for their skirmish cavalry. Ptolemies have nice skirmishers because they train at rank 2 with mercenary advanced rank tech ( same for athene and carthage ) and less cost for all merceanries with the hero. ptolemies, seleucids and macedonians have mercenary skirmish cavalry too. Persia, sparta and athene have champion infantry skirmishers, britons have champion cavalry skirmishers.
  10. I kinda share the opnion that mercenary system could be improved. Having them just as rank 2 units is somehow limiting, but fits good enough for the current gameflow. Something like this would be nice. Perhaps improved but nice. I.e. Females are just actors that represent the Citizen class, and they should be able to build basic buildings ( civic and economic structures ). Warcraft 3 economy was hard to harrass. Peons used to deliver all goods to the town hall, usually placed near gold mines usually placed in a U shaped zone delimited by woods that units cannot trespass, thus they were kinda protected by raids already. While a packaging system would be a mess ( just try to control a bunch of cavalry, hit workers intent to gather wood, then run away and repeat the steps. Then tell me if the packaging system would work ), a "call to arms" like system would suit better than packaging. Still nothing would prevent cavalry from just capture the structure and body block workers in order to prevent them from equip weapons. While escaping would be easier against Javelin cavalry, that couldn't be said against Spear cavalry. Those kind of tests can't be made yet, as Running is just used for fleeing, tho (i am not a good coder ). If units could actually run when the bell rings ( to garrison or just equip weapons ), maybe the system could also make sense. it is an interesting mechanic.
  11. Carthage and other civs already have access to mercenaries starting at rank 2 through tech research. Rank 2 units perform better in military and worse in economic aspect. More ranks the unit gains, the more it is good at military and less effective the unit at gathering is. Its actor also gain more armor pieces. Also, consider raids. A bunch of skirmishers can just hit and run, tricking the opponent and increase his idle time anyway, if his units are stuck into the "packaging" and cannot attack. Did you notice how long it takes to kill 1 unit with 5-6 soldiers? barely 2 secs. What increases the idle time, i.e. is the spear cavalry raid which has no effect on wood gathering spot protected by spearmen but effective on grainfields not covered by palisades. Indeed predicting enemy move, you can build palisades and let the enemy uselessly train cavalry which reduced trainer economy due their incapability to gather ( hunt is quite low anyway ) and longer train time, unless they hit resources carrying units. By having to package soldiers, first, units would have no time to protect harmless workers or just stuckin the pathfinder if they'd need to go in mass to the nearest structure to pick up weapons and fight (they would make a counterproductive traffic jam i guess).
  12. I understand your point, but having no citizen soldier for some civs, means that at, let's say minute 5, the civ A has 20 soldiers and 40 villagers while the civ B has 40-50 citizen soldiers. This means that civ B will have easy life into attacking the other civ A. If civ B can't perform an attack, it means that the citizen-soldier concept doesn't work because the gap between the 2 styles would be too different (there is a population limit). History and gameplay have to intersect and find a compromise otherwise it is just a "history-fi" or a simulation game. Also, I guess that most of considerations made about history are way far from the history lessions teached in school. I guess someone could lose interest in a game not balanced if everyone in multiplayer pick the same civ ( 1 of 13 lol ), but none won't sleep at night because citizen-soldier class isn't very accurately diversified to reflect real historic socio-military classes. Also, for the "packaging" system, this seems to produce the contrary effect you stated. Removing the extra-loot for attackers gained from the carried-resources of the killed unit may go in favour of Defender because too much "packaging" time would be unrealistic and probably too penalizing, while a short "packaging" would kinda be meaningless, resulting into attacker penalty. Having units to drop resources on near dropsites before wield weapons (thing that i usually do before attack in order to give less loot when my units die) is something that may be automated but actually doable by hand.
  13. Anything not possible to balance is not worth to go for, in a multiplayer situation. A clear example of bad design is Roman civ that has no reason to have no palisades in early game and has no units able to defend from spear cavalry raids. Perhaps it was decided like that because they have Siege Walls available in city phase and it is buildable out of own territory. After the last alpha, walls lose influence and this means that if you don't garrison walls, you may lose control of them ( kinda counterproductive ). While in single player situations where the focus is into reproducing historically accurate events ( campaigns ) and interesting scenarios, factors like morale and not balanced maps make sense in order to give a more realistic/challenging interesting situation. Morale in multiplayer RTS economic games is a bad idea as you already have too many things to focus on. Matter of fact, losing morale for a lost battle would result in a snowball effect ( especially if you lose control of your units when you want them to watch an area you consider crucial ). Imho stamina is a must to make really interesting stuff ( different units use stamina to do different stuff ). Battallions == Battle == Formations. As you use rally points to send workers to gather points, you interact with buildings and not with soldiers. If you use battallions it means that you want your soldiers within formation and make military maneuvers. Locking units within formation in a single selectable entity with a flag ( like rally point one ) to identify each formation/battallion ( or whatever ) allow you to reduce micro (actually dance is annoying ) and use real world mixed formations you wouldn't be able to use with single-class battallions. At same time, disrupting formations would help you to focus on your economy micromanaging workers to optimize the resources to gather. Hard counters are just an easy peasy but very limiting solution that shouldn't be universally used. More diversifications between civs are needed for sure, still I can't imagine a civ having citizen soldiers and another not. The reason is that while the civ A needs many workers to produce Soldiers to perform an attack/defend, the civ B may raid the civ A with his citizen soldiers or just turtle and gain advantage from his non-stop gathering. Also the civ B would need a non gathering soldier ( like champions ) to perform stronger attacks i suppose, otherwise it would just be an Attack Sooner As Possible Or Lose civ. Despite the relics auras, some similar abilities could be added to make things more interesting. Some Randomly rolled abilities or malus to give a slightly advantage or disadvantage to players ( this is what morale is supposed to do, right? the difference is that it would be enstabilished since start instead of being a dinamically generated event ) via an "Enable Power Up(or whatever)" setting. Like the Mortal Kombat Test Your Luck feature.
  14. Actually battles are determined by how many skirmishers you have got. Any archer has same stats for any civ. Mauryan and persian have archery tradition which increases their attack range at cost of their health which isn't really a good choice unless you have a solid shield of melee units. On the other hand, other civs have mercenary archers who train at rank 2.
×