Jump to content
Dade

Gameplay changes & suggestions

Recommended Posts

From personal experience with A23 and reading all the forum posts I can, I'd like to summarize my own suggestions/features that could be of interest for the next release. I'd try to be as synthetic as possible, but of course we can develop this ideas further if there is interest/discussion.

Siege engines

  • Battering rams. Actually I find even sword cavs to have problems while chasing a retreating rams, lets not even talk about walking soldiers
    • Should have a lower base speed. Garrison units inside rams should increase the speed and even damage a bit
    • Pykes and spear soldiers should be able to damage them, to simulate the fact a ram is driven by other soldiers which will take damage from the enemy (but I think this would need to differentiate between archers and pykes/spears damage)
  • Bolts. By far the most efficient tool to kill enemies I have seen on A23
    • They need to be more vulnerable, specially when chased on retreat with again another base movement speed reduction
    • It could be nice to "garrison" units inside which could increase rate of fire and it's defenses. If this can be packed with additional animations showing the soldiers of that units, could be awesome
  • Catapults
    • Packing and unpacking speed should be raised, this would emphasize on the decision making when using them. Actually players can pack and unpack them soon enough to deny their opponents the possibility to retaliate when attack goes wrong
    • Should be easier to take down, with incremental resistance with garrisoned units
  • Siege towers. Actually have little to no use
    • Same as battering rams, should get lower base speed and increase it with garrisoned units but walking units should be still able to catch it
    • They should be able to capture at least certain targets (castles, cc, military colonies and towers, to not make them OP) to better define their role into the battlefield while being able to keep attacking - maybe at a slower rate when capturing
  • War elephants
    • They could have some extra armors in general but most important they must deal some damage around them, if possible only while walking to better simulate their use

Ranged infantry units

You may already know my opinion from other posts, IMO it's not about "ranged/slingers win games" but about choice. Actually there's dominant choice when composing an army: few frontline units (if any) and about 10 times those units as ranged. From this dominant choice, Bretons arise as the first choice civ: "one-size-fits-all" slingers from the beginning, faster eco, the security of being hard to be rushed and a fair possibility to be the first one to attack the enemy.

  • Archers
    • New feature: suppression. I will explain this later
    • Minimal range, same idea of towers. If a unit enters this minimal range, it cannot be shot and the archer need to fall back
  • Javelins
    • New feature: suppression. I will explain this later
  • Slingers
    • New feature: suppression. I will explain this later
    • Same health than other units maybe but definitely much less armor
    • Lower base damage, movement speed (they carry rocks), attack speed and remove blast damage but let them be improved by techs:
      • Clay ammunition: extends range and attack speed
      • Casted lead ammunition: improves damage
    • Also note Carthagians merc slingers should have a bit better stats than others, as Balearic Slingers were widely known in the ancient era for their capability. I guess this should also includes Iberians slingers, but I am not sure if that's historically accurate.

Features

  • Melee infantry block probability. Positional damage is still on developement, wouldn't be easier to add a block probability to incoming attacks meanwhile? I am probably wrong, but a similar process used from the game when deciding if an arrow hits or not, could be used to determine if a shielded unit blocks incoming damage or not
  • Suppresion. Archers and slingers should slow enemy units to better reflect their support role in the battlefield. Spears, but specially pykes, should also slow enemy cavs to increase their utility on the battlefield.
  • Terrain as strategic factor
    • River crossing
      • All units  should move much slower when walking on water
      • Siege engines should not be able to cross rivers, but need to be transported instead
    • Trees
      • Slows cavs, as it's harder to maneuver
      • Protect from ranged attacks (maybe block feature related?)
    • Elevated places. I am not sure about this, but I am pretty sure the game already takes into account if a unit is on a higher place to extend their attack range. However, it should also be taken into account to extend their vision range A LOT more. This is specially true for towers and vision towers.

I am sure I left something behind, but probably it's enough to discuss for now. I hope you all enjoy the post and join a productive discussion.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dade said:
  • Same as battering rams, should get lower base speed and increase it with garrisoned units but walking units should be still able to catch it
  •  They should be able to capture at least certain targets (castles, cc, military colonies and towers, to not make them OP) to better define their role into the battlefield while being able to keep attacking - maybe at a slower rate when capturing

The current problem for siege towers in my opinion is that they are easily killed by rams, catas or sword units. This is what makes them not so useful in the battle. I personally thing that, if the speed has to be decreased, the damage should be increased or noone will even train them. For example, 2 rams from another player could easily kill 7 siege towers in a game I did, that is quite exagerated. 

1 hour ago, Dade said:
  •  Suppresion. Archers and slingers should slow enemy units to better reflect their support role in the battlefield. Spears, but specially pykes, should also slow enemy cavs to increase their utility on the battlefield.

You mean that they are slowed because they have to defend with shields from the shots?

1 hour ago, Dade said:
    • Siege engines should not be able to cross rivers, but need to be transported instead

Ships can't pass a ford. In a low height water map it would be impossible to kill the enemy then...

 

Anyway, I like really a lot your opinions, so thanks for the comment

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The current problem for siege towers in my opinion is that they are easily killed by rams, catas or sword units. This is what makes them not so useful in the battle. I personally thing that, if the speed has to be decreased, the damage should be increased or noone will even train them.

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.

Quote

For example, 2 rams from another player could easily kill 7 siege towers in a game I did, that is quite exagerated. 

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:

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.

I wasn't into the enemy base, the enemy just sent me the two rams followed by some sword cavs and pikemen. The sieges so weren't focusing in killing rams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2018 at 3:35 PM, ValihrAnt said:

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. 

 

its also very troublesome to constantly separate 10 soldiers during fights and put them inside siege towers.

 

(slows you a lot and enemy is not waiting)

Edited by thankforpie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, thankforpie said:

 

its also very troublesome to constantly separate 10 soldiers during fights and put them inside siege towers.

 

You can select and garrison a clump and unload the surplus 1 by 1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many maps need a balance in terms of amount of resources a player has access to and at which phases he would have access to (without taking into account the territory expansion generated by structures on the territory borders) and for how many players they are optimized for.

There are maps in which some players have no access to wood at all in an 8 players session.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grugnas said:

Many maps need a balance in terms of amount of resources a player has access to and at which phases he would have access to (without taking into account the territory expansion generated by structures on the territory borders) and for how many players they are optimized for.

There are maps in which some players have no access to wood at all in an 8 players session.

Random or Skirmish ? Can you report that if it hasn't already been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1vs1 mainland 80% unbalanced in terms of fast food access (berries, hunt/animals) especially in near territory range of phase 1 for very early boom very important. Sometimes one player has 3 berry places the other only one... same with hunt (animals).

And not so problematic but also sometimes totally misplaced additional metal and stone mines (sometimes only placed many on one side of the map).

That is a big issue for competitional fights and of course for getting correct player rank.

This need a big fix i think in mapgen? i guess unknown maps are same. guess other too 

i donated yesterday 60$, can that be fixed? ( @elexis, etc )

i think one need a concept how the resources are placed/generated.

Thanks!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, stanislas69 said:

Random or Skirmish ? Can you report that if it hasn't already been.

I didn't play many skirmish maps, while there are some really nice random maps like Phoenician Levant, Syria, Persian Highlands in which 1 player basically always spawn with a not considerable amount of wood within his territory limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×