Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Historians
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  1. 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.
  2. Generally speaking siege towers such as the one used at Rhodes were more designed to house catapults and ballistas, which makes the concept of them launching arrows at all somewhat odd.
  3. That leads to a bigger question by and large since a number of heroes are represented in AI names already (See Persians). I personally don't have a problem with that.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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 suicidal. Swordsmen could trade efficiently against cavalry yet not incredibly well. If aspects such as flanking were introduced however, cavalry could theoretically be counters for all melee infantry.
  12. 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 lower pierce armour makes them a bit more of a glass cannon unit than the sword counterpart. Fair. My reasoning is that producing said units would allow for higher damage output to support heavy infantry, which should be the decisive element of most engagements. Another part could be them acting as a screening force.
  13. 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 ensure that the ranged versus melee dichotomy would work in that framework. Definitely that is a liability to my writeup, but I think that it would provide some much needed differentiation. As I had stated, javelin units in this might work best to beat archers, outperforming their damage and not getting into minimum range; the major bottleneck would be giving them the right amount of pierce armour. Fair. That said, most of the time cavalry were equipped with some of the heaviest armour provided that they were fielded to enter melee fights. Peasant farmers rarely rode horses to battle.
  14. 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 spearmen and could potentially provide a threat to ranged units. Generally speaking this would be a unit that would have no hard counters or be countered very effectively by others. Pikemen would have as much pierce armour as spearmen at the most, and would derive the greatest advantage in fights from numbers. One on one, they would lose to spearmen and swordsmen, but as their range becomes an important component of the fight, they would become increasingly overwhelming. -Ranged infantry would benefit from the highest range and generally would do well against slow units. Javelinists would have the highest damage output of all ranged units to compensate for their low range. They would also benefit from the highest pierce armour as well. They would be situationally useful against melee infantry and elephants provided that the player effectively kites with them. Their marginal movement increase compared to their other ranged counterparts would also allow them to potentially close the gap against archers and slingers. Archers would generally boast the longest range at the cost of a minimum range. In general, having a pure archer army would be suicide if any melee units could close the gap. Their damage output would be nothing incredible. Slingers would have an intermediate range and have minimal armour, making them the squishiest of the units. With the lead bullets technology researched, however, their range would exceed that of archers, but that would only apply to a handful of civilisations. -Melee Cavalry would be best against ranged units and always trade poorly against melee infantry. Sword Cavalry would specialise in killing ranged units. Spear Cavalry would be a soft counter to sword cavalry and would also be a soft counter to ranged units, but their slightly lower pierce armour would leave them more vulnerable to their attacks. They would also be one of the fastest units in the game. -Ranged Cavalry would have lower damage output than their infantry counterparts but would also be the best unit when it comes to hit-and-run tactics. Javelin Cavalry would be perhaps the best ranged counter to archers. With their fast movement rate, reasonable dps, and moderate pierce armour, they could move into minimum range easily enough, let out a volley, and get back into minimum range quickly enough to repeat the cycle. Cavalry Archers would lack much dps and would have a minimum range, meaning that melee cavalry catching them out would be a massive hazard. Despite that, their range, comparable to slingers, would allow them to operate at a fairly safe distance while their movement rate would make that a fairly unlikely possibility. In fact their best counter would be ranged infantry, which would be able to effectively outperform them in a straight fight. -Elephants seem fine the way they are to me. -Siege are anti-building units, but the Bolt Shooter is a bit of mixed bag. It’s speciality should be at targeting clumps of units with its area of effect.
  15. 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...
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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 in game. The issue is that these are rare in most maps, and in fairness, it would be difficult to balance since depending on the amount of randomness, it could lead to a large snowball in the early game. I would say that one thing I personally find disappointing is that rushes basically consist solely of cavalry. I would personally like that to change; how it could be done is a separate matter.
  19. 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.
  20. 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 rebuilding Jerusalem's walls and was famous for his piety. Salome Alexandra, as the last queen, would be interesting as well as she extended the kingdom's borders to their largest extent. I would advise a fortress discount due to her making extensive fortifications along the border. John Hyrcanus could be another option as well, with a mercenary discount.
  21. 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 intentions of the designer rather than translating into a system where one simple change can have have massive unintended effects. The point of the matter is that this that even if it does eliminate some emergent strategies that occurred because of unit speeds, these can be still reintroduced, and I believe in the opening post I pointed out a number of ways in which depth could be used for the system I proposed. Undoubtedly other viable alternatives can offer similar if not more interesting approaches.
  22. 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 distribution in 0 AD, which is currently less systematic than other RTS games. Still, it's a worthwhile approach.
  23. 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 the game.
  24. I would definitely go for both of these approaches if my more radical idea proves unpopular (which I kind of expected).
  • Create New...