Jump to content

ValihrAnt

Community Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Excellent

1 Follower

About ValihrAnt

  • Rank
    Discens

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You can do this quite simply without any mods, but you will need to have cheats activated. So to play together both people will obviously need to be in the game together and when the match starts one of the players can open the developer overlay by pressing Alt + d or Alt + Shift + d. After that select the ''Change Perspective'' and ''Control all units'' options. After that simply change the player perspective (In top right) to the one you want to play as. (You can also do this if you enter the game as a spectator).
  2. It's barely noticable, atleast in my experience. I'd gladly take the improved performance over it. I suppose a setting to turn it on/off would be nice.
  3. From the testing I did, yes it helps massively. I had max number set to 50 and saw 50-150% fps increase which kept increasing the longer the battle went on. During battles in which I had 2-5 fps I had around 15-30 with the corpse count limited. Lowest fps I hit with a limit of 50 corpses was 7fps.
  4. The Ptolemie camel rush usually happens well before a normal cavalry rush, while able to maintain a strong economy behind it. Which is why it's so hard to deal with as taking even a small amount of damage will make you fall behind any player who can multitask well. As for Britons and Gauls. It doesn't matter how good unit balance is. They will still dominate even if it's perfect. Why? They have something no other civilization has - an economy bonus. It simply gives them a big advantage over every other civ.
  5. Some reasons why Celts are op; 1) Great eco bonuses. Nearly all of their buildings give extra population space in addition to having the lowest build times of all civs. This lets them save wood, time and grow their population much quicker. The Rotary Mill is very good for food income aswell. 2) No inherent weaknesses. While other civilizations lack swordsmen to counter siege weapons (Macedonians) or require specific buildings to do so (Seleucids, Ptolemies, Carthaginians, Persians), the Celts have access to sword cav in their barracks. The Celts can easily function with only food and wood while most other civilizations are severely crippled without access to minerals (Ptolemies most severely). They have good heroes and the good ol' rams. Caratacos, Cunobelin, Brennus and Vercingetorix are very strong heroes. And rams are a strong and capable siege weapon capable of quick and deadly attacks, which are only helped by the strong economic boost.
  6. Yeah, I really like this idea. It gives the Kushites some nice new options, but I feel like it would be best if the camp doesn't decay to Gaia even when ungarrisoned in Neutral territory because having 3 units sitting in each camp really adds up over time, especially since the camps are fast to destroy/capture and they don't have any defensive capabilities. Though the main weakness of Kushites in a23 is the same as all other archer civilizations - archers being nearly useless. And another problem for them is their siege options, which are only siege towers and elephants. To achieve anything with siege towers you need to base your entire strategy about them (which is currently one of their better options against the meta civs imo) and elephants simply are too expensive to be relied upon. Elephants are killed far too easily. So I'd suggest changing their cost to 200F/200M from 250F/250M.
  7. Units and buildings can only be in a single control group, so currently this is impossible. This isn't possible either. But you can also try looking for the enemy players units in the minimap, to find the attack location more easily. Also clear out any aggressive Gaia units like Tigers before they wander into your woodline and kill many innocent people.
  8. The only real threat to siege towers are catapults and cavalry swordsmen/spearmen, and war elephants. All siege weapons should be made slightly slower and all civilisations should be at least given swordsmen (Macedonians don't have a single sword unit). Giving siege towers ability to capture buildings would be interesting. Losing 7 siege towers to 2 rams can only be summed up to very severe user error. Siege towers have good crush damage and easily destroy buildings, siege machinery and units, while outrunning swordsmen, spearmen and rams. The reason most have an impression that siege towers deal low damage is that they send the siege towers into the middle of the enemy base where the siege towers are firing upon 15+ buildings and probably some units, making them appear weak. The real reason they aren't used is their cost. Each siege tower costs 500 wood and 300 metal, and also requires to have 10 units garrisoned in it for maximum efficiency. That is 1800 resource cost and 13 pop for each siege tower. It's simply just a bit too much for most.
  9. DPS doesn't mean much in cavalry archer case. Cavalry have what infantry lack, mobility. I've recently played most of my 1v1 with Seleucids and Persians doing cavalry archers, and haven't had trouble dealing with skirmishers or slingers a single time no matter how outnumbered. Freehand formation draw is very useful in doing this too. A buff to cavalry archers will simply do what @(-_-) mentioned. A slight buff to infantry archers would be nice though. They simply don't compare to slingers or skirmishers. Though the major reason these civilisations aren't played is how OP Ptolemies, Britons and Gauls are. I don't remember the last time I've seen Macedonians being played even though they're a skirmisher civ.
  10. Civilisations shouldn't be picked just because of their team bonus, but the team bonus should only be one of the factors in picking a civ. You shouldn't give civs op teambonuses just to make them played, instead they should have their inherent flaws fixed. (ex. Macedonians don't have sword units, making them easy targets for siege spam) Could be changed to 25% reduced creation time and 15% reduced cost. They shouldn't be given a land based bonus just because naval isn't played so often. If Carthaginian bonus is increased Persian bonus needs to be increased too. It's most useful in nomad. I think it's fine the way it is at the moment. (It affects Military Colonies too). This is the exact bonus that Kushites have at the moment. Current Macedonian team bonus is quite good the way it is. I don't see why it should be changed. If it were up to me to change team bonuses I'd do it like this: Iberians: From 20% reduced cost to 10% reduced cost. Romans: from 20% reduced training time to 15% reduced. Athenians: From 25% reduced ship training time to 25% reduced train time and 15% reduced ship cost. Ptolemies: Reducing the trickle speed by 0.25s, because of the fact that the teambonus is working in your favour from start of the match to the end no matter the circumsance. Other than that the current team bonuses seem fine to me. Briton and Mauryan team bonus is never used at the moment, but that's due to healers being super weak not the team bonus being under powered.
  11. The only way to be sure that your units will always be fighting and won't try to capture buildings, siege weaponry or just being idle is to put a patrol point (by holding 'P') behind the enemy army or using the attack move Ctrl + Q + Right Click behind enemy army (don't know how good it really is, because it takes too much effort to actually click the buttons, but should be the same as patrol). That way even if no enemies are in the vision range they'll keep moving toward enemy units and attacking the ones in range.
  12. tag: ValihrAnt GMT +2 I might have no clue what I'm doing, but atleast I'll make sure to look pretty.
  13. Will end up in players building fields at the edge of the map and building house walls around them to protect women during raids. And because the fields will have most of the houses around them players will also make their market there, meaning that the market ends up in the middle of farmlands which are far away from the CC and have only one entrance as far away from the enemy as possible. I think the best way to do it is to still let players build their fields around the CC, but have farmlands (like in Delenda Est) that increase farming rate by 2-4x (depends how much you don't want players farming around the CC) scattered around the edge of their territory. Would be a nice compromise for now. Also what about corrals? I'm sure having a huge slaughtering grounds in the middle of a city isn't more realistic than farming in the middle of it.
×
×
  • Create New...