Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Historians
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  1. Definitely the defining trait of pikemen that should dictate their advantages in fights should be their long range. That said, all melee infantry should be able to tank arrows relatively well if they are slow. With that in mind, pikemen have to have good pierce armour since they have been defined by the trait of being slow units. I think that by and large there is a good argument for making all melee infantry (with some exceptions) start with roughly the same movement speed. Technologies could then potentially serve to differentiate them in later phases.
  2. Therein I would say is the biggest problem. It should be viable to escort siege weapons.
  3. I think that the issue is primarily in unit ai. For an experiment, I started a singleplayer deathmatch game in which I only trained masses of pikemen. I then sent these units alone to the enemy base, set them on stand ground, and adjusted their position whenever they needed to advance. Granted, this was against an ai fielding a mix of ranged and melee units and using no micro. Overall they performed much better than I had anticipated. I would say that they could use perhaps a bit more range, but the fact that they cannot coordinate as a formation a more relevant point in my opinion. Micr
  4. I'll just say one thing for this hypothetical. Rams. Pikemen do actually have longer range. If you have them stand ground, multiple ranks will attack simultaneously.
  5. Auxiliary is a bit of an anachronism from post-Marian times. I would just call them Helots or Perioikoi, leaning more on the helot side of things. Since prime specimen Spartans have their own building already, I would say that the normal barracks is good enough.
  6. Even though they probably fielded them, I would say no. That's just personal preference to me.
  7. Seems good. Honestly I would prefer for their slinger to be available in the Town Phase; Spartans have the identity of a melee infantry civilisation and should probably retain that identity since their champions should theoretically deal with infantry well enough. I would say a hard no to archers myself; that all said, I respect your choices in the matter.
  8. If Hannibal could train that unit, I think it would be fair for Hamilcar to be able to train mercenaries since that was his shtick. Maharbal could perhaps train cavalry units.
  9. I did list a number of solutions to this problem earlier in the thread. Pushing the Syssiton to Phase 2 is only one option, and the problem with economy and military technologies sounds like an entirely different problem. Having champions available at the start of the game would be an interesting difference that no other civilisation at least at the moment has, and it would be a shame if it were moved to a different phase just for that reason. That all said, I understand the basis behind your argument; honestly I'm just happy that Sparta can train Spartans earlier. Again that is a f
  10. I am not to any capacity competent with Latin, but I believe 'Castrum Sociis' would be correct, taking the genitive plural form of socii. That all said, my knowledge of Latin mainly comes from the Life of Brian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lczHvB3Y9s
  11. Having it called an embassy might seem a bit strange as socii were recruited from subject states. I would maybe just call the structure a socii barracks.
  12. I think that there is an argument for introducing a technology for skirmishers that would increase their movement rate. They could start of with just a marginal difference in speed to not make them massively better from an economic perspective. Archers being a wee bit slower seems fair.
  13. The right approach to that question is perhaps to look at the different possible variables at play. Namely, there is defence, damage per second, mobility, and range. All of these are then considered in relation to the cost and necessary training time of the said unit. Fortunately those last variables are constant in most cases. Generally speaking a unit should be able be decent with two of those categories to be potentially worthwhile. Honestly the difference between archers and slingers is more or less a false dichotomy; they had similar roles. It's trying to figure out a niche for the
  14. Probably they should cost fairly standard resources. One idea that borg was rather favourable towards was having helots be cheaper at the cost of worse combat strength. This kind of practice could be extended to other units as well such as the Persian spearman. I would go with something conservative like -10% resource cost for -15-20% hitpoints. Obviously those numbers could be up for debate, but I think that it could be worth experimenting worth if you want to try that out as well. Fantastic work. My thoughts exactly. One of the key sorts of ways I think would be interesting to
  15. A couple thoughts come to mind for how this could be addressed. Spartan hoplites could be a bit weaker in the Village Phase. Better yet there could be paired technologies available with each phase to personalise them. Yet another approach could be to make their training time a lot slower in the Village Phase to prevent them from being massed (which would be undesirable). Even another option could be to have the Spartan hoplite available at the Town Phase instead, but I like this the least. I would maybe recommend making a helot slinger be possible for Spartans to train in the Town
  16. For Sparta, they could just have their mess hall be available to build at the Town Phase (or maybe even the Village Phase). Spartans training Spartans would be a fun novelty. Athens might be a bit trickier, but at the same time perhaps the gymnasium could be available one phase earlier. I would like to see Macedon's siege weapons available in the Town Phase alongside possibly their companion cavalry. The point is that the stoa is not necessary for this. The heavy skirmisher would be appropriate for Athens and Macedon, but those seem more like City Phase troops than Tow
  17. I would have to agree. If there is no ability to produce dedicated siege units, there should be some way in which some units are better able to destroy or better capture buildings possibly through a technology. I would see this being a good choice although it might have the unintended side-effect of making players want to build even more barracks, which is the current meta and is probably undesirable. That kind of builds into another topic considering the extremely economic role of barracks, which is one of the key reasons why turtling=booming.
  18. At the moment most people generally seem to describe the meta to be some aggression in the Village Phase, practically none in the Town Phase, and more in the City Phase. Ideally speaking there should be good opportunities for fighting during all of these times in the game. With that in mind, there are a few reasons I can think of that have led to this situation. The Village Phase has a wide variety of options with unit compositions. The Town Phase does little to help this and in fact introduces a number of defensive upgrades that discourage aggression. Wit
  19. Citizen-soldiers are by definition militias. The gather penalty is not necessarily the only option; having troops trained at an advanced rank (and costing more resources/having a longer training as a result) would have a similar effect.
  20. The problem with changing training times is that it does nothing to fix the fundamental issue. Barracks serve a primarily economic role in the Village Phase. Some people might not consider that a problem, but to me, the average Athenian just getting equipped to serve for the military doesn't say to himself, "Whelp, better start hoeing those fields." Introducing a gather-rate penalty of some sort to units trained in the barracks would generally fix this problem. Suddenly booming would otherwise be done by researching fertility festival and training women or going with a suboptimal inv
  21. It would make it a riskier investment since there would be a slower return on the investment made first on the barracks and then on the units produced. What are alternatives? What about economic upgrades or a faster phase up? Granted, the point I would make is that people produced from a military building should be better at military stuff and worse at economic stuff than those trained from a non-military structure. Giving them an increase in hitpoints like +10% while having a -25% gather rate would be a fairly reasonable start to make barracks units not be a go to option for expanding one
  • Create New...