Jump to content

Karamel

Community Members
  • Posts

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Karamel

  1. Reduce PrepareTime of skirmishers. With the same time as RepeatTime they fake-throw a javelin (even with sound) before actually throwing one, making hit'n-run pain in the @#$%. 300 or 600 could be fine, as they can prepare their javelin while running, throw it instantly and have a reload time to take an other one. Too short value will make them throw it from the back when hit'n running (throwing before turning back is completed). Same for archers but a longer PrepareTime, 1000 seems to be fine.
  2. It's now working. I don't have time to play it more right now but it seems to be what I was looking for I think I'll continue working on formation stuff with your mod, which seems a lot more suitable for them than alpha 18/svn.
  3. Hello I'm trying to run the mod to see all those said nice features (and because feeling like rallying niektb about slow pace and line of sight) but I get errors from my updated svn copy "TypeError: layerset is undefined init@gui/pregame/mainmenu.js:28:18" I didn't get this error while trying on alpha 18 but I get errors on the screen to select civ, map and so (I know it is not compatible but something seems to be broken with latest svn commits) Anyway. It looks to me to have kept a lot of the spirit of alpha 16 with linked techs, hardcounter and unit roles. I'd really like to see how it works with new features.
  4. Well, I didn't have time for anything about 0 A.D. lately. greenknight I understand better. If you use the command attack (ctrl click), they will stay in battle formation to be ready for any fight opportunity. It could take ages to reach the initial target and even fail to move through narrow pathes but it's battle-ready. Formations as entities would complement group shortcuts, not that it is a bad thing but I just wanted to notice it. There is already mixed formations when you pick for example phalangites and support units, with a single selection of both using phalanx and skirmish line for example (but multiple selection still merge compatible units). It would be very comfortable for target picking and so. This would also introduce formation of formations, yay It could be very interesting but maybe we'll go on a over-complex path for fine management. I don't really know, but if the game pace is not too fast you could get some time to "micro" your formations. Thus moving microing single units in the stress of battle to microing pack of units before the battle. This assumes formations are NOT designed to be set on the fly. But it still requires some tools to manage them well, like the rectangle preview of placement with rotation (like for buildings?) as mentioned above.
  5. I like these kind of global consideration about what it is meant to do. Even if I think the aim of formation is to reach the target more efficiently (and not always faster). There's a proverb that says "if you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together". Stances Because formations is bound to behaviours and this is related to stances here is what I think about it/what it does Violent stance: attack on sight, follow until death even if faster (and unreachable)Aggressive: attack on sight, but abandon if it goes beyond line of sight if still viewed by someone else (this is the default one)Defensive: attack on sight but do not chase, return to position when finished, and maybe stay in a short radius of protected areaPassive: do not attack, flee when attackedStand ground: do not move, attack when a target comes in rangeDefensive stance is somewhat the nearest to what FeXoR suggest as default. Maybe gatherers could automatically attack in this stance for auto (though basic) defense, but that's out of scope for now. Violent and aggressive are formation disrupting, and from my point of view not different enough from each other. Target wise aggressive could pick the most decent target close to the one selected, with use of preferences, range and so, violent could stick to the one picked (thus "berzerk" like micro, ignoring all surroundings) In that way, in formation defensive keeps units gathered, stand ground keeps them as walls, aggressive is more a "charge and kill'em all" stance and violent is more suited for small strategic raid on a dedicated target. There is still to consider "pre-battle" and "in battle" formations for the aggressive and violent stances, because in-battle formation should not be disrupted and won't work in violent stance. Formations Back to it, formations may be slower that individual units (and it may be reallistic that way, but I don't have any proof), but allows for your units to arrive organized and ready. If the time you need to organize is too short, the benefit from it is useless as FeXoR pointed out. If you get your cavalery arrive first, then your support, then your infantry, it should be waaay less efficient that having support walled with infantry occupying front line for cavalery to flank them (for example). And making a formation DURING a battle is to avoid at all cost. It should even be impossible to do. The current behaviour does it frequently and provides a lot of frustration. As for two commands for a move and attack formation, why? If the target is too far, moving there in formation will be slow, ineffective in more narrow areas and tiring. When coming closer though the initial formation should be remade. It may be a "force" command for some special cases but I don't see one just now. greenknight32, could you explain how you would use both commands? And to end with the default formation, I don't know if the none formation suits well. I agree it is useless for civil tasks and a lose of time. But once you pick some to go to battle, if you forget to assign them a formation it may be really risky (in a world where formations gives a strategic advantage). So the default may be None for civil tasks, but keep close line (or maybe open line) for battle tasks. The column can be auto if you are not in none formation, but women should then have 2 formations to have this behaviour or not. As everyone seems to agree to smooth the current state. What I can try to do is preventing going in formation for close targets. Then I could try to use target preferences for area attack (ctrl+click).
  6. I mostly agree with both of you. For formations to be used, they must be usefull. That is if you can prepare your troops for an attack and be unspotted, you must have a big advantage upon the disorganized one. In current state I feel it more like microing ranged units. For exemple with reduced speed and line of sight at the time you see the lines coming you don't have time to get reinforcements from other gather points, by the time you get into towers it's almost too late. Cavalery could slash unprotected ranged units with ease and infantry would just crush the rest with more power per target. I've read than the Macedonian army traveled so fast that sometime their ennemies surrendered before the battle, as they waited them for a few days later. As for movement I think the travel formation is good for the "move" order. If you want to move to a long distance, units could get into the column formation then move all together to the point (if units are too far away from each other multiple formations could be made). If they were in an other formation (I mean battle one), they reconstruct their initial one there. The column may have a slight speed bonus as it means they are prepared for the travel (and to cover the time they gather in formation). And for battle, almost everything is about picking targets Currently I'm thinking about something like "pick the best target similar to the one clicked". If it's a formation we could make use of target class preferences, for individual units it may pick an other one of the same type more easily reachable. The drawback is you almost cannot micro at all.
  7. Hello, I'm working a bit on reviewing formation code in hope to make them at least useable. Before trying to implement changes I'd like to know how formations should work. From my point of view formations are linked to stances and can be divided in two groups: pre-battle formations and in-battle formations. Pre-battle formations are used to set up a battle. Like moving melee on front line, support on back-line and cavalery on flanks, everyone arriving at the same time before going to the real mess. When close if aggressive, attacking or defensive units will leave formation to run in battle, if hold ground, they will wait in line for incoming ennemies. These are most of the formations, including travel-column formation. In-battle formation are advanced military manuvres to keep formation while fighting, like phalanx. Attackers will always keep formation and fight from it. The tight formation allows multiple melee rows to fight at once. and advance like a bulldozer (or crushing wall to be more antic-friendly). Civil tasks ignore formation. No point to lose time to rearrange to go cutting some trees, building, repairing and so. Women can't go in formation, workers would have the same behaviour. There is also some code to handle picking targets in formations (that is attacking a formation instead of a precise unit). That is attack order should distribute target more or less randomly for more efficiency (pick the guy in front of you for example), less running to target while being assaulted from everywhere. An other thing making formations usefull requires reviewing units speed and range to require some time to prepare your assault/defense for a line not to be flanked in 2 seconds. We set a few units, maybe 200 units for big battle, where there were line of thousands of men. So in short: - Ignore formations for civil tasks - Most formations are used to place units more effectively before running a battle, take advantage upon unprepared units (macro-strategy) - Some formations are kept while fighting, maximizing effect Watch this for pre-battle and in-battle fromations (warning, very violent video) https://youtu.be/jYchCMe5btI?t=9m53s
  8. If you want to ear how it sounds in game here are the patches to include them in the game (only in svn). Add sanskrit.zip in binaries/data/mods/public/audio/voice and maur_templates.zip in /binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/units If you don't know what to do and want to have the same files as for the Latin pack 2 male voices are missing. But their lack don't really impact the game negatively. - go out against (not used in game yet) - hello (brings more diversity when selecting units, there is already what_is_it) And of course, it's missing female voices I played a short game with Maurya just to see, and I find these very appealing. At first I thought it will sound wierd to have an European accent for Sanskrit voice but it is really not that bad. Thanks for your voice packs. maur_templates.zip sanskrit.zip
  9. Capturing buildings changes a lot the gameplay. It's not just about destroying your ennemies but conquering places. Not only for raiding isolated units, converting units will change how battles are engaged. Actually if you know you will loose a battle, you still know you can put enough damage for maybe something later. But what if a part of your citizen get captured or surrender? Like Lion I think all units should be convertable, but the way to do it is not defined. I'm not good at history, but if I remember correctly most slaves came from conquered people.
  10. Hello I've played a couple of full games against the AI, I find capturing very interesting. It was a bit misleading at start not to think about swordmen and slingers to take down early buildings but anyone can be usefull now. To "destroy" a building, you need to capture it and destroy it "from the inside", or use siege. It takes building settlements to an other level, because once it is build, it's likely to be there for a long time either for you or your ennemies. Abandonned or underdefended settlement can be easily captured (even towers turning against their owner!), while garisson still make strongholds requiring siege weapons. I haven't checked that but walls seems to be more valuable to prevent invasion and tower capture. I thought in the first place to make defensive buildings not capturable but it work well that way. If defended (garrissoned) it won't be capturable unless really overwhelmed. I like the way you have to be there to prevent your settlement to be used against you. That's all for now. I need to play more (and online) to try more things.
  11. I installed it on a few computers on my local game center for a Bronies meetup. Sadly enough there were too many people on the PC for them to play. Anyway, those screenshots are amazing. The game is far more slow paced but you can enjoy seeing all your ponies work to create a full town. It's just missing more high-pitched voices and you've got an great pony game ! Maybe you can look at Xonotic Pony for some sounds http://git.xonotic.org/?p=xonotic/xonotic-data.pk3dir.git;a=tree;f=sound/player;h=bdc1fbfd936edc424f10f97b7410d770d985ea56;hb=refs/heads/mirceakitsune/donotmerge-pony_playermodel;js=1 (I tried to put the video on spoiler but it stay black)
  12. As for cheating I think pausing should be a common agreement from start. Most multiplayer games don't have pause and it's fine with it. Cheats are automatically disabled for ranked plays, so should be pausing in my opinion. That way no silly rules to implement. Some friends playing on LAN or online may agree to pause, I think most of random players don't want to unless common agreement before starting. Why not including Teeworlds in the pause without the player who requested to pause? (or FlightGear)
  13. Back to the "work", I'm organizing a small LAN this saturday, 9-11AM (yes AM, before the game room opens). There are a few players interested but I'll have to explain the changes introduced by alpha 18 (not a problem though). I don't think they are playing out of the LAN but things were going rather well after a few games. Although with alpha 18 it will be possible to host a 2vs2 without the hudge lag problem of the previous alpha. This improvement seems very well welcomed I'm also trying to get in touch with other players (IRC, XMPPā€¦) to play on Mumble even if I'm not always there on IRC.
  14. I've read most of the topic and I fear capturing to become overcomplex to use. So here is a suggestion from what I read with minimal action to take to order captures. About capturing buildings: soldiers can't destroy a building, so merge capture behaviour with standard attack. Soldiers must make an entrance (reduce health by attacking or use siege weapons for it). Once health is maybe 70% or anything infantry can invade. If the building has no garrison, it is disabled while the player has soldiers in it (because in enemy teritory; it can also glow like when in neutral territory). If it has garrison (owner or ennemy), they will be ejected one by one say for every 200 damage; the battle is in fact happening inside. Owner cannot put units in garisson when invasion is in the way, that is infantry attacking the building with health below the threshold. Thus capturing requires no micro, once soldiers are in the building its up to the player to dismantle with the actual "destroy" button which can be start decaying until destroyed, or keep it until the CC is captured or territory expanded. Ranged units won't shoot useless picks on buildings but go melee to capture them but their weapons are less suited for indoor/siegeing fight. Unit capturing, except for tamered gaia could work automatically about the same way. Once the unit is about to get killed it may surrender according to it's surrounding. If a soldier/female is alone in neutral territory surrounded by 10 ennemy soldiers, he/she is likely to surrender and be converted as a unarmed slave. If in own territory with fellows all around he/she is more unlikely to surrender and be killed in the way. It's just a matter of what happens when hit on low health. Loyalty/morale thus works like an aura from nearby units and buildings. No micro, no UI, it just happens. For CPU usage it can happen maybe only once on a unit every 10 seconds when hit. The aggressive stance could also say "no mercy" and disable surrending. Slaves could be brought back the same way, and retrieving it's original weapons from fellows. For capturing raids, 1 female citizen could be transported on a cavalery unit, but then it won't be able to attack.
  15. Back again after some games on alpha 18 with the video tutorials from Alekusu. The Wesnoth sessions were a total fail with no attendee (at least a few people saying they like the game and should play it again). It was a bit like with Warzone 2100, with more popularity. I'd like to grow a local community around the game, and around free software games in general. I'll try to still make some LAN on 0AD but it will be more difficult than before (the PC area is almost always full). Maybe I'll start organizing online games with Mumble.
  16. Thanks for those videos on alpha 18. It helps me to know how to handle the new version and to understand what I was doing wrong (like using foot infantry aggressively). I played a few games after watching them, even if I still feel lost I'm starting to appreciate it better.
  17. I must get rid of my old playing habits of "no micro" and get used to the new role of ranged units before enjoying alpha 18 and be able to show it to the other. I played some few games but still have alpha 17 in mind and I'm not enjoying myself for now. Maybe next month... I have to check the changes of Wesnoth 1.12 for tomorrow.
  18. It has been a while and I now take time to say a bit of how it went. For this second time we started with 4 players on alpha 17 with one who came on the previous LAN and one Starcraft II player who wanted to check what this game was. We ended with 6 players including myself (once I could spend some time with auto-management against a newcomer while explaining things to other). All of them liked the game and the mood was very pleasant. There were only 1vs1 game to reduce the lag but it was still noticed (I know and told them this was a known and worked on issue which will reduce with further versions). After one or two games and a few tips like balancing food and wood, the "never idle" soldiers, batch train, mixed army and ctrl attackā€¦ they were expanding, rushing and enjoying conflict zones. So it was a cool event, most of them are seduced or at least impressed of the quality of the game even if I don't thing they will play alone or online. It really stand out of the other games played in the game center by it's gameplay. The next event is scheduled for this friday. I'm late on the announcements because of a very busy week-end and week-start. I think I'll switch to Battle for Wesnoth or an other game for a beginners' session and put 0AD on more self-animated sessions (my efforts should be more dedicated to arcade events).
  19. If you mean why I don't play on the lobby when I'm alone it is mostly because I don't really play. I'm mostly driven by studying the game and making other people to play. I won't mind playing a good game thought but I don't really have much time for it (and when I have, there isn't always a good game to join, regarding my criterias). Maybe I could do the same as I did with Xonotic, setting a date for us to play together connected through a Mumble server. If you mean why I don't create online games with local players, it's because I consider all the interest of organizing such an event is playing together and be able to throw the mouse to your oponent (well, it never happened).
  20. The next LAN in Lille is now scheduled this friday evening. Depending on how things are going (release wise) it will be an alpha 17 or alpha 18. I expect to have 4 to 6 players for 3 hours of play, it is just enough to set an introduction game, a "use what you learnt" game and a final real one. If I get the players that came two week before I hope they will engage some exciting games.
  21. I tried to play a few more games leaving my "WTF-skirmishers" thought away and changed my mind about most of the changes. It's like I played the wrong way, expecting things that weren't working at all. Skirmisher damage seems super-high at a glance but finally they aren't overpowered (damage-wise) due to their armorlessness. They also do well against swordsmen, it seems to be more ranged > melee > cavalery > ranged with some subtilities than sticking to the previous counter scheme (no matter how it is implemented). This is not a balance tweak, more a gameplay one. Once this is noticed it plays a lot better. This changes also bring a lot more of micro, it may be the AI not automatically choosing targets well enough and the disabling of auto hit'n run. I used to ctrl+click with a bunch of troops for them to fight in the middle with ranged units supporting the melee (and that was fine enough for me to do something else on the while). Now it is necessary to micro your ranged units for hit'n run and use the melee to gain some time and catch damage (acting as a wall against melee units and hard meat for ranged). Cavalery can be used to hit'n run ranged units or females (both unarmored) but seems to act bad in the middle of a battle. All that said, this is a good basis for a new gameplay. There are still a few tweaks to do but the general design is there. Even if I'm used to the one from alpha 17 and prefer it (with more emphasis on macro), but who am I to disagree? I don't think I'll continue to study the design documents and try to make a soft-counter version. I'd like to continue but if it is for setting a personal mod I would have better things to do (I could not even use it for my LAN as it won't be introducing/playing 0 AD but a modified minor version).
  22. Hello everyone From my small suggestions to try to make the hardcounter scheme still working with soft counter I changed values for basic units an tried them quickly. It seems to be somewhat decent even if I need a lot more time to test (only 2 game played) and review hero units to have them a bit consistent with the rest. The paradigms were those two: keep lowered damage to increase battle time (Scythetwirler basic and wide change) and try to match the original design document. To install my changes unzip the archive in binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/ (this one was done on r16325) Whether or not the soft counter design is better than hard counter one, this is just a quick "fix" suggestion based upon Scythetwirler work for alpha 18 to approach the design document. kml_a18_templates_r1.zip
  23. Ok I've read the design documents and the Rock Paper Scissors rules to check if current units are doing their job and how to convert most of the previous hardcounters to softcounters, but softening the counter. As for the ram issue all crush armor should be reduced for units in order to the slingers to deal more damage to armored units. The ram should then do not much damage (maybe 5 or 10) but get the according bonus against buildings, like x10 to x20. I studied only basic units and haven't tested yet the new values but it will be my next actions. The goal is not to have a full balance by tweaking values by 1 or 2, but have relative consistency between values and unit "expected" use. And also show what I'm doing for anyone to point me going on a wrong way (and save my time ). Then there is the case of mixing. So here it is, unit type by unit type with the following format Unit type (civilizations having them) Old hardcounter data Current observations in alpha 18 Short term suggestions: what I should do to match counters and/or rebalance Melee infantry Pikemen (Macedonian, Ptolemies and Selucid) (+ Persian and Maurya in design document) Slow robust melee cavalery killer, weak cannon fodder Counter melee cavalery, countered by cavalery spearmen and archers Pikemen have strong armors but low damage compared to other infantry. They have a bonus against cavalery. The main traits are implemented but their slow speed and same training time and cost than regular infantry makes them underpowered. Due to their slowness they are soft-countered by ranged units. Pikemen are the main infantry unit for Macedonian, Ptolemian and Selucid. They are mainly a robust front line to protect support range units from melee attacks, especially melee cavalery but won't give a strong attack force. They do not appear along spearmen and it is a civilization choice between the two. Design document describe Persian and Maurya shield bearer as pikemen, they are currently spearmen. Short term suggestion: set the same speed as spearmen (7.5) to make them more efficient at collecting. Their lack of damage already compensates their high armor. Long term suggestion: maybe their armor could be given by syntagma formation at cost of very slow speed for Macedonian, Ptolemies and Selucid. Persian and Maurya could cost a bit less and be faster to produce without access to the syntagma bonus. Spearmen (Athenian, Spartan, Carthage, Britons, Gauls) (+ Persian and Maurya in actual state) Almost like pikemen. Spearmen are the main infantry of most civilizations. They are like the reference melee unit, with pikemen being more defensive and swordmen more offensive. They do not appear along pikemen and it is a civilization choice between the two. Short term suggestion: not much things as pikemen are set up close to spearmen. Swordsmen (Spartans, Carthaginians, Iberians, Romans, Seleucids, Mauryans) Counters skirmishers and spearmen Countered by archers and cavalery spearmen. Swordmen are the enhanced version of melee units but are less effective when fighting cavalery. They cost more than spearmen but deal more damage and move a bit faster. They were given a drawback being a veteran unit at start reducing the collecting bonus from their speed. These are between citizen soldiers and elite soldiers. Spearmen and skirmisher hardcounter is stil slightly there by being stronger and faster, but also against all infantry. Could be countered by archers if those are faster than skirmishers (already the case for mounted units). Cavalery spearmen could counter them if they are globally a bit tougher (but also more expensive). Actual speed is 9.5 which is the same as females This is the main Iberian and Roman infantry. Short term suggestion: nothing Ranged infantry Skirmishers (all except Ptolemies and Maurya) Ranged support troop, strong against lightly armored units, counters cav archers and cav skirmishers. Countered by foot archers and swordsmen. Skirmishers are hit'n run units. They would support melee infantry in troop and harass opponent when independant. They are lightly armored and advance quickly. Doesn't counter archer cavalery for now. Short term suggestion: nerf damage (set to 12), set speed just a bit faster than regular infantry (set to 9.0). This speed allows swordsmen to catch them on the long run. They could gain something like 2 slash and 3 pierce armor due to their shield, to be more armored than archers for countering and cheaper than cav skirmishers to counter in mass. Archers could hit'n run them (this removes hard counter mounted archers) Archers (Athenians, Macedonians, Carthaginians, Persian, Ptolemies, Seleucids, Maurya) Counters swordmen and skirmishers, countered by swordsmen and sword cavalery Archers are like a skirmisher variation, with less speed, more range, less damage but more fire rate. This is globally an alternate ranged unit with more range but less power Short term suggestion: boost speed to 10.5 to be able to hit any infantry without fireback and counter skirmishers. The lack of armor makes them vulnerable to any mounted attack and would retreat to stay out of range. Slingers (Gauls, Britons, Athenians, Macedonians, Carthaginians, Iberian, Ptolemies) Effective agains heavily armored units and buildings Currently an alternate ranged unit with crush damage, making them somewhat good against buildings. Short term suggestion: reduce pierce damage to 7 Long term suggestion: as heavy armored units are slow and mostly melee, they could be given a slightly good speed (9.0) but short range, with high crush damage (which was generaly low for everyone). Pinned down by skirmishers and archers and swordsmen because of absence of armor (being ranged or fast enough to go close range while they are shooting). Spear cav is countered by cost-efficiency pinning them down. Cavaleries Spear cavalery (Carthaginians, Iberians, Macedonians, Persians, Ptolemies, Romans, Seleucids) Strong against infantry. Counters swordsmen and skirmishers, countered by pikemen, spearmen and archers Spear cavalery has decent armor and damage. But less than infantry (except HP). It is the fastest cavalery. Short term suggestion: could have a better armor (at least 5/5) with slightly less speed making them the slowest cavalery (speed set to 16). More than infantry to get in range rather quickly but lesser than other cavalery. The general stats make them a very good but expensive melee unit. Should cost at least 100f and 50w, maybe some metal (25 or 50). Counter by archers is removed, slingers could be more resource efficient to pin them down. Sword cavalery (Athenians, Britons, Gauls, Carthaginians, Mauryans, Persians) Quick strike force, counters ranged infantry, countered by spearmen and pikemen Sword cavarery has rather small damage and armor with rather high cost Short term suggestion: should have good hack damage (6 at least to be as efficient as infantry) and speed (20) so they could rapidly take down siege weapons and light armored or isolated units but have themselves light armor (2/2), making them not a good choice in open battle versus organized infantry. Skirmisher cavalery (all except Iberians) Fairly against every infantry, counters archers Like infantry skirmisher, does high damage with decent range. But it is the slowest cavalery. Short term suggestion: good speed to be one of the best hit'n run even if pierce damage make them useless against siege weapons. Reduce damage to 12. Soft counter swordsmen cavalery by being cheaper and running after them (20 speed). Soft counter archers by going quickly in range and having more HP and damage. Set armor to 2/3 for shield. Archer cavalery (Persians, Ptolemies, Seleucids) Good against non heavily armored infantry, counters cavalery skirmishers, countered by skirmishers Like foot archer, has very long range and decent damage, but no armor at all. Short term suggestion: reduce damage to 7 to match infantry. Set speed to 22 to be the fastest cav and counter cav skirmishers. Add even more spread to reduce effectiveness of hit'n run (2.4). Counter by skirmishers is removed, it is the hardest unit to deal damage to but also doesn't do much damage with fairly high resource cost.
  24. Is the general unit use/potential for each civilization listed in the design document still up-to-date? http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Design_Document Along with the previous hard-counter web it looks like the things to start from. Maybe I could try to summarize by grouping unit types instead of civs. These are things I like to do (and if I'm doing some testing I should know where the game should go...) In short term I have to be sure the data I got are the good ones (Hastatus with 4.5dps looks like a joke)
  25. I've updated my svn working copy (compiled r16311) but it looks like a lot of things goes wrong, like truely overpowered skirmishers and uselees melee units. Do I have to get scythewirler branch or is it merged? Otherwise about the hard counter, I remember from a previous alpha (15, 16?) that it was so complex that I spent more time reading counter bonuses than playing (and even writing notes and drawing schemes). As I read some posts about it and played alpha 17 I think they are good to be used sparcely, like pikemen against cavalery, siege weapons against building. I like the way units get their power by combining them, like skirmishers being weak by themselves but providing a lot of support to the melee frontline which cannot engage everyone at once, but be pinned down by cavalery that can run around/through the front line (and everything without much micro). There may be some more tweaks to do to differentiate some units from alpha 17 but I think it is much simpler to learn and less expeditive in battle than before.
×
×
  • Create New...