Philip the Swaggerless

The only change was to attack, so they still have less armor than other melee cavalry: 3 hack, 2 pierce. IIRC sword cav have 3 hack 4 pierce and spear cav have 4 hack 3 pierce.

For the Team Bonuses package, I liked the Athens and Seleucids changes, but Persia and Carth both seemed pretty meh to me. Actually that was the only one. I thought the proposed Ptol hero change was different, so my NO vote on that one is not conflicted.

I don't think infantry should have difficulty chasing them down.

I just voted. Because some of the merge requests are "package deals" I had to say no to some that had some things I liked.

I mean choose what they are trained as. So you can choose whether they come out as archer-mode or spear-mode when they emerge from the Apadana or Cyrus' shadow. And then when you select the immortal unit you can switch weapon as you can currently. They are best used as archers now since their health and defense is so low, but if your base is being raided by cavalry you may want them to emerge as spearmen.

Immortals now have 2 weapon modes. I would like to be able to choose which version is the default version. Would that be fair? Any disagreement?

I think Land Traders are also expensive. I think if there is a trader limit it could justify reducing production cost as well. 100 Food 80 Metal. 50 Food 30 Metal? Or just 50 Food? I think this would promote the use of traders and allow civs with trade bonuses and team trade bonuses to be worthwhile.

I think that ranged cav are the best units this alpha, so I caution against buffing them. I would rather see changes made to make trading more important.

Just a question: Has a weighting "meta" emerged? I think the mod is great but I don't want to spend a lot of time tweaking it so I thought I would benefit from others work if possible.

@guerringuerrin We're good bro.

I literally don't understand what you are trying to say. English is my first language.

I don't understand your meaning. Are you saying you are referring to toxicity that is of a lesser severity, like the 2nd degree murder is extreme than 1st degree murder? Incidentally, without question, the most toxic behavior I've seen in lobby or in games is by players that I know have multiple accounts. You're making personal attacks about people here, right after complaining about toxicity. I don't mind losing I just prefer better games. The lack of accurate ratings means that frequent players can best balance the game by knowing who the players are. I would be happy to see improvements in ELO. I imagine that if ELO worked perfectly here, smurfs & new players would be filtered out of 1500+ level games. Would not the smurf then trash a bunch of low players to get a high rating? Or maybe they would conclude it is not worth the effort. What is annoying about it to me is that there is no need for smurfing. If you make a new account because you lost a password (and for some reason cannot have it reset by the staff) and people ask you if you have an alternate account, just tell them what the other account name is. If you don't want people to predict your strategy, maybe try a new one? That is a big part of the fun of RTS games.

Yes. What "toxicity"?

PhiliptheSwaggerless vs Edwarf PhiliptheSwaggerless vs Edwarf.zip

My main question would be, how was @ValihrAnt's mod? Was it enjoyed by those who played it better than the current game? Concerns : Map resource distribution probably needs rework Could exacerbate unbalanced maps (phase 1 especially) CC Spam or "castle-drop" gameplay. More difficult to make stonewalls that cover your base. (not that people do this anyways) If it is difficult to maintain unit production, that can feel dissatisfying. Excitement : Artificially creates a "larger map" New expansionary gameplay. Could this lead to (mainland) maps requiring scouting to know where the opponent's initial base is? Conclusion : It could be good or it could bad.

Rank 1 Healer HP Heal Range Interval 085 05 12 2 085 05 17 1.6 085 05 22 1.3 Rank 3 Healer HP Heal Range Interval 133 15 18 2 133 15 23 1.6 133 15 28 1.3 A single rank 3 healer fully heals a ranged citizen units in about 4 seconds. How powerful do they need to be? I wouldn't want healers to be able to keep the army alive mid-battle, like an RPG. Currently at rank 3 it's like getting a reinforcement teleported to where your army is in 4-8 seconds with only the initial healer cost. I think they're underused, which could be a consequence of the fact that it's faster and (more important) to build 2 blacksmiths (at least) and a market to go to p3 than to make a temple. I will however say that the techs are expensive, considering one will likely only make a handful of healers.

Yes. My understanding is that the purpose of this mod is to fix things that are technically broken (rice upgrades) and make balance tweaks. Not change the game play of the alpha. I think it is good that rams have slow turn rate and acceleration. In this alpha it is harder for melee units to attack fleeing units. They approach, slow down to attack, but sometimes do not attack because the fleeing unit maintains it's speed. I don't think unprotected rams should be able to escape the enemy. (Unless they are my rams of course). These seem fine to me. Because they are never used anyways and the bonuses they would get are not top tier, I think it is okay to add to this mod. I don't know... Maybe if coupled with a decrease in the rank up bonuses. They become incredibly strong at rank 3 with techs. I'd probably leave it as it is. I don't think this is needed to balance. This seems beyond the mod's scope, if I've understood it correctly. Iphicrates is very strong, however his bonus is a formation bonus. That means that if the enemy targets him and you try to run him away, the formation loses the bonus. Aura bonus heroes can flee or stand behind all the units, and the army retains their bonus as long as they are in range. Therefore if Iphicrates' bonus is reduced I think it should become an aura bonus. However, I kind of like the uniqueness of him having a strong formation bonus, as it is.

Hello, Vali said it could be helpful so I am uploading out-of-sync information from the last game I hosted. We played a 4v4 on the community mod that lasted about 47 minutes. The files are attached. interestinglog.html oos_dump.txt oos_dump.dat

In game name: PhiliptheSwaggerlessInterested for the following schedules: Weekly BO1 or BO3?: BO1

To consolidate our discussion about the initial topic Cavalry vs Palisades (Sword) Cavalry should get a 0.3 attack multiplier against palisades. This is a simple template adjustment so it is easy to implement. Siege units vs Palisades: Option 1 OR 2 Ram, Catapult, War elephants, & Juggernaut ships also damage palisade sections that are directly adjacent to the section they are attacking. Good because it does not give cause for cost rebalancing not sure how to implement. @wowgetoffyourcellphone @Freagarach, or Make palisade sections longer, comparable to stonewall length. bad because it requires cost rebalancing ...also not sure how to implement lol Unit Behavior Make non-siege soldiers not attack palisades unless commanded, like other buildings.

Both of those ideas seem good to me. Although the only real cav issue is sword cav, I think. One benefit of making it so adjacent palisade sections are also damaged by rams (and catapults & elephants, I suggest) is that the palisade cost would not have to be rebalanced as I believe it is based on the number of sections.

I don't think that is a good solution. For example, there is no way to reclaim the walls once they go Gaia.

That is correct, manned walls still decay.

The Roman Siege wall is a really cool thing to have in the game, but if you build it anywhere other than your home territory you lose ownership of it very quickly. So if you build it for a siege in enemy territory, it will soon become the enemy's and they can just delete it. Also in neutral territory you will lose it right away, so there is no point to building a gate. I think it would be cool if siege walls within a certain range of roman military fort just mirrored the ownership of the military fort. That said the A26 catapults, with their 100 range and increased damage, will be would probably be overpowered in conjunction with the siege wall.

Palisades are built in smaller segments than stone walls. When a ram attacks a palisade, it attacks the edge of the palisade, the center of the palisade, and the other edge of the palisade. Each part of the palisade has 700 health, so an un-upgraded ram, dealing 150 crush damage, will need at least 5 hits to destroy each part of the palisade. Having destroyed a section, a tiny bottleneck of soldiers can then follow the ram through, but they are especially vulnerable to the defending army since they must squeeze through a small space. (Another trouble for the invader is that soldiers (especially ranged soldiers) get distracted fighting the palisade and do not immediately stop when enemy soldiers come into range) Stone walls are built in larger sections and of course have more health. But once the main section is destroyed there is a large gap for an army to pass through. I think palisades are too strong versus siege compared to stone walls and the main issue is that they have smaller sections that each need to be destroyed. I propose that the length of the middle section of palisade walls be extended to the same length as the stone walls.