Jump to content

Diptangshu

Community Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About Diptangshu

  • Rank
    Discens

Previous Fields

  • First Name
    Diptangshu
  • Last Name
    Pal

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Chinsurah, West Bengal, India
  • Interests
    Especially in real-time strategy games and Archery tradition and various siege weapons.

Recent Profile Visitors

718 profile views
  1. It's not my idea. The 0ad team has given Persians Ram an 10% additional Crush attack to their Rams.
  2. It was a well discussed topic. But, I want to remind some of the inequality amongst civilizations... 1. Building Time:- As we know, Gauls and Britons have a lowered building time for their weak structures. But conversely this gave them advantage in games. As per history, their knowledge of architecture wasn't well and scientific as like that of others(Romans, Carthaginians, Persians or Greeks). So, it's obvious that their building would be rubble. But, this deduction in 20% building time make them more efficient. Again, most of their structures has a population bonus. But think carefully, did a hut like structure has any access to extension option? I think no, so it'll be better and more balanced if Britons & Gauls have a slightly slower building rate and No population extension option by houses unlike others and also weaker Armour for buildings(20% less). 2. Superiority of Slingers over Archers(Especially) and Skirmishers:- Apparently most of the player would definitely admit that Slingers are the strongest unit in the game. But, is it feasible for Slingers to have more than 1.5 times pierce damage than Archers. A piece of stone cause more crush damage than pierce. So, I think there should a balance between Slingers and Archers. Maybe 7.5 pierce damage for Archers and 8.5 pierce damage along with 1.5 crush damage for Slingers. 3. Superiority of Roman Siege and Persian Rams:- There is no doubt that Romans and Persians had a superior Siege units with better atrack. But, this wasn't spontaneous. This was achieved by a long period of experiment. So, It'll be best to give them a technology(with practical costs) instead of just giving them directly. Along with that I would also suggest to give Carthaginian and Ptolemaic Juggernauts and Heavy Warships an equal Bonus by a similar technology. 4. Unlimited Access for certain Buildings I'm listing some buildings that can be built during game... Persians--- Apandana- 1, Hall- 2, Ishtar Gate- 1 Carthaginians--- Embassy- 2, Tophet- None. Sparatans--- Royal Stoa- Unlimited Athenians--- Royal Stoa- Unlimited, Gymnasium- Unlimited Gauls--- Tavern- Unlimited Britons--- Kennel- Unlimited Mauryans--- Palace- None Kushites--- Nuba Village/Camp- 2 Diadochii--- Military Colony- Unlimited Romans--- Army Camp- Unlimited These all disparity makes some civilization really underdog and some of them really strong. Please fix it. Maybe by giving an option for increasing the number of town phase buildings by 1 for each Civic Center was made and by limiting the number of City phase structures. 4. No Trample Damage for Elephants and Ability of Rams to Attack Organic Units:- This is one of the worst and impractical thing that makes Rams more stronger and efficient than Elephants. As Rams could only be destroyed by hack damage(most efficient and fast). On the other hand, not only Elephants can be killed by Ranged units easily but also they can be easily blocked by any units or women. And so this makes them useless. Again, more or less equal speed of an Elephants as compared to Rams make them more impractical. But, ideally an elephant has a great momentum along with a speed of nearly 40 km/h. So, I think they should have more speed with a continuous movement not obstructed by Organic Units. It'll be also better if we add trample damage for cavalry. 5. Costs for making a Catapult and Elephant:- An elephant costs 250 food and 250 metal and 3 population which is really impractical. Raising an elephant is more costlier than making a Ram. Again, making a Catapult cause not that much wood (400). So, there should be a balance. Again, most of the units first try to capture Bolt Shooters and Catapults instead of just destroying it! So, there should be a mode which can determine whether units will attack it or try to capture it. 6. Units and Faction Requests:- And lastly, I've some personal thoughts that I would like to share. In short--- I) Maiden Guards should not be trained from Barracks. They are elite and special units which only protect Royal persons and so they should be trained from Palace. And please give Mauryans access to Rams. II) Kindly give Chandragupta Maurya and Chanakya a decent hero bonus. And please reconsider the bonuses given to some heroes like Hannibal(a bonus of 20% faster batch time for mercenaries instead of 20% less damage for enemy mercenaries) III) Instead of giving a 20% health Reduction for Archery Tradition, it'll be better if we apply a 5% or maybe 10% health Reduction just like Persian Infantry. IV) Civ Bonuses--- Some Civs have very much helpful Civ Bonus(Iberians, Seleucids, Ptolemies, Sparatans, Athenians, Macedonians, Romans, Gauls, Persians, Kushites) and some have impractical Civ Bonus(Carthaginians, Mauryans, Britons). Please reconsider them. Hope, the authority will consider my urges...
  3. As we know, cavalry archers, camel archers and elephant archers (especially, as it shows 2 men riding on it) holds the unique ability to shoo arrows while running. Again, such simultaneous action would lead to a reduced accuracy and damage. But at least that kind of feature would bring the reality to the gameplay.
  4. There are Carthaginian and Iberian priestess and Mauryan Maiden Guard also...
  5. There are few problem that I want to discuss:- 1. We knew that Darius, Alexander or Romans all were successful because of their superior infantry. But, in 0ad gameplay we can constantly observe that skirmishers and slingers are the determining force rather than infantry. If someone make 30 skirmishers and employs them to kill 30 spearmen or swordsmen then he/she will loss only a few troops whereas the infantry side may lose all of his/her troops. But in reality it won't happens. I think the main problem of ranged unit lies in the idea of unlimited ammunition. A skirmishers can throw javelins constantly. But he needs to refill his supply after sometimes. But it won't happens. Maybe a 3 seconds gap would be sufficient for refilling. I think it can be solved by limiting the number of projectiles for skirmishers, slingers and archers according to their damage. 2. Secondly, a pikeman and skirmishers working speed is same but not their walking speeds which has a large impact on economy. We know that pikemen are slow unit in warfare but when it comes to working he is equally capable of working as fast as a skirmisher. So, I would prefer a common walking speed during doing some job for both of them. Maybe there would be some arming time(i.e. 2-3 seconds). During that time he would have a reduced armour, health and attack. As we know no one carries weapon during working. 3. Thirdly it was widely discussed topic, whether ram needs man power to move or not. I think it needs. Maybe a ram should costs 2 population. But it needs additional 3 men to move it on. On the other hand elephant have a crush damage but it won't applicable for fortress. But a herd of elephants can destroy it. So, I think a elephant would cost 5 population and it have a health of 750. But on the other hand a ram should be only a siege rather attacking units and can be captured. That's all.
  6. There are few problem that I want to discuss:- 1. We knew that Darius, Alexander or Romans all were successful because of their superior infantry. But, in 0ad gameplay we can constantly observe that skirmishers and slingers are the determining force rather than infantry. If someone make 30 skirmishers and employs them to kill 30 spearmen or swordsmen then he/she will loss only a few troops whereas the infantry side may lose all of his/her troops. But in reality it won't happens. I think the main problem of ranged unit lies in the idea of unlimited ammunition. A skirmishers can throw javelins constantly. But he needs to refill his supply after sometimes. But it won't happens. Maybe a 3 seconds gap would be sufficient for refilling. I think it can be solved by limiting the number of projectiles for skirmishers, slingers and archers according to their damage. 2. Secondly, a pikeman and skirmishers working speed is same but not their walking speeds which has a large impact on economy. We know that pikemen are slow unit in warfare but when it comes to working he is equally capable of working as fast as a skirmisher. So, I would prefer a common walking speed during doing some job for both of them. Maybe there would be some arming time(i.e. 2-3 seconds). During that time he would have a reduced armour, health and attack. As we know no one carries weapon during working. 3. Thirdly it was widely discussed topic, whether ram needs man power to move or not. I think it needs. Maybe a ram should costs 2 population. But it needs additional 3 men to move it on. On the other hand elephant have a crush damage but it won't applicable for fortress. But a herd of elephants can destroy it. So, I think a elephant would cost 5 population and it have a health of 750. But on the other hand a ram should be only a siege rather attacking units and can be captured. That's all.
  7. Yeah, what to do being a Ubuntu user? I can't find a way to upgrade 0ad!
  8. But, atleast include Han, if Kushites can make then I think it will not be a problem for Han to be included. If, anyone think minutely, there isn't a single civ for Sino-Tibetan people. They have a rich culture and rich history (and it's also profusely mentioned in the mod---Rise of The East, and now in Terra Magna) but the authority haven't minded to include it in game. So, it's my earnest request to include Han in A24 if possible for the authority. Thanking you...
  9. As, Sundiata earlier suggested Xinognu is a good name, I also appreciate the name Xšayaṛša, as it highlights something more than the Greek-Roman antiquity. But, I would prefer any Eastern Asian names from Han, Xinognu or any other Asian civs... It would be better for both the future prospect and also for the newly come contributer from Asia to contribute more in this game... And, perhaps Nescio was right about the decision. He suggested that we should not add any American or Oceanian civs because there were probably no interaction with rest of the world (I mean Eurasian continentum). So, I prefer any kind of Non-group non-roman names and also prefer for the developers decision to add new Asian civs (like Han, Xinognu, Yayoi or something like that)... Thanking everyone...
  10. But, what about the endings of some civilizations like Carthaginian or Persians or Greek civilizations which ended in bloody battles. There will not be a glorious end. So, how is it possible to put an end to a civilization. Actually I want to say that no empire lasted forever. It should faced a deadly end. So, how the final campaign match would be possible?
  11. Yes, you're right... It's not so much advantageous for Carthaginians, may be it wouldn't be a problem if we add a feature that counts the number of Civic Centers and according to it gives the player an opportunity to have more than 2 embassies. Like, if the anonymous player has 2 Civic Center then he can build 1 or 2 more additional embassies.(i.e. for each 1 or 2 Civic Centers he/she can build 1 additional embassy). I also consider the same thing for Kushites, as they also have embassy. On the other hand, according to the link---https://historum.com/threads/military-equipment-and-the-organization-of-the-army-in-mauryan-india.40710/ It also clearly states that after defeating Seleucus I Nicator, Mauryan army also start hiring Thracian petlast and superior Dravidian mercenary warriors. In fact, Herodotus also mistook Dravidians as Eastern Ethiopians (or probably described it in his own way). And at last, they also recruit tribals in exchange of gold or land as mercenary skrimisher. So, it is obvious that skrimishers are not forbidden class in Mauryan warfare. “The division of the army into the four arms, Kautilya also divides the army into five different categories, not based on troop type, but on the nature of the warriors serving in the respective category. These categories are as follows: hereditary army, hired army, guild army, allied army, and the army of wild tribes (Arth. 7.7). The hereditary army was probably those that belonged to the Kshatriya caste, i.e. warriors (Rapson 1955), and would probably have constituted the majority of the Mauryan army, while hired troops are, obviously, mercenaries. The guild army is somewhat more complicated to analyse. Different authors have different interpretations of these, and while some argue that they were members of various trade guilds and corporations, who were bound to serve in times of need (Majumdar 1955), others suggest that there may have been warrior-guilds made up of professional soldiers who were contracted by the state to fight in campaigns (Rapson 1955). The latter alternative seems rather too similar to the mercenaries to have been considered a distinct type of warrior by Kautilya, but it is still a possibility. Allied armies constitute forces that allied kings and vassals supply. These forces would often be lent by allied kings, who found it in their interest to help fight a common enemy, but also forces that local Rajas would send to the Maharajadhiraja. They would also consist of Kshatriyas, just like ordinary hereditary forces (Rapson 1955). Finally, we have the wild forest tribes. These would most likely have acted as skirmishers that screened the main army in battle (Rapson 155). These forces consisted of wild tribes that lived in forests and mountains within the kingdom’s domains. What the equipment of such warriors would have been is not known, but an idea of what it might have been like can perhaps be derived from Herodotos. The so called “Eastern Ethiopians”, that Herodotos lists among the different peoples of Ḫšayāršā's army have sometimes been interpreted as being native Indian Dravidan warriors (Rawlinson 1971). This theory is further supported by the fact that in ancient times, India and Ethiopia were often believed to be one coherent landmass, and that Herodotos mentions that the Eastern Ethiopians were placed next to the Indians in the battle array. They are described as being dressed and equipped similarly to the Indians, but they wore the hide from a horse’s head as a helmet, and used shields made out of the hide of a crane. These, then, are the various forces that, according to Kautilya, an army could be made out of. Regarding the organisation, this has already been discussed, so I will just go through this very briefly. The army would often be commanded by the emperor, but the administration was overseen by an official of ministerial dignity, called the Senapati. According to Megasthenes, the Senapati had below him a war office consisting of six boards that each had a certain area of responsibility (Majumdar 1955). The first was for the navy, the second for logistics, and the following four for each of the four arms of the army: infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants. Thus, the Mauryan Empire had an efficient administrative system for their armed forces, which enabled them to keep armies of unusually large sizes whilst being able to manage and command them efficiently.” Primary sources: (Unfortunately, the amount of Indian primary sources is cetainly lacking when taken to that of Greeks so more Greeks sources were included). Aelian: De Natura Animalium Arrianos: Anabasis Alexandri. Arrianos: Indika. Herodotos: Historiai. Kautilya: Arthashastra Megasthenes: Indika (fragments). Strabon: Geographia Secondary sources: Bhardwaj, H.C. (1978). Aspects of Ancient Indian technology. Boesche, R. (2003). The First Great Political Realist. Majumdar, B.K. (1955). The Military System in Ancient India. Rapson, E. (ed). (1955). Cambridge History of India(CHI). Singh, S.D. (1965). Ancient Indian Warfare with Special Reference to the Vedic Age. Keay, J. (2000). India – A History. Egerton, W.E. (2002). Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour. Chakrabarti, D.K. (1976). “Rajagriha: An Early Historic Site in East India”, World Archeaology, 7(3). From Europa Barbarorum. (It's a off topic discussion, so please allow me at least that much space for such a broad discussion, as it comes into my mind after seeing another site about influences of Mauryan heroes)
  12. Again, there is more... Chandragupta Maurya--- He has practically no aura Again, Elephant based heroes has no need to give them inspired technology aura for garrisoned buildings. It's really seems to be a misnomer or a fake aura for such units. As per my knowledge, only Mauryans, Kushites, Persians have access to elephant stables (in which Mauryans are the only implemented civilization for alpha23). Again, Carthaginian heroes lack a proper useful aura. Only Maharbal has a cavalry attack based aura whereas Roman heroes are quite helpful and give a lot of advantages to the player. As I know, during the journey of Hannibal to Rome, he recruited a lot of mercenary units against Rome that nearly doubled his army. So, the allied attack based aura should be changed to an aura based on less cost for mercenary units (like 15% or 20% less cost for all or atleast some kind of mercenaries). It would be better for the game, history and equality for civ choices.
  13. Okay, it's true but elephants still need some kind of modifications. Again, unfortunately it costs 400 wood and 250 stone to construct a catapult but a battering ram can be constructed at a much cheaper resources. So, it always seems that in battle, who ever has rams , has the mere advantage (i.e. face to face open battlefield). So, I think catapults should cost equal amount of resources like the rams(may be in the amount of woods).
  14. But, it's true that elephants can run at a speed of 40-50 kmph when they are agitated but a battering ram can only move at a speed of 4-5 kmph(maximum). Again, it also can't change direction so easily (may be a special bonus of speed for each unit garrisoned inside the ram). So, how the speed of a ram and a elephant are equal?
  15. Yes, it's a genuine problem for organic siege based civilizations. In fact, I know that whenever a elephant rushes, no one can stop it forcefully but in game, it always take a turn in response to a obstruction. Again, elephants can also cause a trample damage for nearby units (even the allies or own units), but this feature haven't been still implemented. So, it always seems to be disadvantageous to use Carthaginians, Kushites, Mauryans, Ptolemies, Seleucids. As, they have only Elephants for close sieging... Again, as the main topic of this discussion suggest that the excessive speed of a ram also make them more utilisable (probably more than the real history), so there should be a reduction in speed (at least, it should be less than the speed of a war elephant). On the other hand, a ram can't cause a momentum induced damage but an elephant can cause it. It will be better if the authority put such kind of modifications in their future releases.
×
×
  • Create New...