Jump to content

Grugnas

Community Members
  • Posts

    324
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Grugnas

  1. I'm sorry, no offence but I have to say that you have no clue of what are you talking about because i remind you of the loot system and the gain of killed unit resources. I had your same thought about the fact that apprently being difensive could be an advantage but I had to change my mind since being offensive. The game is about denying enemy economy and not cumuling resources like an ant, since resources can even get stockpiled with the result of 10k+ of food and wood in late game, sometimes even metal; I recall that not the best eco score player wins. A system with citizen soldiers isn't that different from a ringing bell with villagers defending the city.
  2. meh. Training units 1 by 1 is more efficient in terms of economy growing while using batching is clearly more useful when planning an attack, that's what the "batch of units" is meant to be or at least as i interpreted, but since training batches of units is more easy to manage, the choice is more batches. The concept behind isn't that illogic as affirmed.
  3. Booming isn't the ultimate strategy since you could grow a specific eco in order to get cavalry asap and mine the enemy economy and gaining resources as loot from the killed gatherers and as resources carried by the killed unit, so I really can't understand why "attacking isn't worth the effort" since it could even be more rewarding than growing own economy. Learning from top players their successful strategies for winning 1v1 games teaches a lot, expecially that team games aren't always comparable to 1v1 games. Most relevant techs looks quite expensive compare to others. Since formations aren't implemented yet all the considerations done about such "battallion and formation system" and unit counter don't have a solid enough base. If you can't face units with their counters, you may want practice more instead of fighting with a formation system which kills micromanagement. Since we play this game which is a RTS game, I suppose that we have in common the passion for this kind of games and using past experiences in other titles as curriculum in order to proof own correctness isn't really relevant since some players could even prefer and/or maybe find that a non formations system could have an higher skill cap (f.e. does Starcraft even use formations?). Aren't celtic tribes fast enough compared to other factions in terms of building time and access to a variety of units in a specific time in the game? Looks like some factions are meant to be different from others in some aspects, but since the game is still in alpha, the way is still long considering that f.e. strategies drastically changed from the last alpha.
  4. Attached here is a patch with few proposed changes which include: Cavalry Spear attack rate reduced from 3,5 sec to 3 sec Cavalry Spear has now a 1,25x bonus against cavalry units Cavalry Spear Walk Speed reduced from 22 to 20 Cavalry Sword Wak Speed increased from 20 to 21 Infantry Pikemen Walk Speed increased from 6 to 7 Infantry Pikemen hack and pierce damage increased by 0.5 Champion Infantry Pikemen hack and pierce damage increased by 1 Champion Infantry Pikemen Walk Speed increased from 7 to 10 Wardog hack damage increased from 7 to 10 Chamion Infantry Spearman attack rate increased from 0.75 to 0.90 sec War Elephant Health Points reduced from 750 to 700 Mauryan Archer Elephant Health Points increased by 100 Mauryan Archer Elephant Cost Increased by 50 food (now it costs 150f 50w) Hero Infantry Spearman attack rate fixed to fit the new attack rate Hero Spearman Cavalry fixed to fit the new changes Hero Sword Cavalry attack rate reduced from 1 sec to 0,75 sec balance.patch
  5. I was thinking to swap Sword Cavalry (from 20 to 21 considering the spear cavalry walk speed reduction that @Hannibal_Barca proposed) and Spear Cavalry walk speed (down to 20) in order to make Spear Cavalry less effective at women raids expecially in phase 1, manteining coherence with their infantry counterpart and give an attack multiplier bonus to spear cavalry in order to be more effective vs other cavalry classes despite its low attack rate.
  6. I agree with you saying that Carthage should be able to build all 3 embassies, only 1 per type in order to make them unique. The funny thing is that Celtic and Iberian embassies have both a sword cavalry which are very similar with the fact that Celtic Sword Cavalry trainable from the embassy has lower moevement speed than actually a Gaulic \ Briton Sword Cavalry has and that iberians don't really have Sword Cavalry units to train (just like Gaulic swordmen aviable for ptolemaics and iberians from celtic embassy but for Gauls themself).
  7. Sparta: - MADNESS?? This is Sparta! Gauls: - I forgot to take my potion today. Romans: - I'll feed you to the lions Persia - One King to rule them all
  8. I think that balancing is the most important thing and it should come even before new features since determines the players preferences too. Player shouldn't be forced to pick those most popular civs because of their units strength, but civs should be picked because of their particularity in terms of gameplay (say no to skiritai, say yes to pikemen!!). Returning in to the topic, I think that healers are not worth their cost because 250 food is too much for those weak units. With weak I mean their overall attributes. Rank 3 healers are underrated because they heal pretty good but they techs are too expensive and rank 1 healers aren't much efficient, considering the fact that if their range is 20 mt for healing they will be very vulnerable to the enemy melee units. They could have increased healing rate and increased hp healed by changing the hp restored from absolute value to percentage in order to heal any unit in the same time, decreasing the effect of elephants and maybe giving priority to low hp % units. Converting units can be interesting. Only a priest at once can try to convert an unit by "locking" that unit to a position for tot seconds (something like 10 - 15 sec?) and doubled time for champions (maybe decreasable by a tech research in temple). Area effect priests would be probably too significant. I like the idea of the camp, since i proposed a similar stuff (Garrisoning priests in the tower could let them heal from the tower with an increased range letting them heal from a secure place). The particularity of the camp could be that those camps can heal aoe allies too, since temples don't heal ally units if not garrisoned. I'm still waiting to see that "Druid healings increase healed soldiers attack rate" for celtic tribes since it would be really cool
  9. Map: Survival of the FitNESS! This time i lost because I had a bad micromanagement since i ordered my units to repair a building while gaia spawned and attacked. Since the Hero unit can't repair things, he's gone on the road to nowhere being caught by gaia rams. Managed to arrive 2nd despite the numerous treasures impossible to take 2017-02-12_0008.rar
  10. would be nice to have a system like Warcraft and Starcraft where you could just right-click the icon making the stable train animals continously every time the building finish to train an animal, if food is aviable. The skill of the player is to keep corrals going without let your hunters stop to gather food. Actually if you continuosly train sheeps and keep the number of stable and hunters equal, they won't stop to work
  11. thanks for the tips, I made this for the yellow player, and, as you can see, there is a minimap that shows how colors can be distinguished each other. minimap_color.rar
  12. That's true. By the way if you consider the wood spent for the dock + 4 fish boats (which make me focus all the organic units on wood only) and the wood I should have spent for grainfields + houses in order to rise more my population, probably I couldn't have so much time / resources. Probably i just had to ask my allies for help tho
  13. I often use that tech, expecially after using "Wicker Baskets" tech for fruit gathering rate, it comes in handy when rushed by Roman or Macedonian cavalry in phase 1, honestly I like that as it is now. This is a quite expensive tech, maybe 400 wood instead of 500 wood is fair since most of the times, when unlocked, it will grant something like 20 - 30 population (450 wood for 3 houses) even if the bonus increases constantly more houses you have I kinda agree with that, because If you refer to the Persian Barrack, I'd say to ulteriorly decrease the time of training to -20% because having units with lower hp means that they will die faster and you'll need to replace them, by the way -10% time on infantry is tricky because saying that all infantry train faster of 10% means that you'll be able to train infantry in 9 seconds instead of 10 seconds. If you take for example a ranged unit in phase 3 has 66 health and most of the units will deal more than 6 hp point damage in 1 second, so, basically the training time / hp cost ratio is not worth it, considering that even Champions will "benefit" of that tech. Also I'd like to point out at Fertility Festival that it is not so useful for civs with houses that grant 10 population because they will need half number of houses than civs like Celtic, mauryans and iberians. Something like an halved price for those 10 pop houses could totally balance that gap. Healer techs from the temple are too costly considering that healer are already expensive by themself (250 food cost is maybe too high) Carthaginian "Colonization" tech could cost same resources as the Persian Architecture tech. "200 wood and 200 stone" for a relevant tech vs "500 wpod and 500 metal" for -25% build time.
  14. 2 minutes game Map: Pompei Placed between enemies and sea, tried to gather wood with all my units relying on ships for gathering food but, suprisingly, there was no fish in the left side of the sea and gathering food from grainfields would have been pointless because roman spear cavalry would have killed all my women resulting in a waste of resources, same for women on wood because cavalry can easly outflank spearmen and i should have to halt them anyway for defending otherwise enemy troops could kill my gathering units despite the aggressive stance of those. Same for sentry towers, since skirimsher cavalry over damage those. Looks like sentry towers are effective only vs infantry. Asking for resources to my allies would only result on a slower death. Enjoy the short replay. 2017-02-05_0005.rar
  15. Since buildings aren't that effective against rushers, the only strategy you can adopt is to reply with another attack, sometimes I find fun to build a massive head quarter and cover my territory with towers aswell, by the way it is not really effective as training soldiers and fight for further resources, even for defending from a rush as happened in the last alpha, expecially in 1vs1.
  16. this isn't a bad idea at all, by the way ranged units don't gain any attack damage more when they rank up, they gain range and maybe movement speed if i remember right. However, as any elephant unit, they have no techs aviable, making them even weaker for a phase 2 unit. I mean that in phase 2 blacksmith upgrades are aviable already, so, any civ with archer cavalry could potentially be in advantage already just unlocking 1 technology.
  17. maybe an HP and armor increase can be interesting. For now they are just "cavalry archers" with lower movement speed and no techs aviable.. Would be fun to see that berserker sprint tho. Wind speed elephants ftw.
  18. Darker Brown for animals, in that way they won't confuse with terrain, and same color can apply for bushes too since they its food aswell, actually bushes have same color of the orange player, or maybe pink, like the color of the meat. Stone is ok, and metal and yellow player color could swap colors since with a darker yellow, a blinking white dot could be seen easier than a lighter tone and, in my opinion, it is more eye candy than the actual yellow color
  19. also pings on the minimap, different color for resources since they are hard to find. Animals to hunt are hardly recognizable in the minimap, and when a player has yellow color, it is harder to see blinking white dots when underattack, and yellow is easly be confused with a metal mine.
  20. @fatherbushido thanks for the resources, I'll check deeper into it. However in the actualy situation 20 slingers can destroy a fully upgraded siege tower, with or without the Demetrius aura. Basically 20 slingers are cheaper then the tower and they are even stronger, without counting the fact that it is vulnerable to sword cavalry just as slingers or any ranged unit is. By the way I can't understand the crush damage adjustment because basically the siege towers are sieges and they are meant to attack buildings, by the way they are hybrid units and they can attack units too dissipating the crush damage inflicted to the buildings tho. And please, notice that iberian defence towers cost much less and they have garrison limit of 8 units by the way they shot more arrows than a siege tower garrisoned with more units. I think that one solution could be, for example, granting to the siege tower the same techs of the defensive towers could be an extra buff to those and an interesting "synergy" since they are siege and towers too keeping their difference constant. In that way the siege tower could have increased arrows shooted by the same number of units garrisoned in it at cost of extra techs, increasing the damage aswell even keeping the actual stats.
  21. Hi again, this time I decided to open a thread that will regroup all sieges discussions in order to keep the subforum clean and avoiding multiple threads that basically could share some stuff into. I'll start with talking about Siege Tower and Ram garrison/ungarrison possibility. Historically those 2 sieges are meant to transport units by garrisoning them through an entrance in the back of those sieges, letting units protect the engine. In game, the siege will unload units from its front preventing the siege to move and blocking its way to the target. Actually this is very annoying because in order to protect the ram, the units will block the siege, expecially if it is already near to hit an enemy building, making it vulnerable from behind anyway, with the result that the ram can be still be reached and destroyed without the possibility that the ram could actually do any damage at all. For the siege tower, the main issue is that its damage is low and it is preferable to garrison it with melee units in order to prevent nearby enemy units to hit the siege tower because garrisoning the siege with ranged units wouldn't be effective as using those units when ungarrisoned. So, in order to maximize the damage, since the units garrisoned inside are melee, retiring the tower and ungarrison units when the enemy is close to it seems reasonable, by the way, since the siege tower unload units in its front, the result is that the unloaded units will just block the siege tower. You can find a replay attached where you can see what I'm talking about. 16:XX min i train the siege towers 18:XX units prevent the retreat, 20:XX this time is even more evedent. Enjoy the video Siege Tower: the siege tower is aviable only for Ptolems and Macedonians. The siege tower is a siege (really??) that should be able to capture buildings or, at least, being able to crush buildings as any siege out there. Where are the issues? The cost doesn't fit its performance. Projectile Limit: the tower benefits from 10 garrisoned units only of a 20 units limit, it means that a siege tower is easier to capture if a player wants to optimize the number of units in the battlefield. It can't capture buildings: it could be able to capture building since it was historically used to open a way into the enemy walls when there were no more Suicidal Uruk'hai Berserker aviable . Low Damage: this needs a bit more explaination. The siege tower actually has only 2.5 crush damage per projectile shooted every 2 seconds. There is a tech aviable into the fortress which is supposed to increase the crush damage by 25% for all the sieges, tech that IMHO doesn't give any rilevant advantage to boolt shooters and siege towers (25% of 2,5 isn't really a big deal). 20 slingers can actually outdamage a siege tower, expecially because of the 10 projectiles limit, and they could even capture buildings, eventually. The only way to use that siege in a very effective way is/was to use the Macedonian hero Demetrios who increases the crush damage of sieges by +10 globally, without any range constraint, Aura that will be changed to +15% crush damage (if i remember right) in the alpha 22 and, as you can imagine, 15% of 2,5 isn't a big deal. The funny thing is that Demetrios can boost the damage of the siege tower from 2,5 crush damage to 12,5, privilege not aviable for ptolemaics (didn't test siege towers with Cleopatra aura yet). As you can notice in the attached replay, Catapults have 5 sec attack rate, so slow that a siege tower with Demetrios aura can outdamage them by far (even rams out damage catapults easly) and how a siege tower boosted by that aura are able crush briton buildings really easy, maybe too easy, if compared to their base damage. Ram: [blank] Catapult: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21631-a21-catapults/Boolt Shooter: [blank] 2017-01-30_0011.rar
  22. When I went to school my math teacher teached me that 3,5 (spear attack rate) / 0.75 (sword attack rate) = 4,6 and that 4,6 x 6,5 (sword cavalry damage) = 30,3 (damage of the sword cavalry in 3,5 sec) which is bigger than 19 if ( total spear cavalry damage) i remember right.
  23. isn't the game already structured in that way? I mean.. Ranged units have the advantage to stay in range while melee units have to reach them, thats why Archers for example have advantage over swordmen btw they die easly vs cavalry
×
×
  • Create New...