Philip the Swaggerless
-
Posts
215 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Philip the Swaggerless
-
-
On 01/11/2021 at 2:43 PM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
@Dakara yes I think it is most noticeable with the merc cav from carth. An easy strategy with them is to attack the CS eco of a noob on enemy team for the purpose of ranking up the units before passing on to a better player who you can beat much more easily now that you are rank 3 while he is rank 1.
Another frustrating situation is when an ally loses to an enemy army with a KD of .05 and now you must fight a full rank 3 army.
Actually, one way to nerf mercs (assuming we wanted to do that) could be to disable them from gaining experience at all. We could say they are hardened warriors that have reached their plateau so they start at advanced and remain that way. Just an idea
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Make it easy to get to Advanced, but difficult to get to Elite.
This makes sense to me and follows how games usually work. For example, the high level blacksmith techs are the most expensive.
-
1
-
-
This thread makes me think that an experience-boost-aura hero would be pretty cool. Although the Spartans and Athenians basically already get that for their spears.
-
2
-
-
Setting aside the mercenary cavalry for a moment, Is the problem big enough to complain about for other units? It takes longer for melee to level up since experience is based on damage dealt, and melee infantry are the first to die because they are the "meat shield."
-
1
-
-
Yes the iber boom and champ spam is formidable.
In my post I was actually talking about using cav to attack ranged infantry units that are behind pikes. I like that with the way the blacksmith is now its not too expensive to incorporate cavalry into your army.
-
1
-
-
On 30/10/2021 at 7:30 PM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I think since it has better armor and better attack it is quite op. It has substantially more armor than any other cavalry unit. Only the seleucid +2 armor (hero) boosted champion cavalry can equal them, and that is without a roman cav hero. I think it would be best to reduce champion swordcav armor to below that of champion spearcavalry, and leave their attack damage the way it is in a25
I am not sure about this one yet, right now I am more in support of reducing pierce armor and/or travel speed by a level to make them more vulnerable. I think a better way to reduce damage would be eliminating fire damage to units.
It is true, players with pikemen do not always win, but they do have a huge advantage over those with spears. Most frustrating is that 10-15 pikemen can make 50+ ranged units invulnerable for as long as there are pikes.
I had some success recently where I sent spear and javelin cavalry around right into all the ranged units. I'm going to try that more. What if the problem is that our army composition is just too nub?
-
2
-
-
It would be cool if there was an option to select your hero when playing a regicide game. I recently played regicide on a water map and chose the Athenians, hoping I would get the naval Hero. I didn't.
I am no programmer but I've thought of 2 selection ideas:
- Select from the Game Lobby.
- Allow to instantly produced from the Civic Center when in Regicide game mode.
I don't know which is harder to program.
Thanks for reading
-
1
-
I would like to have "random" and "unknown" map selection of skirmish maps, just as we currently do with "random maps." Because skirmish maps are designed based on number of players, the randomization would have to only select from maps matching the number of players in the game.
"Why?"
It would be fun to have unpredictable maps for players used to "random maps," which have more standardized starting resources.
"Why don't you just pick a skirmish map and invite someone to play?"
My impression is that people aren't as familiar with skirmish maps and might feel like they are walking into a trap if they believe the host has practiced on the particular map.
Overall, this may encourage playing on these maps. They are pretty cool!
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
First of all, I would like people to approach things as age of empires 2 did. If you want to play a different map, you can bring your own and play on it.
13 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:There are well-designed skirmish maps that don't plunk giant metal and stone mines at your CC's doorstep. You guys should try them sometime.
Point taken @LetswaveaBook. I think. If other maps designs are funner than people will choose to play them so no need to change the existing maps?
The challenge is everyone knows and is used to mainland so it's hard to fill up game on other maps. The tournaments in the past helped get people to play other maps for awhile.
-
20 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I agree with your idea about having bigger mines further away from cc, but I think that rather than buffing palisades, it would be better to give cavalry (the primary disruptor of food eco) a .3x counter versus palisades. This is good because it does not make palisades hard to take down given the army size advantage that comes with a large attack (larger than defending force)
The sword cavalry sure do make light work of palisades.
As for the remark about CS farmers... why was it decided to remove the women's gathering boost aura? I stopped playing the game for awhile before that happened.
-
56 minutes ago, Jofursloft said:
2) If you need to go outside your territory to get other mines, how can you do it if you don't have the resources to build a civic centre?
Oh, sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant to say is that in addition to the small mines near the CC, there would be a large mine within p1 range like you mentioned below.
-
1
-
-
Players should not start with 5,000 Stone and 5,000 Metal right next to their Civic Center. I understand that not all maps have that setup, but since mainland is the primary map that people play this should be implemented for mainland maps. And most maps :p. Here is why I think the change should happen:
- For a fair amount of games, 5,000 may be all the metal and stone a player needs for the entire game. That is too simple.
-
Civilizations that use slingers or mercenaries (I'm looking at you, Ptolemies and Carthaginians) have the bonus of having their resource gatherers be protected by the Civic Center. This gives 2 advantages:
- Miners are protected from early raids
- Farmers are more easily protected from early raids since you can just garrison the miners in the Civic Center and then ungarrison them toward the enemy.
Instead, there should be 1 small stone mine and 1 small metal mine having no more than 500 of each resource, similar to how there are a few straggler trees near the CC at the beginning of a game. Then on the outside of their starting territory should be larger mines, similar to how there are large forests for wood.
The challenge of this layout would be increased difficulty of protecting farmers from raids for all civs throughout phase 2. It would favor players raiding food economy. But there are defensive structures and building-layout strategies that can be used to mitigate the danger. (Maybe cost and/or build time of palisade walls could be adjusted to support this change?) This would also make scouting important so know if your opponent is leaving their farmers vulnerable in order to boom or build military faster.
Thank you for reading!
-
7
-
3
-
2
-
On 12/03/2021 at 3:38 PM, Edwarf said:
-> Archer units are too strong.
Maybe give back the A23 statistics to the slingers and give 2 or 3 standard pierce resistance to the javelineers making them stronger against ranged units and still weak against melee.(like this all 3 ranged infantry are unique)
One change that I would eventually like to see is melee units being more viable for the main portion of your army as opposed to a small percentage. In the A23 I think you wanted to have your ranged units outnumber your melee units at least 3 to 1. Melee infantry are even worse off than before. So rather than seeing slingers and javs buffed (making melee infantry even less effective) I would prefer for archers to nerfed.
I'm undecided on how I feel about the metal issue. It is adequate for a 1v1 but not for a team game. So maybe the new style of team play will have to prioritize trade and/or map control. That seems like an interesting strategic addition to me and I'll take a wait and see approach.
By the way, the Spartan Hero Agis...why was he debuffed? He now has normal hero HP but still no Aura or bonuses.
-
2
-
-
Hello!
I got a new computer (yay!) but I forgot what my password is to log into Multiplayer and I didn't see an option to reset it in-game. How can I reset it?
Thanks!
-
On 9/28/2019 at 5:30 AM, Nescio said:
What do you mean exactly?
It means I assumed that in real life siege weapons were constructed in fortresses. But I don't really know.
-
Siege Workshop:
I think a Town Phase siege workshop that creates weak battering rams is good idea. Like the "2 or 4 guys with a log" mentioned earlier. Then in the city phase new siege units become available based on civilization. I don't want to see universal covered rams or other siege units for all civs. Let each have their own devices. I don't think the covered battering ram should be an upgrade to the "2 or 4 guys with a log"; it should be a separate unit. The "2 or 4 guys with a log" should be less expensive than the covered ram and get built quicker.
By the way, how about making siege weapons garrisoned in siege workshops automatically get repaired like soldiers regaining health in a temple?
Walls:
Here's my thing about walls - I NEVER build stone walls in the town phase. Seriously, who has time for that!? Committing soldiers to building instead of gathering resources to expand pop, and also delaying your ability to go to the city phase because of the stone requirement makes stone walls too cost-prohibitive for the town phase. I like the idea of cheaper stone walls that can be built quicker than city walls beginning in phase 2. But if they are allowed to be upgraded to city walls in the city phase the upgrade cost and research time needs to be significant.
Fortress:
Removing siege production from the Fortress is a tough call. I'm no historian but it doesn't seem realistic. On the other hand anything that makes it harder to defend your fortress by garrisoning and ungarrisoning battering rams might be a step in the right direction.
-
1
-
-
@azayrahmadI just tried your mod out. Very cool! It took me awhile to get my eco going, but that's probably to be expected since it was my first time.
-
1
-
-
This idea came to me while spectating a game. We all know placing your farms next to your CC is the best way to go currently because the workers can drop off the food without having to walk far and they are also protected by the CC; arrows shoot enemies in range and workers can go inside it. Though I am no history expert I assume that an ancient civic center wouldn't be surrounded by farms, but rather would be part of an urban center. To represent the efficiencies of urbanization, how about giving the CC an Aura where nearby buildings work more efficiently? Some ideas:
- Tech researches complete faster
- Units get produced faster
- Discount for technology costs
- Trade profit bonus for traders going to the markets near the CC
- Resource exchange rate bonus in the market
- Discount for unit-cost
I don't know either way if historically this bonus makes as much sense for military buildings as civilian buildings.
-
3
-
Bump.
I just got burned by this! I built a nice roman fort in near enemy territory towards the outside of the map. With forest on one side of the camp, I built a siege wall from the forest to the edge of the map. Then as I'm fighting and winning against the opponent in their territory I realize my siege units are just sitting there in front of the siege wall because the walls turned to Gaia and can't get out of the gate. I ended up losing and that may have turned the tide of the battle.
-
2
-
-
On 7/31/2019 at 2:26 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I kind of agree.
A cool idea for Romans would be to have 4 different Roman factions, kind of like a unique bonus:
- Republican
- Triumvirate (Caesar is here)
- Principate
- Dominate
The player in game setup would choose "Romans" as their faction, but when the game launches this player can then choose one of the 4 eras of Romans. That way all the other players only know that they have chosen Romans, not which era they're playing.
Can do this with a couple other factions too. For instance, the Macedonians could have the choice between two major dynasties, the Argeads (Philip, Alexander, et al.) or the Antigonids (Demetrius, Perseus, et al.). Persians can choose between Achaemenids and Sassanids.
I get it now that a particular time frame has been chosen for the Romans, but it's a little goofy that they have to fight Gauls from Caesar's time frame. So, the option to choose between different versions of Romans would be an excellent solution! This would be awesome. I don't think it should be hidden from other players, though.
-
Gaius Julius Caesar, anyone?
This reminds of being a kid in the 90's, playing the NBA games for Sega Genesis. You pick the Chicago Bulls and guess what, THERE'S NO MICHAEL JORDAN. The most famous basketball player ever.
Caesar isn't blocking the use of his likeness for copyright, is he?
Come on, we need a hero to keep the OP Gauls and Britons in line
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
There's no guarantee this would happen with 0 ad's implementation. Why would you assume so?
Well it's gonna tell us something about the opponent. That's the whole point, isn't it? It could be less informative. It could end up being more informative. I don't understand the desire to have it in a multiplayer game. To simulate the rumors as described by coworotel?
I don't think it's cheating. It's not cheating if everyone can do it.
But we can see how everyone did with all the nice graphs at the end of the game. What is desirable about having the enemy score visible during the game?
-
I don't like the idea of having that, too much intel. In AoE you could tell when your enemy began advancing to the next age just by looking at their score. Make us scout
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Sundiata said:
The problem with Kushites is that their archers seem underpowered. Slingers can't take on experienced archers because in real life you can't mass slingers. They need a lot more room to operate. The problem isn't that Kushites are underpowered per se. It's that slingers are overpowered. This keeps coming up, and it needs to be fixed. Tweaking the stats in everything but slingers is dancing around the problem. Solve the slinger issue. They were not the champions of the battlefield. They're a support role. Kushite archers on the other hand aren't a support role. They used archery much more offensively (front line action).
This is true. If the units were changed such that archers became more effective relative to other units, clearly kushites (and other archer civs) would all of a sudden be much better off. I still stand by my suggestions about build time and neutral territory.
Feature Request: Hero Select for Regicide Games
in General Discussion
Posted
I just saw that selection screen on @ValihrAnt's video - very cool!