Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Historians
  • Content Count

    1.051
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  1. 57 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

    1. Bonus in food gather rate - removes the need for cavalry. 

    2. Replace the camel with something different, e.g. an extra infantry unit like the Thebans

    Either ways, the camel rush is gone. 

    Was there any other historical unit that the Ptolemies can use to rush / defend? Or should the Ptolemies be a rush-free civ?

    Note: Pikemen rush is not feasible. Slinger rush is almost useless in A25. 

    Feasible rushes in A25: archer, skirmisher, cavalry, Sword infantry. 

    Good points to know.  A food gather rate bonus for berries as you mentioned would be a reasonable idea.  I do wonder if making camel archers mercenaries would remove the possibility of a rush entirely. Obviously they would contribute nothing to the economic engine, which would make the choice a gamble, but I wouldn't write that off completely (That all said, I have never strived to play 0 AD on a competitive level and as such lack the ability to comment on the meta as much as a good number of others.).

    Your mentioning the Ptolemies being being unable to rush doesn't sound horrible either honestly.  When I think of factions that should be able to play aggressively, ones like the Romans, Britons, and Gauls come to mind, yet I'm sure that sort of choice might upset a good number of players.  

    I would maybe aim to make slingers into more viable units for rushing as that sounds like the bigger problem at hand more than anything else.  Is there any specific reason to make them significantly worse than other classes other than for the purpose nerfing some factions?

    55 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

    You make Ptolemies sound very similar to the Han Chinese in Terra Magna (not Stan's version). I think a berry collection bonus is more effective than farming bonus for early game and wouldn't upset other balancing issues. The farming bonus in A23 was removed for a reason. 

    I'm not sure what the farming bonus in alpha 23 was, but there are a large number of available options for farming bonuses aside from a flat increase to gather rates such as decreasing the cost; that all said, if farming has few effects in the early game, I suppose that this has little value for this topic specifically.

    • Like 1
  2. 2 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

    So I guess the camel balance is good. If you want to turn it into a mercenary unit then Ptolemies will have no citizen soldier cavalry, which might not be a good thing. I don't know how Ptolemies will do with a javelin cavalry, I will need you to test that for me. (I will put it in bellum mod)

    This is not necessarily about balance strictly speaking although it would impact the civilisation.  I'm not approaching this from a perspective of camel archers being overpowered.  You do make a fair point about the citizen soldier cavalry aspect, but I would say that the Ptolemies were more famous for being the breadbasket of the Mediterranean than hunter-gathers.  I could see the introduction of some farming bonus being a good way of reflecting that and maybe compensating for their weaker early game economy.  I'd even say it would be a good, substantive way of differentiating the faction from others as their approach to cavalry rushes would as a result differ.

    With those points in mind, does that sound more viable to any degree?

    On a separate note, I expect people to disagree with my suggestions and argumentations.  I am a fallible individual with a vision for the game that probably differs from everyone to some degree, but if there is dissent over my suggestions, I would advise actually attacking the arguments themselves rather than merely putting a confused emoji over my posts.  That does nothing to further constructive dialogue.

  3. At the moment camel archers are simply citizen soldiers.  One of the first problem with this approach is that they are Nabatean, an area that as far as I am aware was never formally under Ptolemaic rule.  I would support instead having them be mercenary units to better make the distinction between citizen soldiers and mercenaries in the game more consistent while also working to reflect the emphasis this kingdom placed on mercenary based armies.

    I would appreciate anyone with more knowledge on the Ptolemaic kingdom to voice their thoughts as the successor states are not an area of expertise for me.

    • Like 1
    • Confused 1
  4. 50 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

    I just wanted to mention that I'm not happy with p2 towers not counting towards the phase-up prerequisites anymore. It's a considerable investment, especially since stone is back in the tech upgrades cost. Also they usually have more practical worth for me in p2 than the blacksmith (which I usually don't use until p3).

    #towerscount

    Personally that all sounds like a good thing to me.  It makes the prospect of setting up defences to be a way of delaying potentially key upgrades.  That means that there is the potential for a meaningful choice.

    • Like 2
  5. 2 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

    Camels get higher health but slower speed, cavalry get lower health but higher speed. 

    There was a patch proposed for that.

    12 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:

    Doesnt help much: Ranged cav can just flee then in danger without punishment. And go somewhere else to strike there.

    Provided that they would be countered by ranged infantry, that wouldn't be a problem.  Personally I prefer not forcing players to default to one major unit type as a counter however.

    • Like 1
  6. I would agree generally with what you have said, and at one point I proposed the first phase generally starting with only one infantry, one ranged infantry, and one melee cavalry available to train.  

    I would however contend that Sparta would be better served starting with a Skiritae unit (assuming that they actually would be fast like they were in alpha 23) as a replacement for a cavalry unit.  This would have to be balanced in a way so that they could not be overly penalised from an economic perspective.

    • Like 1
    • Confused 2
  7. 15 hours ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

    Trying to figure out what would Etruscan use, I mean they would probably have equipment similar to the Latins.

    The best sort of way of bridging that gap would be to look at Etruscan art.  That's essentially where artists like the person who did this got inspiration from.  Of the little representation I have seen of their depictions of soldiers, this does not seem accurate, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  8. 10 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

    Dear historians @Genava55 @Ultimate Aurelian @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded what do you think about adding this civs? Can you suggest any unit rosters, structure tree and heroes, as well as bonuses? Can these civs be merged into one big civ? 

    It would be theoretically possible.  The point would be considering which nations could have distinctive identities; merely because there were cultural similarities from one civilisation to another does not mean that introducing them to the game would be impossible.  Personally I would find more pseudo-greek cultures to help round out the map to be reasonable additions.  Areas such as Illyria and Thrace come to mind.  

    Pergamum would perhaps be a favourite of mine since it was a prominent regional power by its own right.  There are other, more extreme approaches that could be done however...

    https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/27864-april-update/

    • Like 1
  9. 3 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

    My naïve suggestion would thus be to rename perioikoi hoplites to neodamodes hoplites. Is there any reason to use the term perioikoi hoplites?

    It is fairly well established that perioikoi served in the military.  I'd recommend browsing through JSTOR to see.  Over time perioikoi, initially meant to supplement Spartan numbers, increasingly made up the military and even integrated into Spartan units.  Neodamodeis were in all likelihood far less common as they represented a route for social advancement for helots, something that Spartans feared.  If Neodamodeis  were to be introduced to Sparta, it would be reasonable to allow them to be trained through Brasidas.

    • Like 2
  10. 5 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    So what would the gameplay role of siege towers be?

    would they kill infantry from 90 m, with bolt shooters?

    would they be stronger than rams in health, or in melee damage vs buildings?

    would they be able to destroy buildings from a distance?

    would they still need to be garrisoned by inf?

    From your description of their actual historical characteristics it seems like they would be a merge of all the siege engines available.

    Valid questions.  They would be in my mind be more or less what you said in the last section.  Their function should not be anti-archer as a general rule and their projectiles should be anti-building, with a shorter range but higher attack probably.  More siege could perhaps be garrisoned within them to increase the projectile count.  The ram could then be an optional add on, maybe an upgrade for individual units.  They probably would be quite resilient at the cost of being more expensive to categorise them as the ancient equivalent of a super-weapon.  Of course to unlock their full potential, a player would need to train a few ballistae.

    1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:

    If we go completely accurate according to history, then it will upset all of the balancing advisors, so let's find a compromise:

    Allow siege weapon to garrison 1 bolt shooter and fire at most 1 bolt.

    Probably this won't change for alpha 25.  That all said, any changes will have the inevitable effect of disrupting balance.  Merely being conservative to maintain the fragile gamestate stifle innovation.  That all said, I could go with that approach over the current iteration, but it doesn't change the fact that at the moment the game makes siege towers like machine-gun mounted troop carriers.  

  11. 4 hours ago, alre said:

    mmmh true but helepolis was a general term, the one at Rhodes is just the antonomasia. Also STs are accessible to various other civs, so the discussions here are about the general unit.

    I'd recommend citing a source for that.  Helepolis is literally what Demetrius called it, and this kind of design was not just for a single siege.  Two ancient sources refer to  contraptions of this sort being specifically ones designed to mount artillery and ram down structures.  Since the siege tower to my knowledge is only used by successor state kingdoms in game, I would say that that this version would work well enough generally.

    https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Vitr.%2010.15&lang=original

    https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/20C*.html#48

  12. 2 hours ago, alre said:

    STs in game don't look such as the one used at Rhodes, they look like ordinary, much more modest STs that throw arrows, or darts at best. Their projectiles have that appearance too.

    And yet the name given to a siege tower is 'helepolis.'  Clearly the artistic direction needs to be changed for them to better reflect its historical usage.

    10 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    Well I don't know if we want to have bolt shooters be that mobile.

    That's what the Rhodians said.

  13. 2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    I mean, it wouldn't be a huge deal to just remove 3 ai names per civ. They have plenty others.

    In the case of Persia that is three out of twelve, not a small fraction.  Of course provided that other names are supplied to bring the AI names to a more acceptable number, I would have no issue with that proposal, but the immediate problem is that the game needs more, not less variety in some AI names.  

  14. 8 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

    it is no a small thing. That must hurt a lot.

     I think that while looking at a lance this size it is easy to assume that it would be of a similar nature to a jousting stick, but it is important to remember that cavalry at this time often lacked saddles, stirrups, and other equipment to make them effectual in charges.  Going at full gallop would in all probability dismount the rider as well.  The 'shock' factor was more a matter of the simple fact that horsemen engaging in melee was a rare occurrence and its success was probably more due to Persians breaking at the sight of these riders.  The Alexander Sarcophagus gives a bit better of an idea of equipment (or lack thereof) horses had.  The key takeaway to me at least would be that the lance was employed for the extra reach more than anything else, and as such, I would recommend giving cavalry equipped with this kind of weapon appropriate range to represent that fact.

    image.thumb.jpeg.56ae1847fce910e21a4154f864e3345f.jpeg

  15. Mardonius is a notable general who is not included in the Persian list.  Cyrus the Younger is also not represented.  Tissaphernes, a prominent satrap could also be a leader.

    At the moment Persia basically just uses monarchs as leaders.  Satraps, princes, and generals would also be reasonable candidates.  I have little to say for the Seleucid and Maurya Empires unfortunately.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
  16. 2 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

    but how should a classic phalange vs a legion of hastati work?

    Good question.  I did a bit of atlas editor testing of sword versus spear to check results.  

    In 1v1 the swordsman won with 20 hp left, which seems close, but increased numbers reveals it becoming increasingly lopsided.  

    This came to the point where with 20 vs 20, there were 18 swordsmen left with roughly 50% of their hitpoints remaining.  

    I would say that the 1v1 result should end with the swordsman left with 10% hp left.  Maybe that number could be 15%, but the fights should be fairly close.  

    This might make the swordsman seem comparatively useless, yet with extra pierce armour and movement speed, I would think their utility outside of this situation would be able to be seen.  That all said, in the case of hastati specifically, a better situation would be in which the hastati first hurl a volley of pila, which would add yet another variable into the equation.

  17. 5 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

    @Thorfinn the Shallow MindedCan you explain why swordsmen are an all-rounder? It seems like spearmen are in the same way an all-rounder with a bonus against cavalry.

    Swordsmen would be faster and have better pierce armour while still trading well against spearmen.  Their role would still be slightly anti-cavalry focussed, having the ability to catch them out better than spears.  At the same time ranged units could kite them, but those tactics would be less effective and harder to do.  Spearmen being hard countered by swordsmen would be bad in my opinion since they lack the ability to properly chase and hence counter the primary unit that they are designed to counter.

  18. 26 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

    I assume you want 1.5x counter by default? You can have it tonight ( or morning of 3rd June in Honduras)

    That approach would be haphazard.  With their current stats, units are already designed to have a built in counter system, and that would merely put it on steroids.  

    As a couple critiques of Lion's system (keeping in mind that I do have a heavy amount of bias to my own)

    You list sword cavalry and and spear as counters to melee cavalry.  I assume that only one of those applies?  

    Slingers and skirmishers are listed as archer counters.  What differences are there between the two?  

    Pikemen and spearmen are listed as anti cavalry.  Is there any other difference between them.

    Also, there is no accounting for ranged cavalry, which oftentimes plays a large role in the meta.  

    I'm not a fan of swordsmen countering spearmen personally as it does not accurately reflect history.  Legions were able to beat phalanxes primarily due to a flexible chain of command structure that made for more manoeuvrability; that's why at least in my mind the advantage of swordsmen should be that of an all-rounder, not particularly good against anything but not easily countered either.  That all said, it's an understandable abstraction.

    If we compare with mine, I tried to consider ways of making the broad categories still simple and working along the rock-paper-scissors idea of infantry beats cavalry which beats ranged.  Ranged cavalry make the whole system a bit more complex as there isn't a clear fifth category to try to turn the rock-paper-scissors into rock-paper-scissors-Spock-lizard.  

×
×
  • Create New...