chrstgtr

I think it would be cool if this was replaced with a roaming territory influence aura. This would encourage players to make really aggressive attacks into enemy territory because after a certain amount of time the attacker could gain control of barracks and other buildings. I really like the rest of your proposal (it also really bugged me that the greatest(?) conqueror of all time was a pretty unhelpful hero)

Sure but that’s more attenuated. Field costs changes build order more. For example, I would be a lot less likely to expand my territory with buildings to get extra berries if I know I can save 100 wood (farm stand cost) and not have to walk all the way to the edge of my territory if I have free fields.

I like that. I think @BreakfastBurrito_007 made a great point about how the diminishing marginal returns is not actionable--it really just makes Sele easier. In that case, I think you can give an even bigger cost and/or build time decrease to make it "more" actionable and relevant. Deceased cost/build time could open up some different build orders (i.e., people would be less likely to chase berries).

I tend to agree. I don’t like hidden features. Diminishing marginal returns is disclosed, but it’s magnitude is not. So the true impact of this bonus isn’t obvious (hence the above discussion). @hyperion’s suggestion makes the game more comprehendible and can easily be adjusted to do @real_tabasco_sauce‘s civ bonus. On this, I would also eliminate the diminishing marginal return for buildings, which is entirely hidden (I think).

See above. I lean towards just making it the diminishing marginal returns. Or going bigger on discount cost (i.e., make fields free) and forget about the diminishing marginal return issue.

Thanks. So this is about double what the Gauls' extra gathering tech is except it starts immediately and you get it for free. Could be fine--I don't know. Sounds substantial, though. My guess is that in the long term this would be less impactful than the extra pop that Persia and Maurya gets, but in the short term this would be one of the best booming features.

What the normal diminishing marginal return? Also, do you know what the actual quant impact is? Say how much more food collected by min 10 assuming all fields are max staffed

Do you mean the number of builders?

It used to do this too. The camp used to be really useful and open up a lot of new strats, but it was entirely gutted.

It also lacks techs and other functionality. I agree for all your reasons and more. But that’s how we got here

This was one of the mistakes from a23-->a24. Someone thought it was massively OP and made the camp useless in a24. It's been partially fixed, but I would have no problem going back to a23 where the camp was actually used (and wasn't OP imo). Now, it is very rare to ever see one built

Sure. I’ve expressed skepticism about Boudica many times before in these forums. They’re very very strong with Boudica. That may be a different problem. But I’m personally undecided on whether Boudica is a problem. She only helps heroes, which means the impact is limited unless a player masses a lot of chariots, in which case it’s probably already gg. Compare that to the cav hero for rome, which boosts champ and CS cav, or Vercin, which boosts all soldiers

A unit is not OP if it is counter-able OR it is prohibitively difficult to obtain. Good game design requires that units not be prohibitively difficult to obtain because a prohibitively difficult to obtain unit is superfluous. Melee champ cav cannot be countered and are not prohibitively difficult to obtain. Therefore they are OP. No, they have more health and more armor. Even if they die, 10 champ cav paired with a normal army in a 200 pop game can leave the attacker at 190 pop while the defender has 130 pop. That is GG. A unit can die and still be OP if it leads to a player winning a game. Brit chariots are not OP. They are counter-able by any melee champ cav, CS spears, sniping, and by other means.

Yeah, only skirms. But that's better than some civs. Also, you get many siege options and camp, which other civs don't have. All in, Rome is by no means the worst civ.

Agree

I think it still needs to be ported over and incorporated. My understanding is that the mod won't be a27 because other technical stuff needs to happen, but we could use the mod as a testing ground for things that may or may not be incorporated into a27.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I would like to see basically all of the community mod changes accepted into the regular game for a27. Only one I am iffy on is the ptol building cost/build time change. Maybe more testing is needed.

Well today I learned. Anyways, I think all melee champ cav is OP because most civs can’t counter them. but my general point is a grand solution patch that makes everyone happy probably doesn’t exist but a more narrow patch probably does (ie how only fire cav were changed last alpha)

Gauls also have it. I said it as an example of how the problem should be addressed (i.e., each unit type should be addressed one by one). I didn't say whether it should or should not change. (I do, however, think melee champ cav all need to change because the only units that can counter them are champ spear, which are way less mobile and therefore can't actually counter them, and other melee champ cav, which most civs don't have). Also, Romans are great and are a very diverse civ. Yeah, champ sword cav are their best unit, but I would argue that is a top 3 unit in the game and one that is OP.

This sounds new and fun

Not a fan. Cav is the problem. I wouldn't change inf stats because that impacts other stuff. Spears are meant to be worse than swords. Maybe. Would have to be tested. I would support. Awesome. Thanks.

The problem is cav. I wouldn't mess with inf stats because that will have other knock on effects. Maybe. Would have to test. I would be in favor of it. Sidenote: this would also really help inf vs. archer cav. I am not sure that is a "fix" that needs to happen (as opposed to just have cav be the counter to archer cav), but it is a fix I would like. Very helpful. Thank you. I just don't like the current set up because it makes it difficult to snipe and easy to lose your hero. But this fixes that.

They are differentiated--they are more expensive, have different armor, attack, health, and speed stats. I honestly, am not a fan of the proposal in its current form. I don't have a problem with cav except that they don't die when they clearly should (i.e., walking straight through a ball of inf with minimal losses) and spear inf don't counter them (i.e., skirm cav can easily out micro inf spear because of speed AND champ, merc, and promoted CS melee cav can easily beat spear inf in a head on fight). I have no problem with skirm cav dmg. EDIT: there are lots of differing opinions, here, which is why I think revisions to cav should be taken on as individual units (i.e., work on champ sword cav first) instead of an overall change to all cav. Very helpful. Thank you.

Totally off topic, but I really dislike how you can't individual control units (or unit types) in formations in a26.

I don't know if I have a problem with any of that outside of when cav fight spear head on and the cav wins. That's why I said a health nerf for champ melee cav, which decimate CS spear head on. Wrong discussion.