chrstgtr

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.

Or you can just decrease their health/armor. You can introduce vulnerabilities a bunch of ways. My point is that ships don't have a "natural size" as you originally suggested because the scale of the game isn't truly "natural" (and nor should it be--I don't want to zoom in and out x1000 to see my units on the Mediterranean map or wait several days for them to walk across it).

Naturally sized as the width of the Red Sea and height of tallest walls! Measurements really mean nothing in the game and everything just looks however is most pleasing to the eye.

Clearly need both. Best civ for 1v1 right now is ptol. Best civ for 4v4 right now is iber. They’re different gameplays that involve different strategies.

The fear is that giving immortals spears takes away cav as the natural archer counter. I suspect they will be fine, but we adjusted a bit in the patch

They can do that now just by downloading SVN. This is separate

Yeah, I was over broad. I think he meant on unit anyways

They have 2 cav units in p1. They can weapon switch between spear and arrow. Champs in p1 Sparta ------ With that said, I am not sure if any of these changes are currently in the latest SVN

From units, yes; from buildings, no

I've always thought cav were a little too strong this alpha. I've thought the two most problematic aspects of cav are: (1) Their ability to capture barracks super fast because this allows a very small and fast group to counterattack and eliminate an enemies' production abilities. This can easily be fixed by lowering their capture attack, which increased from 2 in a23 to 2.5 in a25; and (2) Their strength relative to inf. A simple nerf to any of their attack/health stats (i.e., dmg, health, and/or armor values). I don't think this should be a big nerf, but they do feel slightly too strong. Alternatively, they could become more expensive, which would make them more difficult to spam. I think a cost nerf is less preferred because that will impact early game more. I'm not a fan of the changing pop cost because that doesn't change their underlying strength, which is the real problem, and only limits the number of units that you can make of them, which mostly limits their production only when players are at max pop. I'm also just not a fan of limiting what units players can build, so a hard cap (i.e., 15% of total pop) is less favorable--I think we should just adjust the underlying stats and lets players make what they want.

Sure, but that feels like a modern concept. I don't really care, though, to be honest.

But the vision is still longer if both units aren’t moving. The logic is inconsistent. A bit off topic, but this reminds me of how I think vision range should reflect what a unit is doing at any given time so that units actively engaged in eco/fighting should have the shortest vision, units walking/riding should have medium ranges vision, and units standing still should have the longest vision. That seems far more realistic than the current scenario and gets at the “distraction” idea you bring up

I don’t even agree with borg as I think women should have the same vision range as inf, but borg was clearly discussing women and not soldiers. He was also suggesting a longer vision range for women as opposed to a shortening of one And, again, the length of the vision range is different than unifying the vision range between inf and cav.

Micro is the same except cav can get distracted more easily…because they have a longer vision range Again, this is about how long the range should be, and isn’t about whether that range should be the same or different than inf

In sum, after being asked multiple times for reasons why cav should have different vision ranges than inf, people have put forward the below reasons. Realism—Cav have a higher vantage point. The argument goes that they sit higher so they can see over objects and just see farther. But standing next to a wall doesn’t stop them from seeing through it so the “seeing over objects” part is inconsistent at best. No one seems to care about the “just able to see farther” part or thinks that it justifies a >10% vision greater range. Even so this realism argument is hard to justify in a world where units can’t see farther than the length of a football field. Champions—Champs should be able to see farther. This isn’t a reason for different vision ranges for cav and inf. This is a reason for CS vs champs. I also think it’s reasoning (is dubious at best, especially when Micro—shorter vision will mean more micro. This keeps getting repeated so I’ll directly address: this has nothing to with whether cav or inf should have farther vision. It’ll be an impact of a change. Please state why cav should be easier to play and have less micro than inf. Again, the goal is to unify vision ranges. The length of that range is a separate topic. Women are a separate topic and will be addressed elsewhere

No, commentators have conflated purpose and examples of why that might be a good purpose. The purpose is clearly stated by OP and on Phab. See below for examples. Other commentators have latched onto the cav discussion of why it may be problematic while ignoring the fact that that discussion is a sideshow and that this patch just seeks to unify vision ranges. The "counterproposal" is completely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with vision ranges much less the actual topic of whether vision ranges should be unified. Still--no one here has put forward a reason why the vision ranges should be different across units.

None of this disputes the validity of a unified vision range. You just want longer vision ranges. That isn’t the purpose of the proposal.

Concepts should be applied consistently; and, this concept doesn't exist anywhere else in the game. Concepts should be applied consistently; and, this concept doesn't exist anywhere else in the game.

This just isn’t true. In A23 they were usable (and very good, in fact) but not OP like they are now. Your axiomatic statement also suggests that inf should be OP in p3 just because they are useful in p1 right now. This just isn’t a reason for/against the proposal. Please state a reason why cav should have longer vision than infantry—because no one here has given one yet. In my opinion, cav already have the benefit of speed which helps them escape (or entirely avoid) bad fights and chase good fights, dps which helps them conduct fights, and health which helps them conduct and escape fights. I find it very difficult to say cav should also have longer vision that will allow them to decide if a fight, which they already gave all the natural advantages in, should start or continue

I don't think so. Is there any basis to say that ancient artillery shot farther than the human eye could see? That would be miles, which I don't think is true