chrstgtr
-
Posts
1.030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by chrstgtr
-
-
24 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Ah yes, I remember this patch.
In theory, the best solution would be to allow buildings to be considered visible with a smaller portion of their area in vision range.
However, the most practical solution would be to increase vision range a little and decrease range a little as well.
Fine with me
-
This was previously known. At the time there was concern about cata becoming roaming lighthouses. Expanding vision would make them easier to protect, but I don't have a big problem with that.
https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4511
2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I mean, this is the obvious solution, isn't it?
Or decrease attack range. I personally think cata deserve a slight nerf so decreasing attacking range would serve a dual purpose.
I don't really care which of these options the team proceeds on.
Just now, real_tabasco_sauce said:Perhaps it has to do with whether or not a large building is considered fully in view? I would think even seeing the corner of a fortress should allow the status of the building to be unveiled.
It's this. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4511
I also suppose it would happen when you are firing from a higher elevation.
-
1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Should Persian team bonus be expanded to affect things such as: Athens' Gym, arsenals, elephant stables, maybe temples? or would this be too OP?
keep in mind comparing it to ptol, iberian, roman, or other powerful team bonuses.
Don’t really care, but I would rather lean into what we have now and further decrease costs/build time. Sele bonus does more for CCs and Maurya bonus does much more for temples
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I think one of the biggest downsides to garrisoning walls is how few positions for units there are. I know that 8 units looks good visually, but 20 would be much more useful for gameplay purposes. Perhaps 2 rows of 8 for a total of 16 would make the most sense.
Especially if the garrisoned units are javs. The fight basically has to be right in front of you for it to ever make sense to garrison javs. I would personally prefer if they just become like towers and shot out arrows.
-
1 hour ago, Graham1 said:
What about the units within the sections of the walls, like either side of a gate? Units can garrison inside of those.
You mean the turrets? Those do nothing--it was changed a few alphas ago and I think it was a mistake.
-
3
-
-
51 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Then let's drop the pretense of attempting to depict historical cultures.
I mostly agree. I like it when things take inspiration from culture (see Alexandria Library or any Wonder), so I don't think it should be totally ignored.
Also wouldn't want to foreclose future possibilities. For example, I think if we ever get an imperial Rome then I would want to see Christianity and conversions as part of the game. Same with early Islamic empires.
-
48 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I think the issue here lies in the pace of the game. A player rarely has time to set up a nice city and match it up against the enemy's city, before the action really makes that a moot strategy. The people don't use walls much also drives this home. It feels like you're just building a military base with the optimal layout to maximize military production. There's not a lot of cultural exploration there.
Is the game supposed to be a sim city civilization builder? The game has victory conditions related to military success--the bolded is a function of that. I don't really think that is a problem.
If you want a cultural exploration game--great. But I think that is a separate game. Or at least a very different form of what we have with different victory conditions.
-
3 minutes ago, alre said:
I'm not saying flat no, I'm giving opinions that are different and yet no less argumented than yours. I'm sorry this upsets you so, but I'm failing to understand what you are trying to get from me. What I say you don't consider.
I'm telling you that your form of communication isn't constructive because it doesn't say why you want anything. If you want to be helpful (and I hope you do) and you want your opinions to be considered (and I hope they are) then you must explain your reasoning.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, alre said:
what should I be informed about? btw, I don't see no branch
Read back, @real_tabasco_sauce and I discuss it extensively a few pages back. You also flatly rejected something that is explicitly meant to improve and which, as you said, doesn’t have a branch yet.
16 minutes ago, alre said:By the way, I'd rather say that I generally adverse the idea that shorter range must be faster, and I loathe the idea of this principle being applied to all infantry, including melee. it can only make the game more bland and unrelatable, with basically all units filling the same purpose.
This is axiomatic.
Again, you just say “no” without saying why. It’s like if I reply saying: “I love the principle and it should be applied to all infantry, including melee. It will only make the game more exciting and relatable, with all units filling the right purpose.” See, it’s just conclusions with no reasons given. It’s not a constructive discussion—it’s a monologue that just says “no, no, no.” If you want to be helpful say what you want AND “why, why, why.”
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
The cool thing about a simple RPS system like this, with its small number of classes, is that we can do it fairly easily with no specific attack bonuses. Mechanics do most of the work. Melee ships (rammers and boarders) beat Artillery ships because they bridge the gap too quickly for the firing rate of the Artillery ship to compensate. The melee ships are soft countered by Arrow ships because the Arrow ships can fire more rapidly and more precisely than the Artillery ships. And then the Arrow ships are massacred by Artillery ships because of the way ranged combat works. Boarders throw a nice monkey into things to see if you can't capture some enemy ships. Rammers are the hard hitting, nearly suicidal, units (they survive due to some good micro). And even better, it's all pretty intuitive.
Yeah, I really like the multiple armor and attack system we have for cav and inf, but it’s a huge pain to try to get right. I just don’t care enough about ships to do something more complicated and your proposal works/is a huge improvement compared to what we have
-
1
-
-
Chiming in again to explain since there seems to be some contention. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything said by @real_tabasco_sauce or @wowgetoffyourcellphone. The reason why I like what @wowgetoffyourcellphone put forward is because it gets away from our current model which is just one “type” of ship where the only strategy is to get more full ships earlier than your opponent. @wowgetoffyourcellphone’s system is more or less a rock paper scissors approach, which introduces strategy and relatively easy to balance
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
After several discussions over the years, I think there is a broad recognition that ships are in need of improvement. I've synthesized some ideas here, but be warned: not everyone will be happy and by no means do I think this is the "perfect" naval system for an ancient-themed game, just something that may be interesting, fun, workable, intuitive, implementable, and not too historically problematic.
The main thing I would like to see is to differentiate ships along roles or classes and get away from the "multi-role" ship idea, where all you do is build bigger and better versions of this same multi-role ship. While the multi-role ship is historically accurate, it's problematic for gameplay (for myriad reasons that have been chewed over a dozen times). Better to go with the "historical authenticity" principle that gives us more leeway to develop classes of ships dedicated to their roles.
So, let's discuss some ship roles or abilities and come up with classes of ships to approximate these roles and abilities without making things overly complicated.
Some roles and abilities of ancient warships:
Arrow Platforms
Troop Transporting (I think this is one thing all ships can do: there doesn't need to be a dedicated ship for this)
Artillery Platforms
Boarding
Ramming
Scouting
With the above in mind, let's come up with classes of ships to depict these actions. Note that garrisoning units aboard have different (small) effects based on ship class. When garrisoned, you don't see anything appear on the deck. Ship models are small than they are currently in the game for pathfinding reasons, so would look strange with giants standing on the deck.
Scout Ship
- Role: Scouting, Gathering Treasures
- Attack: None
- Garrison: 5
- Garrison Effect: +5% capture resistance per 5 units.
- Has no attack and is basically an arrow-less Light Warship (can even use the same base model, minus oars, just a sail or vice versa)
- Can only train 1 at a time, but is super cheap (perhaps free?) so can be rebuilt very easily. Can be used to land a small scouting party, maybe good for scenarios too.
Arrow Ship/Light Warship
- Role: Arrow Shooter; harrasser
- Attack: Arrows x3 (unit AI), Arrows x1 (building AI)
- Garrison: 10
- Garrison Effect: 1 extra (unit AI) Arrow per 5 units; +5% capture resistance per 5 units
- This is your bireme, your liburna, your hemiolia, your pentekonter, your pirate ship.
- Very good against Merchant Ships (perhaps with an attack bonus) and Melee ships (Ramming Ships and Boarding Ships) due to having no minimum range. Countered decisively by Artillery Ships.
Ramming Ship
- Role: One-Hit kill ramming attack.
- Attack: Melee Ram, Arrows x1 (building AI)
- Garrison: 20
- Garrison Effect: +5% speed per 5 units; +5% capture resistance per 5 units
- This is your famous Trireme. Athenians get a special technology for these ships. Its primary role is to sink enemy ships with a melee attack, which has has to recharge. They are tough ships, but are vulnerable to Arrow Ships during the approach due to their paltry 1 arrow defensive ranged attack, and Boarding Ships if their ram attack did not sink the boarding ship in one strike. Due to recharging nature of their melee attack, these ships require the most APM/micromanagement and are often naturally suicidal if not microed effectively.
- Very Good against Artillery Ships and other Ramming Ships.
Boarding Ship
- Role: Capturing enemy ships and docks
- Attack: Freezing Melee attack with a Boarding Ramp for Roman civs (a bonus) or grappling hooks for other civs; Arrows x1 (building AI)
- Garrison: 20
- Garrison Effect: +5% capture attack per 5 units; +5% capture resistance per 5 units
- This represents the boarding actions common in naval battles. Romans have the Corvus technology which boosts their Boarding Ships. These will look similar to the Ramming Ship, but with a ramp for the Roman version and some other identifier for the other civs.
- Can counter Ramming Ships if they are not destroyed in the enemy's first strike and are good against Artillery Ships if used en masse. Can capture enemy Docks as well. Vulnerable to attack from other ships while it's attempting to capture the target ship.
Artillery Ship
- Role: Long Range siege attacks
- Attack: Artillery Bolt x2; Catapult Rock (Upgrade); Unit AI
- Garrison: 30
- Garrison Effect: +5% firing rate per 5 units; +5% capture resistance per 5 units
- Your Quinqueremes and other Polyremes. They come with a siege weapon on the foredeck.
- These are used for long range bombardment of massed enemy naval formations or shore structures such as docks, towers, and other buildings. Due to their slow firing rate, they are very vulnerable to faster ships such as Ramming Ships and Boarding Ships. They absolutely massacre Arrow Ships.
I like this quite a bit. I think the numbers will need to be adjusted a bit (it sounds like naval battles will be very quick otherwise), but I like the overall concepts.
Also, I vote free scouting ship or to cut it all together.
Lastly, I presume you would keep merchant and fishing ships the same? No objections from me, if so.
Nice work!
Edit: I know you've been working on ship art lately. Could you post the classes' corresponding art? It would be nice to get an idea of the relative sizes.
-
1
-
2 hours ago, alre said:
there is demand to buff melee inf, so just buff melee inf. at this point you are just trying to keep melee inf bad.
Your statement is uninformed and not helpful. @real_tabasco_sauce’s entire idea is to buff melee units. @borg- and I have proposed an alternative idea that could be used in conjunction with @real_tabasco_sauce’s idea or by itself. All share the common idea of buffing melee units. Your statement is the equivalent if the 300 pound sports fan yelling at a player to run faster—it isn’t helpful, it’s not telling anyone anything they don’t already know, and it’s negative towards the people who are actually trying to do something. Randomly dropping in to say “no” isn’t constructive discussion
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Increasing melee attack damage also nerfs turtling.
The counter to turtling should be rush or siege weapons, right, not archer range?
I mean arrows from buildings will become relatively more impactful because armies would kill roughly half as fast
There will be other impacts too, but making armies half as effective at killing units will have huge ripple effects.
-
8 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
I would be happy with this to be honest. Then the carthage team bonus could be changed.
Maybe this would be something to experiment with in the community mod as well.
Yeah, I’m just worried about it becoming a spam meta where mercs dominate. But, yeah, definitely something to try in the community, if there is interest
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Well, yeah I agree on principle, but they are technically related as they are all in the community mod and were highly supported.
IMO better to increase melee damage than decrease ranged damage. But I guess they have similar outcomes.
Agree. If you decrease range it will have a whole series of cascading impacts, such as turtling becoming much stronger.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, borg- said:
Sure, so maybe a new movement speed tech? Can help melee infantry engane on cavalry/range inf
I’ve been saying this for awhile. It’s logically consistent with what we have (farther range units move slowest) and should also help balance by slowing melee to engage
-
54 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
I think this would partially invalidate the value of infantry mercenaries.
I would rather melee inf be more impactful in the first place (not just meatshield, but actually dealing damage). I have an idea for this and I will make a MR for it in the a27 community mod.
I took the post to mean that you could do some sort of upgrades once at level 2. Kind of like centurions are at level 3. Not sure what upgrade there should be, though
Agree with the second part.54 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:I think this would partially invalidate the value of infantry mercenaries.
I would rather melee inf be more impactful in the first place (not just meatshield, but actually dealing damage). I have an idea for this and I will make a MR for it in the a27 community mod.
I took the post to mean that you could do some sort of upgrades once at level 2. Kind of like centurions are at level 3. Not sure what upgrade there should be, though
Agree with the second part.Edit: I also question whether experiment where mercs producing at rank 2 has failed. It's caused huge balance issues and isn't particularly interesting (see @wowgetoffyourcellphone above). I wonder if we should try a different route. Maybe making merc produce super quickly.
I've also thought that since mercs fight for the highest bidder that maybe they should be convertible (i.e., you can bribe a portion of the opposing army to change sides and fight for you. I'm not sure if the game even supports that, though. Convertible units would prevent pure spam strategies if mercs get trained super quickly.
-
40 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
- cs xbows: best sniping unit, easy to mass (perhaps put cs xbow in p2 in barracks, maybe change cost to 50 f 40 w 10 m)
Why not decrease the range? I agree crossbows are very good at sniping, but they're pretty bad otherwise. They are very weak against melee in straight up fights, move slowly, and have lower dps than javs/slings. Decreasing range slightly would mean that sniping is less effective because units won't be able to just stand in one place and won't be able to (as effectively) out range other units. Decreasing range also won't greatly harm the players that don't micro (i.e., it won't make an otherwise weak (no-sniping) unit worse).
55 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:- 220 pop is a lot for a civ that has such powerful citizen units (remove this depending on severity of xbow nerfs)
China feels like a civ that should have a lot of pop. I would rather get crossbow sniping problem fixed than take away the pop bonus. Also, as I previously said, crossbows are only actually good when used for sniping, so a pop nerf would hurt the non-sniping players.
I otherwise mostly agree with your analysis.
-
21 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Another suggestion for Han:
"Will to fight" is separated for Han, with a ranged version of the upgrade and a melee version, each with about half of the regular resource costs.
Because the vast majority of general damage in the game is done by ranged units, the ranged version of will to fight is better than the melee one, and consequently better than the general "will to fight" that all other civs have.
Those upgrades need to be either adjusted or merged into the standard "will to fight"
Good point. I kind of like the uniqueness of it. But it makes it easier to concentrate your army focus. I would suggest keeping separate, but raising the cost of each.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I agree with the poll.
But if the Council of 0 A.D. Enthusiasts, plus @Stan` @Freagarach @wraitii et al. wanted to expand the scope a bit to add the Pre-Classical Maya, then I'd be all for it. @Lopess and @Duileoga are making a good mod for them.
I agree. I just added the Syracusans to the poll because they are quite advanced in DE and are kinda cool/a bit different. Nomads, Germans, etc. before any new Greekish civs for sure. Gotta expand that cultural base of the game for that sweet sweet variety.
Hear, hear!
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I agree, honestly.
It would be nice to be able to depict the civs at different eras. The Punic Wars were a high point (and low point) for Rome, full of drama that's not often depicted, which is why that particular period was chosen. But let's say at the start of a match you choose a hero, as in Delenda Est, we could swap out units and technologies and even buildings based on that choice. Choose Julius Caesar or Pompey and now your unit roster is of the "Marian Reforms" legion instead of the Polybian legion you'd get if you chose Marcellus or Scipio.
The buildings wouldn't need to look different, but the unit roster would. It's possible, DE does it (as mentioned).
Yeah, my larger point is that beyond a rough inspiration, the game does a lot of historical cherry picking and inconsistently introduces arbitrary restrictions.
19 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Back to new civs now though.
With the above said, Mayans??? Or, for me, anyone but another Hellenistic civ
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Thing is, the reason you can't train Julius Caesar is precisely because of the time restriction. JC was born 100 years after the final Punic War and the Romans in the game are depicted in the Punic Wars era.
But why? Caesar’s contemporaries exist. There is Vercin. There is Cleopatra. Other civs include a wider date range—Ptol includes their first ruler and their last ruler, which begins earlier and ends later than Rome’s Punic Wars depiction. Why restrict Rome only to the Punic Wars period?
To me, 0AD civs should depict the greatest period of those civilizations. For a civ like Rome, that extends up through Caesar. Without Caesar, without Augustus, without Marcus Aurelius Rome just feels incomplete. Yeah, maybe some of that should be built out in a separate Roman Empire civ, but even if that happens, where does Caesar exist?
Would Rome’s depiction really need to be that different if it included Caesar?
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, borg- said:
Champions have been dominant units in past alphas, however these units are no longer seen in the game, neither in 1v1 or TG. For me it's a big waste of material, so I'm willing to put together a patch to make them viable again and I count on everyone's opinion/suggestion to be able to put together a patch as suitable as possible.
My three primary suggestions are:
1- Reduce costs;
2- Give champion units special abilities, like fire cav / immortals. That way you will have a bigger and more specific proposal to train these units.
3- Both.
So what do you think?
champ cav are quite common (and I would say too strong).
For infantry, I completely agree. I would add a fourth choice and make them more accessible via shorter train times and/or eliminating the research required to unlock them
-
2
-
Gameplay - I cannot win...
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
Sounds like you’re garrisoning all your units into defensive structures. Don’t do that. Do eco with them. And the fight with them when enemies comes (they’re stronger outside structures but obviously more vulnerable)