Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ornatkur

Celts and ptolemaes, etc...

Recommended Posts

Hello, just wondering things....

 

After playing long time with brits, I decided never again playing with them, because they are obviously overpowered and overplayed. Not very interested any other than 1v1 games at the moment. 

 

I have noticed, I almost always face ram attack with rock shower before  had make any serious counter force. No idea how to get over that. 

 

Another one is ptolemaes early camel rush. When that happens, its almost always game over. 

 

Only solution that barely works is attack opponents civic, and drag  fighting to his base. 

 

In my humble opinion, Celts slingers should have 50% less health to counter that almost every building improves pop cap. Also ram speed is ridiculous. Every siege engine should be 1/5 from normal walking speed. Now they seems like hovercrafts flying over bogs and making sudden hit&run attacks. 

Romans maybe would  have upgrade "Logistics" (Insert: approriate latin word) that makes siege things faster, because they had really advanced army. 

 

I'm also wondering what is good behavior in games. Many times I face absolute new player, and I'm almost sad to crush him. Other hand, I'm not a fan of long games, and if I see that I have made fatal mistake, I usually resign because I see no point fighting when knowing end result. Is that right or wrong?  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balance is a recurring problem, actually. So your concerns can be taken.

I think that the Britons are intended to be the New Player's Faction, so they're overpowered. At least they're not as strong as before. Back then, 10-15 slingers can demolish houses and storehouses so quickly that they ignore soldiers hitting them. I'm also in favor in nerfing them again, but I want to maintain their Rushing Status.

The Ptolemies are said to have the slowest Cavalry Rushes. So if you get clobbered by one, you have to re-evaluate your strategies countering them.

In a real war, there are a mix of experienced soldiers: veterans who still don't like to kill, and veterans who got used to killing that it destroyed their moral compasses. Crushing New Players isn't wrong unless you plan to give them "Teaching Games". You only have to worry about looking like a Tryhard.

Resigning because you no longer see the point is also fine as long as you tell everyone in the game "GG" or something like that. I think Resigning is only hotly debated in Ranked Games, because you know, (I can still win even if it will take me three days to get there). -- Well, that's just my opinion on the matter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sphyrth said:

I think that the Britons are intended to be the New Player's Faction, so they're overpowered. 

Good point. Its just frustrating, when you start game with far better player, and he has Celts, you know you will lose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Ptolemies are said to have the slowest Cavalry Rushes. So if you get clobbered by one, you have to re-evaluate your strategies countering them.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:

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.

That's a problem. I wonder if anyone did a comparative analysis of the civilizations before to design the factions. Clearly, the Celts are not economically better than the Greeks, the Romans or the Persians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

That's a problem. I wonder if anyone did a comparative analysis of the civilizations before to design the factions. Clearly, the Celts are not economically better than the Greeks, the Romans or the Persians.

Nor were slingers their primary offensive units. I think playing with Celtic factions should intuitively make you focus on spearmen, swordsmen and cavalry, using slingers for defensive or harassing purposes. Ranged units in general should have limited effectiveness when attacking a unit with shield from the front, but more effective when hitting them from the side or back. This would encourage flanking maneuvers.   

I'd vote to get rid of all these weird extreme civ bonuses, and replace them with more normal ones. Like with Ptolemies. Why would anybody get free houses? Just give them a nominal cost at least. Build times really don't count as a cost here, and increasing build time of mud-brick structures to compensate for them being free is the wrong way to go imo... Houses should rather be built more quickly, but also have much lower health. Mauryan elephants increasing efficiency of assigned builders makes sense, but elephants building an entire structure from its foundation without any human present really doesn't belong in a game like 0AD imo. Iberian starting walls are the main reason I barely ever play them. I think It's annoying and it's not like Iberians were so famous for their walls... Everybody built walls... 

Rams can literally outrun infantry... And things like catapults, bolt shooters and scorpio's have an insane pierce armor (50?). Why? These aren't covered siege engines. Once infantry reaches them they should be as good as dead. And since they're not covered, they should be vulnerable to enemy ranged units as well.

Military camps are cool, but why can't Ptolemies and Seleucids build more CC's? 

Edited by Sundiata
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Nor were slingers their primary offensive units. I think playing with Celtic factions should intuitively make you focus on spearmen, swordsmen and cavalry, using slingers for defensive or harassing purposes. Ranged units in general should have limited effectiveness when attacking a unit with shield from the front, but more effective when hitting them from the side or back. This would encourage flanking maneuvers.   

I'd vote to get rid of all these weird extreme civ bonuses, and replace them with more normal ones. Like with Ptolemies. Why would anybody get free houses? Just give them a nominal cost at least. Build times really don't count as a cost here, and increasing build time of mud-brick structures to compensate for them being free is the wrong way to go imo... Houses should rather be built more quickly, but also have much lower health. Mauryan elephants increasing efficiency of assigned builders makes sense, but elephants building an entire structure from its foundation without any human present really doesn't belong in a game like 0AD imo. Iberian starting walls are the main reason I barely ever play them. I think It's annoying and it's not like Iberians were so famous for their walls... Everybody built walls... 

Rams can literally outrun infantry... And things like catapults, bolt shooters and scorpio's have an insane pierce armor (50?). Why? These aren't covered siege engines. Once infantry reaches them they should be as good as dead. And since they're not covered, they should be vulnerable to enemy ranged units as well.

Military camps are cool, but why can't Ptolemies and Seleucids build more CC's? 

Well, I'm in favour for singular civs, but only if balanced.

About Britons, maybe they should replace the Iberians as the javelineer civ. The skirmisher Iberian stereotype is not real, it was more the Lusitanians that could fit it. But maybe it could be written somewhere that the Iberians represent all the peninsula tribes, including Celts and Celtiberians. Splitting them it's a bad choice where other civs could more interesting.

And the wall bonus is too extreme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And bad loser rant continues: Today I had really good fight, but moment when I started to lose was when two rams anhilated ten remaining spearman, who could not do nothing damage. Seriosly rams should work only against structures. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question, how do you take out rams when playing as Macedonians and Athenians? And why don't they have swordmen? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Quick question, how do you take out rams when playing as Macedonians and Athenians? And why don't they have swordmen? 

I'm casual player, i have work and other hobbies, but Macedonians are my civ at the moment, because I like catapults and siege workshop, and many other things. I love historically absolute inaccurate volley from lithobos, but when I cant protect them game is over. Champions could do the job, but I reserve them for offence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Don't they have Champion Swordsmen? 

Ah I missed the Thracian Black Cloaks for the Athenians but what about the Macedonians? I can't see any swords...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Ah I missed the Thracian Black Cloaks for the Athenians but what about the Macedonians? I can't see any swords...

It's been a while since I played vanilla in earnest, so I assumed Macedonians also got the Royal Stoa and Thorakites, but I guess I was wrong.

In either case, there really isn't any historical justification as far as I know. The Macedonians should actually get the Black Cloaks, not the Athenians. 

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

In either case, there really isn't any historical justification as far as I know. 

Swords were a standard secondary weapon for the Macedonian army, even for units like peltasts. I think swords were secondary weapons for most civs that used them anyway... Even the Spartan skiritai is randomly given swords even though they seem to have fought as light hoplites with spears.

1176518244_Lion_hunt_mosaic_from_Pellab.jpg.afbd3bb9686f1d7b620f7b3babf20947.jpg

Alexander and his buddy with sword in hand, doing some naked lion hunting, because who needs clothes when you're emperor of the world, right? From a mosaic at Pella.

 

Macedonia is also a lot closer to Thrace than Athens, and the Macedonian army was chockfull of Thracians. I know a lot of them were equipped in the Macedonian fashion, but all of them?

Is this image so wrong? Thracians at the battle of Pydna. (I just saw you commented on this image way back in 2013, lol)

1368061.jpg.18875a5116e3e99dbf93f5feb0349eb2.jpg

Edited by Sundiata
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

In either case, there really isn't any historical justification as far as I know. The Macedonians should actually get the Black Cloaks, not the Athenians. 

Totally right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Swords were a standard secondary weapon for the Macedonian army, even for units like peltasts. I think swords were secondary weapons for most civs that used them anyway... Even the Spartan skiritai is randomly given swords even though they seem to have fought as light hoplites with spears.

1176518244_Lion_hunt_mosaic_from_Pellab.jpg.afbd3bb9686f1d7b620f7b3babf20947.jpg

I actually have no qualms against giving the Skiritai spears. ;) In fact! I'll do that in DE now! But for real, you said it yourself: the sword was a secondary weapon for the Hellenic cultures. 

 

48 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Macedonia is also a lot closer to Thrace than Athens, and the Macedonian army was chockfull of Thracians. I know a lot of them were equipped in the Macedonian fashion, but all of them?

Is this image so wrong? Thracians at the battle of Pydna. (I just saw you commented on this image way back in 2013, lol)

1368061.jpg.18875a5116e3e99dbf93f5feb0349eb2.jpg

 

Yep, I believe Thracian units under the Macedonians routed a small Roman force in the days before Pydna. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, so we all agree here that Macedonians should have Thracian Black Cloaks armed with rhomphaia? Sorry I misunderstood @wowgetoffyourcellphone

Let's ask @Nescio to be sure. If all the history enthusiasts agree, we can add the Thracian unit to the Macedonian roster, to help them out with those pesky rams. Macedonians would probably be played more often then, and it adds some nice regional context to the faction. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Macedonians are really well done, they even are close to overpowered, but athens are not so. Buildings are expensive, and no siege workshop. Black coats are devastating, but expensive and die in rock shower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Oh, so we all agree here that Macedonians should have Thracian Black Cloaks armed with rhomphaia? Sorry I misunderstood @wowgetoffyourcellphone

Let's ask @Nescio to be sure. If all the history enthusiasts agree, we can add the Thracian unit to the Macedonian roster, to help them out with those pesky rams. Macedonians would probably be played more often then, and it adds some nice regional context to the faction. 

It depends on what you want to represent. The Greek city states certainly used Thracian mercenaries, but they typically fought with javelins. The Macedonian army of Philip II and Alexander III the Great used Odryssian (Thracian) cavalry, but rhomphaia infantry is not attested. However, the later Antigonids (306–168 BC) certainly deployed them: Thracian mercenaries with black cloak, white thureos, and rhomphaia were one of the elite units of Philip V (r. 221–179 BC), fighting as a vanguard/special forces, apparently similar in function to Alexander's hypaspists a century earlier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sundiata said:

I'd vote to get rid of all these weird extreme civ bonuses, and replace them with more normal ones. Like with Ptolemies. Why would anybody get free houses? Just give them a nominal cost at least. Build times really don't count as a cost here, and increasing build time of mud-brick structures to compensate for them being free is the wrong way to go imo... Houses should rather be built more quickly, but also have much lower health. Mauryan elephants increasing efficiency of assigned builders makes sense, but elephants building an entire structure from its foundation without any human present really doesn't belong in a game like 0AD imo. Iberian starting walls are the main reason I barely ever play them. I think It's annoying and it's not like Iberians were so famous for their walls... Everybody built walls... 

Rams can literally outrun infantry... And things like catapults, bolt shooters and scorpio's have an insane pierce armor (50?). Why? These aren't covered siege engines. Once infantry reaches them they should be as good as dead. And since they're not covered, they should be vulnerable to enemy ranged units as well.

Military camps are cool, but why can't Ptolemies and Seleucids build more CC's? 

All implemented in my 0abc mod long ago; and I guess in some other mods as well. :)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah free houses are bad, remember my country. Nothing good comes from free stuff from your government :LOL:

On 8/24/2019 at 10:28 AM, Sundiata said:

 I'd vote to get rid of all these weird extreme civ bonuses, and replace them with more normal ones. Like with Ptolemies. Why would anybody get free houses? Just give them a nominal cost at least.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...