chrstgtr

Yes, but this would allow you to potentially garrison many more units with a single click. This definetly is more automated. Whether that is bad and whether that can be abused is a different question that I am uncertain of

Maybe. But remember, women can't garrison everywhere so that would really just be to garrison all men. Garrisoning all men right now, is a pretty rare occurrence (and it is even rarer for the player who does it to survive, so this may be a feature without any real use). I would also worry about the scenario where players begin to purposely build barracks close to each other on the border, wait to be attacked and then garrison all barracks. The attacker's units would then default to capturing barracks. The garrisoned player could then engage in a series of rapid un-garrisoning and re-garrisoning that can't be stopped because the attacking player's units always default to the buildings. Basically, I would be concerned that such a feature has little value and could lead to annoying meta changes so I don't know if it is worth creating. But I could be wrong.

It's for all civs (unless something was changed). It's helpful to ring it because it is more local to where the raid is so the women under attack will actually garrison and the farmers won't

Got it. Yeah, I simultaneously revised my comment as you wrote this. What I would want wouldn’t even be every unit. It would just be those that actually have shields.

I would’ve thought that this would already be possible because of the Athens hero already does it. But maybe not because I would propose that units like spears, which have a shield, would get a pierce armor boost while units like archers, which have no shield, would not get a boost the current unit stat adjustment method just doesn't make a ton of sense. And formations right now don’t really have much purpose aside from making micro easier

I feel like rather than trying to change these melee units' stats, we should just make formations useful and give more pierce armor to certain units when in certain formations. That would help solve the melee vs range debate and would also historical lend accuracy. But I digress...

It seems reasonable to me. A woman farmer gathers at a .5/s and have a cost of 85 res (50 for the woman, 20 for the pro rata portion of a field, and 15 for the pro rata portion of a house). So an ROI of .0059. Once upgraded An icebox gathers at .5/s and has a cost 200. So an ROI of .0025. Iceboxes also can be upgraded to be more efficient that woman farmers. Ice boxes also don't take up pop space, which becomes very valuable at some point in most games. The ROIs are actually a little closer than that because the inputs for farming are more "expensive" than the inputs for iceboxes. Farming requires all wood and food, which are in-demand p1 resources. Food is also gathered more slowly than other res. Meanwhile, icehouses require wood and stone. Stone is a less valuable p1 resource. To me, that seems fair given that iceboxes are less likely to be captured than woman are to be killed, and will have a constant stream of income (whereas women will garrison during raids). I can imagine scenarios where I use both ice boxes. Obviously, some gameplay styles will be better than others in different circumstances.

Yeah, I know a bunch of changes happened from what it originally was. For what it is worth, 5% is what I initially thought it should be. I would need to think more about it, though. Personally, I would prefer an even more radical change where we make them like healers, which are really weak at first and then really strong after leveling up. I think that would be a cool "invest now for big benefits later" feature. It would also encourage more p2 action because it would make the Han player vulnerable early but strong late. Lots of options.

Then you knew more than me and have an opinion on game design issue where I don't care. Feel free to match a patch--I don't think anyone will oppose you.

Who knew this limitation existed before this post? When was the last time you saw someone use corrals with inf or women? When they did, did they have some idle inf/women while others were actively collecting meat? When was the last time you saw someone actually hurt by the scenario I described in my third question? Does good game design require corrals to be useful for women/infantry? My guess is the answer to those questions show that this isn't actually a problem. Feel free to post a replay that shows otherwise.

Sure. But it basically never makes sense to hunt those. And if there are 3 of them then it would only matter if you have a bunch of cav because they will go to other nearby hunt (or you should just shift-click them). But yes, this should be unionized. It just isn't very important because it will have a very minimal effect.

I was talking about the hover over on the avatar in-game. It also doesn't appear in the structure tree. Those two places are identical (I think that's true everywhere).

It's just hard when you don't have other people to play with. More people leads to more diverse strategies and realistic testing. I'm sure it will be a topic of discussion after a26 is released when it can be more rigorously discussed. Right now, I personally don't have strong opinions on how ministers should be change. I am, however, confident that they are underpowered which is ok--there will be a lot of things about Han that will need to be rebalanced in a27.

We'll see. It's very hard to balance something if you don't have real play experience with them so I've stayed out of the Han discussions. Here, though, I think it's pretty clear cut. Luckily, these aren't bad enough to break the game (i.e., these aren't OP).

You're defending something that's indefensibly misvalued and liking comments that say the same. So, no, I cannot tell where you are serious or not. All of this is different than what was previously discussed, so I don't know how it is relevant. There are other problems with these concepts/values but it doesn't seem worth getting off topic for. In short, I think ministers need basically all their values reconsidered but that is another topic that should be discussed once everyone has had a chance to understand/play with them. I expect players will quickly realize their costs/benefits are way askew and then never train them.

Either the panel should be changed to mention this or it should be eliminated. Edit: the panel should also say the time rate. Right now it just says .1 res trickle

Honestly, the collection rate on animals is so high that it won't make a difference on anything except elephants. Even for elephants it won't make a big difference.

Your math is wrong. It would be 2% of 70, so 1.4 extra units. Meanwhile, they cost the same amount of res as 2 units and need a special building (that also cost res/time) to be produced.

They cost 200 res each and have a .3 res per second trickle rate (different res, but food is actually collected slower than what you get a trickle of). That means it will take 11 minutes of garrisoning to get the exact amount of resources back (again, different resources so a natural collection would be even longer). Han also don't really need a ton of stone late game, which is .1 of the trick rate. If you exclude stone then it would take forever to get your res back. That is a really low ROI, especially when compared to the alternative of making one man that would collect resources and/or fight during that 11 min period. It boosts by 2% within its range. But they cost the amount of 2 units. So you're better off just making two CS (or 4 women for that matter) unless you have 100 units in the aura, which isn't possible a lot of the time because of where the res are located or your total pop size. There are caveats here with because that aura stacks (?), you might want to make to make units that can't collect res, wait time to actually make the ministers, building costs to make ministers, the location of res (which will impact how many men you can put within the gathering aura), other minister benefits, the time in the game when you want to make ministers (pop space is scarcer late game so eco units are less valuable), etc. But generally speaking, just make CS men or women if you want the eco benefits. A hot fix here would be to just allow the ministers to also do eco (or adjust their values to a different level, which I would have to think about).

Yeah, but a lot of the minister values don't make a lot of sense. For gather rate, you're basically always better off just making men instead of a minister.

You never want observer lag. The option should be turned off and set to a default of -1.

And men can only see the length of a football field while women can only see about 10 feet. There are so many examples of how the game just isn't to scale.

I think it would be really nice if there was a customizable map that had all features on a sliding scale. For example, it would have options like amount of food, amount of wood, amount of metal, amount of water, amount of elevation, etc. It could also have an option for amount of distribution of features that impacts the clumsiness of features, where perfectly even distribution results in 0 forests and all trees equally space and no distribution results in one large forest and no other trees. It would also be nice if we could atomized maps on a scale of 1-8, where 1 distributes features across the entire map and 8 results in features being spread out in 8 slices. In other words, a way to make each player have the same accessibility to resources or a way to make it entirely entirely random.

Yeah, what I am saying really shouldn't be controversial...I recall someone calculating the stats for men and they were like 15 feet tall and walked miles as fast as Usain Bolt could run 100M. The simply game isn't to scale. A game by nature isn't supposed to be an exact recreation. It's hard to tell how those ships scale without other units providing context, but by themselves they look good to me.