Grugnas
-
Posts
324 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Grugnas
-
-
the dancing strategy is effective because the units, once they killed the primary target, they focus the most near enemy.
A player can hold shift and click on the units he'd like to attack next (you know, attack queue). Did anyone else ever used this "counter strategy?
But it feels like it is easier to dance than to counter dance.
Perhaps having the unit's next target as the enemy near to the previously targeted unit and not the most near enemy would partially solve the issue as it would require an equal amount of attention to the fight from both sides.
-
4 hours ago, fatherbushido said:
- B: makes dancing unit longer to kill
- C: enemy army focuses on it because the dancing unit is the most near enemy unit
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Imarok said:
Yeah, could help. (I assume with master volume you mean the volume of your OS)
With Master Volume I mean the master volume fader in game in a situation like that:
-
-
I'm playing on Mac osx and audio is still audible even if Master Audio is set to 0.0.
Today I ran the game in windowed mode and observed few games while surfing on the web and noticed that, sometimes (I didn't get exactly how), the action volume is audible even if the master audio is set to 0.0.
Once on foreground, I got errors related to audio files:
-
8 hours ago, stanislas69 said:
Random or Skirmish ? Can you report that if it hasn't already been.
I didn't play many skirmish maps, while there are some really nice random maps like Phoenician Levant, Syria, Persian Highlands in which 1 player basically always spawn with a not considerable amount of wood within his territory limits.
-
Many maps need a balance in terms of amount of resources a player has access to and at which phases he would have access to (without taking into account the territory expansion generated by structures on the territory borders) and for how many players they are optimized for.
There are maps in which some players have no access to wood at all in an 8 players session.
-
The DPS ( damage per second) is different than the damage itself. Higher distance means higher chance to miss the hit thus lower DPS than the same type of attack on lower distance. You can having different DPS based on the distance, but the amount of damage dealt by a single hit is equal at any distance or altitude.
-
2
-
-
distance or altitude don't influence the damage amount
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:
I don't understand that point, why would formations be used to dodge projectiles ? Currently dancing is more efficient, constantly setting and disrupt formation seem useless to me.
Also removing formation would lead to larger scale battles micro requiring more clicks and being more complex, I remember being quite successful with it at A21.Sorry if I have been not so clear but I didn't mean to say that formations are mostly used to dodge projectiles but I meant that, just like out running units, toggling formations is only useful for escaping from enemies and get your units out of enemy range without being damaged, which isn't (and perhaps shouldn't be) the reason why someone toggle a formation. Formations are supposed to give combat advantage and disrupted when retiring, not the contrary. (yeah maybe I amgoing too deep into micromanaging)
the unit increased movement speed is not a formation advantage but a conseguence of its "preparation" and this is reasonably realistic.
Formations don't provide any click reduction into managing own units, matter of fact a player can select more units by double click on it( in the case he wants to select the same type of unit on the screen) or by dragging the the mouse and select more units.
1 hour ago, Anaxandridas ho Skandiates said:But what happened to Darc Reavers excellent idea of "Batallion" units? And then abandon the old formations entirely, If we could have both single units and batallion units. Then you just have to tweak THEIR balance, rather than endlessly fight with a gordian knot.
While in my opinion citizen soldiers shouldn't be battallion-only manageable because they also play a key role into the player economy growrth (obviously), Champions are trained units and perhaps not of much use when in few numbers thus the ideal candidate for battallion management from a balance POV. (training 1 champion at time is useless and training a batch of only 5 champions isn't really a big deal)
Formations could act as battallions anyway if the units toggled in it are all selected whenever a single unit whitin it is clicked (basically like assigning a group selection to the units in formation in an hidden way to the UI and removing the group selection when disrupting the formation). The only limitation would be about the battalion experience itself, unless someone wouldn't impose the limit of not being able to disrupt the battallion once it is toggled. But I don't think that someone would like to see his units not being able to gather anymore just because under attack of a bunch of troops.
-
20 hours ago, stanislas69 said:
Yeah but Disabling them cause angryness confusion and sometimes even insults. Here it's more a use at your own risk kinda of way
I don't really understand that conseguence, but let's look at them objectively. F.i. there was some code fore stamina, then the whole concept was abbandoned and removed.
I am not saying to completely remove the formations concept from the game but to look at their impact on the game, despite they are a feature wanted by players and devs aswell.
Soldiers on formation cause lag, and that ruins the gaming experience and perhaps induces people to cry about lag.
Often soldiers in formation don't attack and that creates frustration especially in dynamic games. F.i. spear cavalry is supposed to outrun ranged cavalry but trust me, I can provide a replay in which camels outrun by A LOT spear cavalry because camels enter into running state in order to reach the right place in the formation.
Not mentioning the fact that running units can dodge most of the javelins thrown at them (which may be even interesting), reason why people constantly keep to set and disrupt formations; but that is 1) boring and annoyingly clicky. 2) not realistic.
I didn't go in depth, pheraps there are only few formations broken and the less problematic one may stay.
Some formations could be removed and annunce their implementation in future releases in order to get things more bug proof and keep interest on the game. I can't imagine a trailer with an annunce saying "improved formations", while saying "new added formations" would be more catchy. It isn't a commercial game tho.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, stanislas69 said:
Formations are broken at the moment. There is no support for bonuses in the main game although some mods have it.
Formation in the current state cause lag. They won't be fixable until a few Pathfinder patches are in. So I'm afraid you'll have to wait.
imho formations could be temporarly hidden from the UI as they predominantly cause lag, bugs and balance issues.
-
1
-
-
Siege towers are really strong when massed but they require all the soldiers in them and they are very expensive.
Also, in that game you observed, I researched all the technologies which affect sieges and used Demetrius hero who boosts siege units.
-
The main problem with Bowmen starting civs is that any civ starting with skirmishers has the advantage of having strong economy and attack power.
Skirmishers high movement speed give them the title of best economy-friendly units. They grant fast expanding, fast resources delivery, fast raids.
Usually players reach 60/70 population before phasing up, and 35% of that population is made of skirmishers if available at beginning, which can choose the time and the place for a battle.
Swordsmen are effective against rams only if massed (20 sec each to train vs 30 sec each to train), as they are the first target of any ranged unit.
-
2
-
-
perhaps siege towers could just have a capture rate equal to a multiplicator multiplied by the number of soldiers garrisoned into it with the only role to capture buildings in safety and efficiently.
Actually micromanaging units to make an efficient usage of siege towers arrows limit is annoying and really slow actions down.
As it is the slowest between the other sieges makes the direction managing and the timing to perform such maneuver a matter of palyer skills.
it seems reasonable to completly make sieges unattackable from ranged distance and have some kind of special attack like the Slaughter for animals giving the possibility to any kind of units (melee or not) to attack the siege on close quarter distance only with a custom animation or perhaps with knifes (like women already do).
-
1
-
-
Honestly I have no plans to update the mod for A23 for the moment as some changes are focused to deeper the gameplay with few attention to the historic accuracy. it will require considerable time for something neat deserving mod.io.
-
17 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Right. I was just making sure you weren't saying they cheated or something.
If there's a standard match settings for rated games, then I hope its moddable (default pop and resources in DE is 500), or the settings just choose the "default" settings so that it carries over to mods. I know rated games don't include mods, but it could be cool in the future to do so.
at this point would be nice to have a dedicated leaderboard aswell. Not sure if it would be mantained and even doable since mods can stack.
-
There is no standard pop cap, no standard map size, no standard starting resources amount that define rated games.
Indeed having a standard to follow could help the direction of the balance based on 1v1 matches.
Actually when you select rated game, settings are at player's indiscretion.
-
Kushites have access to macemen which have mixed damage between hack and crush, they are kinda effective against buildings and sieges and kinda weak to ranged units (like the rest of melee units, by the way). Indeed an army composed by skirmishers, mostly, have a significative advantage both in economic and military aspects which make elephant even less viable when in low numbers (1-2 elephants).
Kushite Champion swordmen and macemen also are effective but, if not covered by other meat shield units, tend to be the first units targetted by skirmishers resulting in a pure waste of resources with no defensive power against sieges.
Macedonians, despite they aren't similar to carthage/mauryans/kushites, are still comparable with those civs as long as do not have any kind of sword unit.
-
would be nice to have upgradable palisades into spiked palisades.
anti elephant tech for towers only which would allow towers to shoot something like 3 javelins/2sec to elephants only (I am not sure that simply prioritizing elephants class would allow towers to shoot all 5 arrows to a single elephant rather than just 1 arrow to an elephant and the other arrows to random targets).
Working formations.
eventually battallions for champions only
-
2
-
-
siege rams shouldn't be able to attack organic units. This would give more flexibility to the current attack system specially for organic units.
If buildings would have enough attack sustain, they could incentive the attackers to garrison the rams.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Adeimantos said:
Rams should have low attack with a big bonus against buildings, also if there was an axeman unit it would be a good counter to rams.
At regard, if sieges wouldn't be allowed to attack organic units, crush armor on organic units could be used to balance in more details crush damage dealers like slingers. I am pretty sure that units attacked by a ram ( which is heavy an slow ) could easily dodge any of its attacks.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Hannibal_Barca said:
Not the same icon, maybe only your mind gets confused.
You still don't get the historical point of view, @Sundiata the creator of Kushite civilization would never agree and we owe him this much.
It would be nice to have more axemen in the game.
Dear Hannibal, i meant that Amon temple and Apedemak have the same icons. It isn't relevant though as those are just icons. What is way more relevant is that there are 2 buildings, basically acting at same way, that may be avoided. While it is not the case of the temples, as romans also have 2 different type of temples ( one has 1 entity limit though ).
The pyramids are basically the same building with different size and an additional aura effect.
Would be nice to merge those 2 pyramids in 1 unique upgradeable building, which actually requires some city planning. I am not asking to remove a redundant building, I am just asking to let a building upgrade into another one which seems not compromise any history detail, isntead of let it be just an optional feature like happens for sentry tower upgrade.
-
1
-
-
Lag is due the units path continuous recompute, i guess.
Well, I kinda agree with the fact that spread breaks balance as introduces randomness but imho it is necessary for a realistic return. With formations and projectiles hitting the unit near the target within formation would also prevent the exploitable dance ( with dance i mean the repetitive movement back and forth of an unit in order to move away from the thrower trajectory), i hope.
In previous alpha there was a bug where a missed unit would still take halved damage, which, despite it was a bug, I didn't dislike it at all. There is already such a mechanism in many RPG games, where a projectile can hit for its full damage, half hit ( it is considered like a scratch. I am sorry for my lack of english skill and grammar ) or simply miss for no damage at all. Having Fully hit and "scratchy" hit conditions would partially reduce randomness without removing too much realism avoiding such dance. The con is that would be weird to see an unit being damage by a projectile at few meters of distance from it.
-
1
-
Ideas ?
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Grugnas
empty