Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Historians
  • Content Count

    1.052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  1. 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.
  2. Agree to disagree then. The Godwin's Law of 0 AD: the longer a forum discussion takes place, the more likely it is that wowgetoffyourcellphone will mention battalions. But yeah, that is a fair point all the same. Battalions or no, flank mechanics would improve the game in my mind.
  3. A couple things came to mind after looking at the Romans. First of all, having the Triarius be trained at veteran rank again would be good; this could come with a +25-50% training time to make them harder to mass. Also, since there is a building in this mod for training Socii, the Extraordinarius should be available there, not at the regular barracks, since it is a socii unit.
  4. Your concerns are valid, but I never stated that spear cavalry would have no pierce armour, just less than their sword counterparts. The point would be that they would be a decent counter to ranged units but not as efficient. At the end of the day though, just because one cavalryman kills three archers does not mean that ten cavalrymen must defeat thirty. The factors you are not considering are formations and the lack of many elements that made knights the effective shock cavalry of the Middle Ages. Provided that the infantry were disciplined enough, a frontal charge was virtually s
  5. To clarify, I generally was stating that all melee cavalry should counter ranged units. I was being redundant, but in my opinion, it is important to have a clear, wholistic standpoint that represents the interplay of every single unit so that people are better aware of one's vision. I don't necessarily care for categorising spear and sword classes (See a topic I posted a while ago), but since they are an integral part of the game, I simply worked to differentiate between the two. Spear cavalry should according to my post still counter ranged units well due to their faster speed, but their l
  6. Swordsmen in my mind should be able to situationally catch out ranged units much better than other infantry, but they should not be reliably capable of such; that's just my personal preference. As for pierce armour, I would recommend just going with an incremental increase of +1 or 2 and seeing where it goes from there after some testing.
  7. I never said that ranged infantry would be able to beat cavalry. Ranged units could beat swordsmen and might be the best units to do so, but typically they would rely on a unit in front to be able to tank damage. Perhaps swordsmen should not do any better against spearmen if traits such as improved movement speed and pierce armour were introduced. That whole concept seems fairly ahistorical. I think that there would be some clear problems, but adjusting turning speed could make it less potent than you might think. There would definitely need to be some fine tuning with that to en
  8. I would argue for a more moderate approach of maybe 9.8 or 10. It should not be too easy for them to catch up to ranged units but not impossible. That's why again I argued for a moderate increase to pierce armour. Again as well, they should not be hard counters to other infantry classes, only trading decently against them. On a slightly different topic, one infantry swordsman in particular I would change would be the skiritae unit. That should be faster than other swordsmen. Changing it to a generic swordsmen speed was a definite downgrade in uniqueness for Sparta. I don't particu
  9. Since some people have started adding to this topic, I thought that I might as well share my rambling thoughts. First of all, there are a few key categories: melee infantry, ranged infantry, melee cavalry, ranged cavalry, elephants, and siege. -Starting with melee infantry, they would always be cost effective against cavalry. Spearmen would be the most straightforward counter to cavalry provided that they can reach them. Swordsmen would have the best pierce armour of the infantry and a slightly faster movement speed than other infantry. They would trade favourably against sp
  10. As I had stated in that topic, swordsmen should have slightly higher pierce armour than their infantry counterparts and move a bit faster; at the moment they have the same movement speed as spearmen. Essentially their role could be a bit of an all-rounder, making efficient trades against cavalry and spearmen, holding their own against pikemen in smaller numbers where the range of the pikes would not come into play, and having the potential to close the gap with ranged units and tank arrows. The only units that should be true counters would be ranged cavalry; ranged infantry could potentially
  11. Agis has always been that way. I have several times argued against his inclusion in favour of other more notable Spartan kings. That also is reasonable. Also, since the slinger is a helot unit, it should probably cost 45/45 as well. Actually I'm sure that the Spiffing Brit would argue quite compellingly that in fact 0 AD is perfectly balanced...
  12. Fair enough. I was generally just saying that only cultures that fielded large amounts of mercenaries historically should be able to do this kind of strategy in most cases. You are very correct in that there should be interesting options for every civilisation in the early game for aggression or defence, whether that consists of mercenaries or not.
  13. Honestly unless we're talking about civilisations that were famous for fielding mercenary armies like Carthage or the successor states, I don't really see a good reason for mercenaries to be trained in the village phase.
  14. I think one of the problems is that there is a total lack of reward for minor engagements. In Age of Empires II, scout fights are common cases in which players can work to capitalise on their micro skills, and even a small difference in hitpoints can be critical up to early Feudal Age. Cavalry instead are mainly rewarded by just gathering chickens, which was of course the primary thing that horsemen did historically. Much of this could be fixed by incorporating more rewards into scouting, which in turn could lead to early game engagements. Resources that can be captured already exist
  15. The Maccabees are the Hasmoneans. Leaving out the Herodians is perfectly fine by me; they represent a time in which the kingdom was nothing more than a client state. Small quibble to make: the text is fairly ambiguous as to whether he used the whip in particular to drive out the money changers; my reading would be against that interpretation, but scholars from throughout history have sided both ways.
  16. I think that the whip is in reference to Jesus using whip to drive out animals that were being sold in the temple. That aside, I would strongly argue that neither of these people would be appropriate for the Hasmonean Kingdom. Jesus is depicted as having few patriotic sympathies, talking about the kingdom of heaven instead of literally creating a physical regime. Herod the Great on the other hand was highly unpopular and possibly a sociopath. Last, neither of these heroes fit into the timeframe. Instead, I would recommend Simeon the Righteous, a high priest who was famous for re
  17. Standardisation is not a lazy, stale approach. That said, I'm not against some units having better economic purpose within the framework of citizen soldiers or other units. Rather, the point should be that merely because one unit is faster should not mean that it is inherently better at collecting resources. When making one unit more efficient, there should be intentionality behind that design choice, and at times a military advantage should not translate into better economic advantage. Simply speaking, by streamlining resource collection, the game can be easily changed to accommodate the
  18. Simply speaking units of different speeds, regardless of the proximity of the resource, are going to have different gather rates. More time walking back and forth means that there is less time actually working; it's simple math. How would eliminating or reducing the effects of unit speeds on their economic efficiency be bad? Frankly I find it absurd that say a skirmisher is a better lumberjack than an archer due to their uses in the battlefield a questionable thing. I like this, but I think that one of the biggest problems it would face would be the current resource distribu
  19. The first problem is that the sword is not inherently designed to cut. Some weapons such as the gladius tend towards stabbing. On the flip-side, cutting with some spears is viable. Next off, there doesn't need to be a massive difference between the two. As I would suggest, swordsmen should move a bit faster and have more pierce armour while performing a slight bit better in fights against spearmen. Swordsmen historically were not deployed with the sole purpose of destroying siege weapons. Giving all melee units hack damage would overall be a much better way of streamlining th
  20. I would definitely go for both of these approaches if my more radical idea proves unpopular (which I kind of expected).
  21. It might be worthwhile checking how things functioned in previous alphas before shuttling existed. I believe it was either Alpha 4 or 5 when the change happened. The following video shows a bit of that in action; aside from that, it's fascinating seeing things like the changes in the UI. That's more or less the point, getting rid of shuttling entirely.
  22. The War Story represents some aspects of the original game. There are a lot of intriguing differences to be found. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/War_Story Probably some more search archaeology could bring up the other points as I didn't find everything I remembered. Obviously this isn't meant to be lifted up as the 'Holier Than Thou' relic, but I just brought it up to show that this idea is nothing new. It would be rates. In this model units would automatically trickle resources to the player much like Khmer farms in Age of Empires II.
  23. The idea of dropping off resources is a staple of the RTS genre, but for 0 A.D, it limits key design aspects of the game. As has been noted, changing movement speeds has a direct impact on gather rates since units have to deliver resources to drop-sites. Interestingly enough, the original vision was to not have this kind of feature, and in some of the first alphas, this was nonexistent. The initial plan was to construct structures that had an aura; units could gather within this aura and not outside it. This was clearly a very restrictive choice. What I would rather propose is that drop-s
  24. It is, but the unit collision and a few other factors make it very rare to properly show up in gameplay. Unlike kamyuks, in which there seems to be enough range for up to three units to stand between, pikemen instead can only reach about the size of a single person standing. A reason for this is that the sarissa is represented as fairly short in game. According to a random google search, the average man in ancient Greece was roughly 1.6 metres tall. The length of the sarissa according to wikipedia was roughly 4-6 metres. Looking at the game, pikes stand at roughly twice the height of a pe
×
×
  • Create New...