Jump to content

causative

Community Members
  • Content Count

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

causative last won the day on March 8 2018

causative had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

208 Excellent

2 Followers

About causative

  • Rank
    Sesquiplicarius

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ancient war bows were about the same range as slings (150 meters). I think the difference is more in the amount of training required and the amount of damage dealt by projectiles. An arrow is heavier and sharper than a sling bullet so the arrow should do more damage. Bows are also more accurate than slings. Bows require more training, a good military archer needs to train from childhood to be able to draw and shoot a heavy bow, so I think they should be limited to civilizations with a strong archery tradition. Also an archer can't carry as much ammunition as a slinger. I'd also expec
  2. Kushites should get catapults or rams, not only to deal with siege towers, but also because it's very difficult to assault a fortified position with only elephants. If the enemy has 50 skirmishers, the elephants will die before they manage to kill anything, and if he also has garrisoned towers and a fort, you can't send in your own citizen-soldiers to kill the skirmishers at an effective k/d.
  3. It doesn't make historical sense for a ram to have to unpack. They were built on the site of a siege, not transported in a packed form, and once built they could roll around on their own without unpacking. Same for siege towers. Better to make rams unable to attack biological units, and do something else for siege towers.
  4. Sure, but retreating with a siege tower while shooting arrows is not historically accurate. Siege towers were never used like that. They could do more damage to compensate, or have stronger defenses closer to an actual defense tower. Perhaps siege towers could have a secondary battering ram attack added. That would be closer to their real use. It's possible in theory for Kushites to use skirmisher cavalry to block the tower while using spearmen to kill it... if you have overwhelming numbers and the enemy has no units on the ground to stop you. I've seen blocking the tower with
  5. I agree! The skirmisher thing is actually less of an issue in a23. It would have been more of a weakness if we were playing "no-cav" rules like in a22, but now that everybody is using cavalry again, Kushites can defend themselves with skirmisher cavalry. I also don't think every civ needs to be able to spam skirmishers. Archer-only civs add a little flavor . Especially now that archers are buffed a little in their walk speed. So I don't think a Kushite skirmisher change is needed. Just FYI, there are two things making the merc javelinist less desirable than a normal j
  6. Kushites lack sword cavalry, catapults, and rams. This leaves them almost defenseless against enemy siege towers or bolt shooters. The best they can do is chase the towers with elephants (or build up towers of their own - but this takes too long, and if the enemy also has catapults it is not viable). Elephants, however, are not very effective against siege towers and can be killed easily by any massed troops. For anti-siege, I think Kushites should be given at least one of sword cavalry, catapults, and rams. Preferably catapults; I think every civ should at least get catapults or rams
  7. Top players in a22 and earlier very rarely used the second level of bell to garrison soldiers, because they could control the soldiers more effectively by selecting them (alt + drag the mouse to select only soldiers) and giving them orders. When the soldiers need to garrison, it's better to handle that manually (select the soldiers, hold down ctrl, right click on the building to garrison into). If you did that using the bell, many of the soldiers wouldn't even be able to garrison because the women would garrison first and take up all the space.
  8. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/5175#no3
  9. Where was that fixed? Perhaps it got reverted, because it is still an issue in a23.
  10. The original issue mentioned in the thread where catapults will unpack at will to attack units or buildings, is a straight-up bug in a23. It makes it impossible to tell a catapult to stop unpacking when in range of the enemy, as after it cancels unpacking it will immediately begin unpacking again before you can give it another order. The only workaround is to set the catapult to passive stance.
  11. That also depends on stance. Units should just have defensive stance by default.
  12. I believe it already does something like this. Units only berserk against anything that comes within vision range, if they are on aggressive or violent stance. The aggro range for defensive stance is shorter.
  13. They still do triple damage against cavalry. (Note that the phalanx was vulnerable to flanking by cavalry, though invulnerable to a frontal attack)
  14. This is not to slight or diminish hoplites because when they died in melee, it was other hoplites killing them! Comparatively, the (large numbers of) enemy skirmishers did not inflict heavy casualties; most casualties occurred during the melee push, once the lines of hoplites met. In-game for this to happen, the hoplites can't take forever killing each other. The melee battle should not last so long that the ranged attackers have time to kill the hoplites.
×
×
  • Create New...