Jump to content

ValihrAnt

Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ValihrAnt

  1. The structure population bonus was quite liked in the community and allowed players to have a different starting build, so it's a bonus that I'd like to see returned and wanted to ask for input from @Genava55, @Nescio and others before making a patch for this. I understand that the Celts didn't really have any historical justification for having this bonus and from what I found the Athenians would be a good alternative. In 479 BC the city was atleast partly destroyed by the Persians. The evacuation and later rebuilding of the city seems to me as fitting justification for this bonus.
  2. Sword cavalry cost more than spearmen. Provided that spearmen handily beat cavalry when resources are balanced out, that is the relevant point. Collection time wise the cavalry mercenaries have an ignorable 6 second advantage over spearmen. Normal rank 1 cavalry get convincingly beaten by normal rank 1 spearmen, the big problem stems from the fact that these mercenary cavalry start as rank 2 and thus are capable of instead beating spearmen quite convincingly. Now an advantage that the spearmen have is that they require less upgrades. So the cavalry need 2 stable upgrades and 3 blacksmith upgrades (spearmen do split hack and pierce damage), but the spearmen only need 2 blacksmith upgrades. A fight in which the rank 2 cavalry have only stable upgrades and the spearmen have the 2 blacksmith upgrades is won by spearmen. Though just the attack upgrade for cav evens the fight out and add any of the defense upgrades to that and they start winning consistently. I really don't think this would be an issue if players were able to reinforce their most vulnerable areas with colonies in P2. The spearmen have an advantage of being able to gather resources too. Cavalry could provide more experience in general. An infatry unit which has 50hp gives 100 and a cavalry unit (hp ranges from 100-160) gives 130. So just increasing that would be something to look at. Ranking up also only gives +20% extra experience as loot but +25% hp and +1 armor. So scaling that differently would benefit infantry units. Spearmen already rank up 3x faster when fighting cavalry as the experience comes from damage dealt against how much experience loot the enemy unit gives. I also added a recording which showcases defending the mercenaries on a 1v1 with spread out woodlines. The hardest part is getting a Civic Center down due to the insane cost and it's a must because I need a forward foothold to be able to push and protect nearby economy units because otherwise he can easily raid my gatherers whilst I'm attacking and then come back to flank my army at a favourable time. The replay does also showcase that the defending player will have a far stronger eco even if there are losses and idle time as long as the enemy isn't able to snowball. CarthaMercCavDef.zip
  3. That would definitely make it easier to defend your territory, but is also contrary to the efforts to differentiate the civs. I'll take potentially improved gameplay over 2 civs having a unique buildings, same story as the Persian stable and Macedonian siege workshop. This works in team games where you can just have everyone on the same woodline and not worry about it running out for the whole game but not 1v1s. Towers were never good against raids and still aren't as units don't spend enough time near them, they work against a sustained push. A possible small cavalry rush and boom into p3 has been the meta for the last few releases and I don't see any good way to add P2 aggression if there aren't footholds (Military colonies) for a defending player to set up. Very well evidenced by the Carthaginian Mercs, which are the only really good P2 unit that has existed in my time around. It would also potentially allow for players to actually execute slow pushes by setting up a colony near the enemy, using towers and infantry units that otherwise take far too long to just run around the map.
  4. Reminded me of something that I had thought about a while ago and it would be a roundabout way of solving the issue. Give every civ a Military Colony (I do also think that a general reduction of territory and cost for the CC and Colony would be beneficial, but that's going a bit off topic). Allows a player to defend important areas, the aggressor to utilize their map control to secure important resources/strategic areas. Keep in mind that in close, aggressive games affording even a colony can be tough and it would still only protect one area. And then instead of nerfing aggressive strategies, expand on them.
  5. Ah darn. Then it makes it sort of pointless until endgame to be built. The beauty of the pyramids being built in p2 is b/c they count towards p3 and help resource gathering. If they only help w/ resource gathering they're likely to be built later on, instead of earlier - especially with the build time. I don't see why them not counting for P3 will lead to them being built later. It's true that this bonus requires investment and some time to pay off, which is why I don't want to increase the cost of the pyramid more. I can talk you through my experience with this bonus a bit. In no extra food starts it makes the most sense to place the Pyramid for farms, with extra berries for wood. I found it best to build the pyramid with a single unit quite early on (pre 20 pop) and as the pyramid is completed to send 1 or 2 units to stone, to later afford a 2nd pyramid. The effects of the bonus really become noticeable at around minute 7 when you can suddenly afford so much more than normally. The extra resource influx really sets them up for a strong late game and going Phase 3 with plenty of spare resources for whatever the heart pleases.
  6. That’s observation bias. When I want to go sword cav I choose Gauls or carth. and when I am a different civ but have a carth or Gauls ally I let my ally be the cav player bc their civ is better suited. That doesn’t mean that sword cav isn’t OP. It is. It just means that we won’t see brit players use OP sword cav until carth and Gaul cav is nerfed I've tried doing normal sword cav in 1v1s and I can just tell you that they don't compare to the Carthaginians and I'm relying on the enemy making pretty severe mistakes unlike being able to just force favourable engagements like with the mercenaries.
  7. And we no longer have the problem of ele civs often being completely unable to push with pointless stalemates. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3350 would argue that the library being completely unique to Ptolemies increases differentiation. I didn't actually realize the lighthouse was changed, it's effectively now an outpost on steroids. The value can probably be changed to suit the bigger maps, but the idea is certainly an improvement over it being banned on every naval game. And they got a new unique tech that affects their champion cav The worker ele? Don't see how it being nerfed reduces diversity, although iirc I saw a patch returning its old behaviour. That's true, I forgot about this. Would like the P2 champs to come back as they were a really cool trait and the new tech doesn't make up for it. Is simply being able to build a siege workshop the kind of uniqueness we want though? Its such a basic building that I think it's far better if every civ gets a siege workshop and mace get a unique tech for their siege, on top of the crossbow produced from the siege workshop. I far prefer the diversity of a25 to a23. Just compare the types of units and strategies we see now, it is no longer an infantry spam fest and there are also cavalry and champions involved now.
  8. Ah, ok. So there was some misunderstanding then on my part too. From what I know and have seen, the lack of diversity doesn't have any greater reason than noone simply going out of their way to implement it or lead the implementation of it. I just recently started making some patches with the goal of implementing economy bonuses for civs and a problem that I encountered is that there isn't any design plan for how different/assymetrical the civs should be, what should be their playstyle (or should civs not be nudged into any playstyle), about how many bonuses, unique technologies for each civ should be targeted.
  9. A24 was less diverse than A23, but the idea that A25 is less diverse than A23 is mostly wrong. I guess the idea comes from the fact that nonexistant bonuses were removed from the history page, https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2720. The only actual existant bonus which was removed is the Gaul and Briton population bonus, https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2950. It's also true that every civ getting a stable removed the uniqueness of the Persian stable, but I think that's an acceptable casualty for better gameplay. From A23 to A25 most civs have gained actually existing bonuses, only exception being the Britons who haven't yet gotten anything. The gameplay is far more diverse than it was in A23, which was just infantry spam with an occasionaly early rush. The Carthaginians might not have gained any direct bonuses, but they've also gained the most identity with the mercenary changes. I also don't get from where the notion that the competitive community is pushing for the game to lose civ diversity and how the competitive players are the reason that not enough civ differentiation is done. If there's no one there to make patches nothing will happen.
  10. I don't think base sword cav need a nerf. The civs succeeding with them all have some sort of bonus that impacts sword cav, you don't see Britons or Athenians going ham with them. I hadn't actually seen nor thought of using the Mauryan last blacksmith upgrade with sword cav, but that would put them pretty high up. Personally, I think of the citizen sword cavalry that only the mercenaries are problematic. For 1v1s, I think it just comes down to people not really knowing how to defend against heavy sword cav play as it requires a different playstyle (for Cartha a really defensive style and even). Scouting your opponent to see if they're on metal and if that's the case then walling up pretty much the whole territory, putting down extra barracks, spamming spearmen, and also going P2 for blacksmith upgrades. Basically just commiting very heavily to P2 and focusing very strong economy and unit production, though it does leave you vulnerable to a basic switch to infantry merc swordsmen. I have a really good example of this in a match vs vinme that I'll upload here too. Exception are Ptolemies and Seleucids who can just demolish them by making merc spear cav. For TGs they are much more insane. It's very difficult to coordinate walls as you need 4 people to work together on them, which in general makes mobility a far superior choice in teamgames. CarthaMercCavDef.zip
  11. An idea that seems interesting to me is to adjust the Kushite Small pyramid to work as a more unique economy bonus, by @LetswaveaBook. Currently it is a P2 building with a decent cost and build time, unfortunately it's rare to see more than one built anywhere else than the farming economy. Moving it to P1 with a reduced cost, build time and possibly range adjustment could be really interesting. It's a bonus that requires initial investment but in return can affect every resource, another weakness is that in a rush it can be captured and destroyed by the enemy. My initial idea is 100 Stone cost, 120 sec build time and 50m Range. Any thoughts on this?
  12. Are sword cav op? Or are mercenary sword cav op? There's a huge difference between them. Mercenary sword cav beat spearmen confidently. Normal sword cav get destroyed by spearmen, even gaul sword cav get beaten by spearmen very well. There's a reason why you don't see people doing sword cav with the Athenians, Britons, Mauryas often.
  13. The currently made patches: 1) Macedonians: Storehouse technologies are researched instantly ⚙ D4234 [gameplay] Macedonian bonus - Instant storehouse technology research time. (wildfiregames.com) 2) Romans: +5 Worker carry capacity. ⚙ D4239 [gameplay] Roman bonus - Increased resource carry capacity (wildfiregames.com) Could easily be switched for an increased wood gather rate. 3) Kushites: Fields, Fishing ships, and Corrals are 50% cheaper. ⚙ D4233 [gameplay] Kushite bonus - cheaper farms, corrals, fishing ships. (wildfiregames.com) 4) Athenians: Faster technology research time. More of a military bonus than an economical one. ⚙ D3675 [Gameplay] Athenian bonus - faster technology research time (wildfiregames.com) Instant and cheaper seems a bit overkill. Could also just return the bonus they had in a23, where many buildings gave additional population space. The problem there is that the bonus just existed without any explanation and would have to come up with a name and history. Like on top of their teambonus? I don't want to do pure military bonuses for now, just economy or hybrid. The Gauls could actually get a woodcutting bonus as they did have immense forests. They do actually already have a mining bonus but it's quite trash, which is probably why I had completely forgot about it. The problem is it only starts in P2 and thus doesn't end up being as impactful. Moving it up to P1 makes sense to me. I don't want to touch their teambonus right now as I feel like territory and CC costs need a bit of an overhaul in general but that's a different thing. The tech bonus hasn't been done either as I wasn't really sure about it.
  14. @borg- actually playing? @DerekO do the games remain bo3 as they become higher stakes? So semi-finals and finals still played as bo3? Is the predicted date based on 1 round every week?
  15. I made this thread with the intention of getting ideas and feedback for potential economy bonuses for the current civilizations. Currently nearly all civilizations lack a direct economy bonus. Ptolemies and Athenians are the only ones with a direct bonus. The Romans, Ptolemies, and Iberians have their team bonus working as an economy bonus. Consider that the bonuses should make sense historically and have a name and description. That's the really hard part for me and I hope this thread will help avoid me making a patch and then a bunch of revisions for it. The currently made patches: 1) Macedonians: Storehouse technologies are researched instantly ⚙ D4234 [gameplay] Macedonian bonus - Instant storehouse technology research time. (wildfiregames.com) 2) Romans: +5 Worker carry capacity. ⚙ D4239 [gameplay] Roman bonus - Increased resource carry capacity (wildfiregames.com) Could easily be switched for an increased wood gather rate. 3) Kushites: Pyramids buildable in Phase 1 and with a reduced cost, build time. (150Stone from 300 Stone + 100 Metal; 120 build time from 200) Alternative: Fields, Fishing ships, and Corrals are 50% cheaper. ⚙ D4233 [gameplay] Kushite bonus - cheaper farms, corrals, fishing ships. (wildfiregames.com) 4) Athenians: Faster technology research time. More of a military bonus than an economical one. ⚙ D3675 [Gameplay] Athenian bonus - faster technology research time (wildfiregames.com)
  16. Do pallisades really need a big change? The way I see it is that pallisades are there to buy you some time and if you want to really protect an area you build the proper city walls. There could be an upgrade to increase the hack armor of buildings to deal with late game melee units. Maybe it's just me but rather than sword cavalry being op, I'd say it's players not knowing how to counter them. 1) It is getting better now but players don't seem to realise that spearmen counter cavalry. So many people just don't make spearmen and then are surprised how a unit that's pretty much intended to counter ranged inf actually does well against ranged inf. 2) Not adapting to the situation. After the 2nd raid on farm economy you should probably start thinking about how to protect it. 3) Blacksmith upgrades or civ bonuses. Most often the cavalry player will have made significant investment into blacksmith upgrades and will do the rush with Gauls or Carthaginians who have stronger sword cav. The defending player hasn't made any such investment making the cav seem stronger than they really are. 4) Cavalry require more investment than infantry. The defending player should easily outnumber the cavalry as the attacking player has to also keep investing into eco. This game against Jofursloft demonstrated these points really well. We were even before going into P2, but he quickly pulled ahead in population due to not needing to set up extra farms and stables. He further walled off his farm economy before I could get even a single raid in and prioritised strong unit production making it impossible for me to find any significant damage. After pulling ahead in population he just got a strong push going and there's nothing I can do as investing into cavalry just set me too far back. It does also partly come off to how insane the woodlines in most biomes are where you can have 20k+ wood in a single forest and can get well into the late game before needing to start gathering wood elsewhere. It also kills the importance of map control which hurts aggression.
  17. This is an innovative new feature too, right? Atleast I don't remember seeing something like this in any other RTS game I've played. It's really cool and definitely something to play around with.
  18. My biggest gripe currently is that the random civ option isn't very random. With nearly all tgs having everyone go random, it's annoying that Mauryans, Kushites, Iberians and Ptolemies are in basically every single one and frequently multiple of them, while the Athenians and Macedonians are such a rarity. Obviously, it comes down to intended old design of it but I'd rather we get rid of it and have every civilization at an equal chance. The second thing I'd love improved are the hotkeys. The ground work has been laid and I think the game allowing players to place buildings and select buildings with hotkeys would be great. Currently autociv is basically a necessity for providing them.
  19. lol. how comes than than camels are broken again, and archers are in a worse position than in A23? Camels are nowhere near to their strength in A23. They now have lower move speed, less range and less accuracy. So javelin cavalry can actually catch them now and towers can actually range them, that's quite a big difference. To make it even worse, they can't harass food without being ranged by the CC anymore too. And the same thing about archers. How can you say that they are worse than in A23 when just about everything is better for them now? Their lowered range and accuracy are remedied by technologies and otherwise they've got more damage, more speed, skirmishers being slower and no phase up bonuses which gave extra time for opposing units with greater dps to close the distance. As I said, I'd be more worried about them still being by far the strongest ranged infantry unit.
  20. Are they really overcorrected? The only change for damage output is an increase in spread which can be canceled out by a blacksmith technology. Some of the archers civs also have a tech for extra range. Looking at this it seems quite clear that archers are still in a very strong position. I only did some tests now without upgrades to quickly verify that my numbers are similar and if data with upgrades is true then I'd rather think that archers deserve a further nerf rather than a buff. Also keep in mind that archers can easily provoke a fight and then never engage by simply running back to defensive buildings. In defensive situations in general they are far superior to other ranged units due to their range advantage and thus being able to fight from far behind a fort or CC. P.S. You can't have archers with equal movement speed to units with lesser range. That's how you get the a23 camel archers. It wasn't a disaster for a24 because the major turn times made it impossible to hit and run, and only meant that overextending with archers was impossible to punish.
  21. I did some quick messing around with formations and found a new issue now. When I unit attack move or patrol when in formation, only one of the units in the formation will attack while the rest continue moving onwards, right through the enemies. Attack move and patrol without formation seems to be just fine though.
  22. A very minor issue that we found for the Islands map, probably also happens on other naval maps, biomes with grass (India, Savanna) have it overlapping into water.
  23. Nah, it happens with anything in Phase 1. You can capture a barrack and you will lose capture points unless you garrison 4 or more units.
  24. @mysticjimCould you update the first post with the new test versions? Got people downloading the old versions and causing OOS and confusion when trying to playtest. Thanks.
  25. What the patch does is just make them play the anim longer before moving again. A24 had the issue of cav play just being very weak which of course does lead to them not being used and stuff like this not being noticed. A25 from what I've played is more aggressive and cavalry are a more viable option so it should be more visible. In normal fights it doesn't change anything, just in chasing. Unit bumping has made melee better able to chase so this should be a pretty fair trade off.
×
×
  • Create New...