Jump to content


WFG Retired
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Mythos_Ruler

  1. For Mauryans, I'd go ahead and move the Maiden Archer to fortress and then, if you wanted to keep the Maurya Hero's training ability, make the sword Maiden the one he trains. Though I would point out that the Yoddha melee champion in the Fortress was basically designed to be more of a suicidal mini-siege weapon instead of a standard swordsman (unless his stats have been changed lately).

  2. [edit]

    As for using melee infantry to protect ranged units, I think that would work much better if we implemented some form of battalions, otherwise it might be too much effort to manage effectively. Generally I don't see anything that radical in those changes. I thought that was how it was already supposed to work based on previous discussions (unless I'm missing something)?

    There isn't a need per se for battalions or formations in order to form a meat shield (though battalions and formations are cool and add depth if done right). Games like Age of Mythology use the meat shield tactic just fine without them. The changes aren't "radical" because they are based on how soldiers in those times were logically used and how a player would expect them to be used, which was a problem with the old counter setup. The previous countering setup was designed way back in Summer 2003 and wasn't essentially updated until now (see: Game's Design Document, which is woefully out of date) and used some logic that was counterintuitive to most players accustomed to these types of games.

    • Like 1
  3. Here's the guideline I went off of (though the final stats of what I committed may be a bit "off"). These stats assume that charging will be implemented.


    • Skirmish Cav (Javelin Cavalry) are countered quite well by Javelin Infantry (almost every civ has these) and Sword Cavalry (the one civ that doesn't have JavInf has SwordCav). If you've done "2 quick tests" and JavCav seem overpowered, it's because your opponent is unaware of the counter.
    • Both types of Melee Cav are now better counters against ranged units.
    • Spearmen and Pikemen are differentiated by their armor, speed, severity of their CavBonus and attack damage. Spearmen have a heavier base attack and charge, but less armor and smaller bonus against Cav in comparison to Pikemen. Because of their low attack and high bonus vs. Cavalry, Pikemen at first seem like a one-trick pony cav-counter, but because of their high armor functionally they also act as a good meatshield unit.
    • Melee Cavalry are differentiated by their base attack and charge bonuses. SwordCav = higher base attack, but smaller charge bonus. SpearCav are the opposite.
    • Like Melee Cavalry, Spear Infantry and Sword Infantry are differentiated by flip flopping their base attack and charge bonuses.
    • If you don't have a meat shield for your ranged units, you're gonna have a bad time.
    • I didn't do much in regards to Fortress, Civic Center, Defense Tower, Siege Weapon balancing.
    • You can mix and match your balancing ideas with this or discard it altogether. However, I think the counters I have set up make a lot of sense, definitely more sense than the old counters and I didn't do weird things like give Slingers crush attack.
    • In my commit I also fixed some special techs not working (Nisean War Horses, Hellenistic Metropolis, et al.) that no one has seemed to bother fixing.
    • Things could be balanced further by removing ranged cav from Phase 1 and giving every civ a Phase 1 melee cav instead. Or look at ways and unit combos in Phase 1 that keep a simple rock/paper/scissors dynamic (that does not mean give every civ the same starting units, but look at different combos that can work; some civs have historical considerations too, they are important).
    =================================================CITIZEN INFANTRY STATS=================================================MELEE INFANTRYSword Infantry- Cost: 60F 40M- Health: 100- Attack: Hack, High- Bonus: 1.5x vs. Infantry and Elephants- Charge Bonus: 2x- Hack Armor: High- Pierce Armor: Low- Speed: MediumSpear Infantry- Cost: 50F 50W - Health: 100- Attack: Hack, Medium- Bonus: 2x vs. Cavalry- Charge Bonus: 2.5x- Hack Armor: Medium- Pierce Armor: Medium- Speed: MediumPike Infantry- Cost: 50F 50W- Health: 100- Attack: Hack, Low- Bonus: 4x vs. Cavalry- Charge Bonus: 2x- Hack Armor: High- Pierce Armor: Medium- Speed: Low=============================RANGED INFANTRYArcher Infantry- Cost: 40F 60W- Health: 80 - Attack: Pierce, Low- Range: High- Accuracy: Low- Rate: Medium- Bonus: 1.5x vs. Sword Infantry, 1.25x vs. Spear Infantry- Hack Armor: Low- Pierce Armor: Medium- Speed: MediumJavelin Infantry- Cost: 40F 60W- Health: 80- Attack: Pierce, Medium- Range: Medium- Accuracy: Medium- Rate: Medium- Bonus: 1.5x vs. Spear Infantry, Ranged Cavalry, and Elephants- Hack Armor: Low- Pierce Armor: Medium- Speed: HighSlinger Infantry - Cost: 50F 40S- Health: 80- Attack: Pierce, Low- Range: Medium- Accuracy: High- Rate: High- Bonus: 1.5x vs. Ranged Infantry, 1.25x vs. Sword Infantry- Hack Armor: Low- Pierce Armor: Low- Speed: High=================================================CITIZEN CAVALRY STATS- Penalty: Horse Cavalry 0.5x vs. Elephants and Camels- Penalty: Camel .80x Speed- Speed (walk/run/charge): Roughly 1.5x Infantry Counterparts=================================================MELEE CAVALRY- Bonus: 2x vs. Siege- Special: Trample Aura/Ability (assuming this will be implemented)Sword Cavalry - Cost: 80F 50M- Health: 150- Attack: Hack, High- Bonus: 1.5x vs. Ranged Infantry and Ranged Cavalry- Charge Bonus: 2.5x- Trample: Low- Hack Armor: Low- Pierce Armor: High- Speed: HighSpear Cavalry: - Cost: 80F 50W- Health: 150- Attack: Hack, Medium- Bonus: 2x vs. Ranged Infantry- Charge Bonus: 4x- Trample: Medium- Hack Armor: Medium- Pierce Armor: High- Speed: Medium=============================RANGED CAVALRYArcher Cavalry- Cost: 100F 50W - Health: 130- Attack: Pierce, Low- Range: High- Accuracy: Low- Rate: Medium- Bonus: 1.5x vs. Melee Infantry- Hack Armor: Low- Pierce Armor: Medium- Speed: HighJavelin Cavalry- Cost: 100F 40W- Health: 130- Attack: Pierce, Medium- Range: Medium- Accuracy: Low- Rate: Medium- Bonus: 1.5x vs. Support- Hack Armor: Low- Pierce Armor: Low- Speed: High=================================================OTHER MELEE UNITSMelee Elephant- Cost: 150F 100M- Health: 400- Attack: Hack, Medium; Crush, High- Bonus: 2x vs. Cavalry, 1.5x vs. Structures- Charge Bonus: 3x- Trample: High- Hack Armor: Medium- Pierce Armor: High- Speed: Low=================================================OTHER RANGED UNITSArcher Chariot- Cost: 120F 100W- Health: 200 - Attack: Pierce, Low- Range: High- Accuracy: Low- Rate: Medium- Trample: High- Bonus: 1.5x vs. Melee Infantry- Hack Armor: Medium- Pierce Armor: Medium- Speed: MediumJavelin Chariot- Cost: 120F 100W- Health: 200- Attack: Pierce, Medium- Range: Medium- Accuracy: Medium- Rate: Medium- Trample: High- Bonus: 1.5x vs. Support- Hack Armor: Medium- Pierce Armor: Medium- Speed: MediumArcher Elephant- Cost: 150F 75W- Health: 300- Attack: Pierce, Low- Range: High- Accuracy: Medium- Rate: Medium- Trample: High- Bonus: 1.5x vs. Melee Infantry- Hack Armor: High- Pierce Armor: Medium- Speed: Low

    Sorry about the "surprise" commit, but there needs to be discussion about multiple ways to balance, not just one "balance branch" with 3 or 4 guys playing it intermittently.

    Also, this game is still in alpha. There are good gameplay items still not implemented. Balancing will become even more fun and challenging for you (and rewarding) once everything that affects combat is in (charging, formations).

    • Like 3
  4. The basic idea was to somehow make tunneling a 'ranged' siege feature.

    One of the options we discussed was to create a Siege Engineer unit, who when tasked to attack a wall would build a tunnel entrance (small building) a certain distance away from the wall, but far enough to hide from ranged attack. It would take a certain amount of time to dig the fictional tunnel towards the wall - we're not actually talking about a real tunnel units could walk through ;) The undermining stage begins when the tunnel reaches the wall, and it would slowly trickle away at the wall's health, until it collapsed. You could prevent the wall's collapse by destroying the tunnel entrance. We also discussed having other units join the Siege Engineer in the tunnel to speed up the digging process.

    Actually the idea was that any citizen-soldier could build the sap point (looks like a shed or mantlet) just like any building (except of course you can build it in enemy territory) and once built, the more infantry units you garrison inside the faster the tunnel was built. No need for a special 'Engineer' unit. The major disagreement was whether the enemy could see the tunnel approaching or not (think, Bugs Bunny tunneling under the ground). Certainly the owning player can see its progress but we never agreed on whether or not the enemy could see it too.

    • Like 1
  5. Well if the goal is to recreate history then I guess do whatever ^^

    However if you're looking to make an enjoyable game you're going to have to bend historical accuracy here and there. I realize historical accuracy is important in 0 AD and even more important for some people; however you have to draw a line somewhere.

    Humans and horses are already way bigger than they should be compared to buildings, things like supply lines, food, money, trade and whatnot aren't really modeled. Even the best simulation is an interpretation of reality, it can't be perfectly spot on. In 0 AD you'll probably get fights that never occurred, like Celts vs Mauryans.

    In terms of actual game design, some concessions need to be made to history. I'm not saying disregard history, I'm just saying that history shouldn't get in the way of good game design. It's best to find a compromise between both instead of giving one priority over the other.

    For the record, I think the best course of action right now would be to >simply< switch skirm cav with melee cav for every civ in the tech tree, without doing a radical change like giving romans/iberians spear infantry in age 1. I don't think that melee cav are strong enough to be as effective as skirmcav if you do a melee cav rush. This is where theory needs to stop and actual play-testing needs to take its place. I believe, but I'm not certain, that ranged infantry with the CC can fend off melee cav rushes. If it really turns out that civs without spear infantry in age 1 can't fend off melee cav rush, then perhaps it would be time to look into deeper changes.

    It's also my understanding that the changes proposed by alpha123 would make the swordsman and spearman largely identical in Village Phase, differentiating them later in Town and City phases. If this happens (IMHO it's a very good idea), then it would mitigate or outright solve the problem regarding the Romans and Iberians. I didn't have any historical justification for making the swordsman a tier 1 unit for the Iberians. I did it to make them more unique. I knew it would cause balance issues, but I had faith the team could solve them. Now, for the Romans, historically the sworsdman was the first-line and main infantry unit for them. I can't really see any historical justification for making the Triarius (Roman spearman) their tier 1 melee infantry unit, since the Triarius was a highly armored and experienced veteran. But if alpha123's changes are implemented, then the issue would be moot and the Hastatus can remain the tier 1 melee infantry for the Romans with no problem.

    • Like 2
  6. Just to add some reason why cav skirms are the current tier 1 cav unit: The reason the Cav Skirm is a tier 1 (village phase) unit is for hunting purposes. Since hunting has largely, but not completely, been fixed for melee units, there is no gameplay reason to keep cav skirms the tier 1 civic center cavalry unit, because melee cav can hunt now too when they couldn't before because of annoying pathfinding issues. The pathfinding issues have been circumvented for now until a more comprehensive solution is found, so In fact, it now makes sense to make the tier 1 "civic center" cav unit a melee cav unit. This creates a simple paper rock scissors dynamic in village phase (melee cav >ranged infantry> melee infantry), allowing things to get more complicated in town phase (tier 2, unlocked at the barracks) with ranged cav and all the other additional unit types.

    So, in conclusion, I would go with incog's simplest solution of moving the cav skirm to tier 2 and a melee cav unit to tier 1.

    Back to lurking.

    • Like 2
  7. When you talk about tech "trade offs" like greater hitpoints, but longer train time, we call that concept in the game design "self-balancing." In-fact, the concept has been rolling around the project since nearly the beginning. There are a bunch of stats that go well together under this concept.

    The easiest examples:

    Health <-> Train Time

    Cost <-> Attack

    Armor <-> Speed

    It was always my idea to have about half of the game's techs reside in such "self-balancing" pairs, while the other half could be standalone techs.

    Another note: Techs that unlock a feature or ability are way more interesting than techs that merely alter stats. A few abilities that could be "unlocked" off the top of my head:

    • A new formation.
    • Pair: Priests can convert enemy soldiers <-> Priests gain an aura that boosts the attack of nearby soldiers.
    • Batch training. Unlock batch training of units in Town Phase. Unlock batch training of siege weapons and ships in the City Phase.
    • The ability to train Champions at the barracks (already implemented).
    • Train women from houses (already implemented).
    • Shared allied vision in Town Phase.
    • Ramming for warships.
    • Like 2
  8. The point of a rush is to win quickly. If you've gone for a rush and it stalls, I think you deserve to get penalized for it.

    But when we talk about econ upgrades, we allow for the player to "change his mind" so to speak in the example of stone vs. metal because there are (intentionally) multiple layers of these techs to choose from. So, if you go for the stone upgrade in Village but your slinger rush fails, then you can get the two subsequent metal upgrades in Town and City to compensate and transition to your new strategy.

  9. There's no need for a cease-fire aspect in the game, all you need to do is make sure one unit isn't problematic.

    The "ceasefire" thing isn't meant for balance, but for those who want a "no-rush" option. It's unfortunate that it was mentioned at all in this thread. lol

  10. Rush should be part of any strategy game.

    I prefer a simple balance in some units, nothing more.

    Others would prefer a slightly different dynamic. That's why these things would be options, not mandatory. But now we're off topic. Obviously cav javs need rebalanced. :) I think for now we could try reducing their attack by 5 and see how that works out.

  • Create New...