chrstgtr

You guys are talking past each other. @BreakfastBurrito_007 had a problem with % increases because a higher base dmg will benefit more from a percent-based system. Here, you are discussing an addition based system, which comparatively favors lower base dmg units. Armor % increases offset attack % increases. Without armor increases % based attack bonuses can lead to large differences. These numbers are simplified, but they show the effect discussed. Imagine two units with 100 health and no armor. Unit A deals 50 dmg. Unit B deal 33.3 dmg. With no upgrades unit A kills in 2 hits while and unit B kills in 3 hits. In other words, unit A kills 50% faster. But with a 100% attack upgrade, unit A kills in one hit while while unit B kills in 2 hits. In other words, with upgrades, unit A is kills 100% faster. Now, imagine both units have armor/health upgrades that doubles their increase resistance. With all upgrades, unit A again kills in 2 hits while unit B kills in 3 hits. In other words, armor entirely offsets the attack upgrades and unit A, again, kills just 50% fast. Regardless, even the proposer, here, seems to have moved on, so this potential change is moot.

Yeah, I think that experience will show how receptive everyone will be to all these other changes... I haven't looked at the UX. From what you posted, it looks fine. I will probably be ok with anything after a little while, though.

I would want something simple and flexible. What you proposed seems a bit complicated. I would rather all your effort to be put into adding individual units (i.e., make axe cav truly unique and not just a watered down version of sword cav; or maybe making a new fire archer unit that is weak against units but strong against buildings). Some tradeoff techs may be desirable, but I, personally, prefer those to be limited in nature (i.e., how you get to chose which type of sele champs to make). Some of what you propose could be fit into my personal ideal in another form but remembering 10 individual techs sounds really tough to learn. I don't like things that aren't easily understood. For example, I would not want to change projectile velocity because it is so difficult to understand how that impacts the game. All in all, I think you have some good ideas here, but I am not sure about the current form.

My point the entire time.

Honestly, all of this feels really complicated to me. It is a lot of changes to new balancing system (a26) that isn’t fully understood yet because it hasn’t been fully played in. I would also be concerned that this would introduce so many new variables that it would be difficult to discern the impact of any specific variable. In short, discussion feels like too much, too soon.

That’s only true if no armor or health upgrades are taken to offset the attack dmg. To be honest, this is really just a problem of units dying to quickly in late game, which leads to spam fights. I think the easiest way to fix this is to undo another of the a24 changes: health phases bonuses. Reinstating health phase bonuses would also offer the pure importance of forge upgrades and make phasing more important.

it's one unit gaining a balance against one class of units. that unit is also rarely used in fights and is only available in late game. It's effect will be very, very limited.

Should be changed. But, honestly, it'll have very little effect since players rarely engage in fights with heros

Fire cav still does fire dmg. It will be very useful against buildings. But yes, perhaps firecav should have the same interval as regular skirm.

Random is also a colloquial word, which is how it's being used here--people want a random civ generator that provides equal chances of selection.

It already existed in the form of splash dmg, which was taken out for other reasons (although I would personally be fine with it being reimplemented) You could also get almost exactly the same effect for palisades only by making palisades twice as large as they currently are. Both would be fine with me

1. Is purely reductive 2. was tried and failed in a24

They function exactly the same. Both are buildings that take up a small space and shoot arrows. Except one had a spacing requirement, which works. Also, as I have already said, I’ve never seen such a problem. If you really want to ‘fix’ the whole game then you should eliminate all civs except one, eliminate all units except one, eliminate all buildings except one, eliminate all res except one, and eliminate all techs. That will make the game perfectly balanced. That isn’t a ‘fix.’ It is the thinking that mires progress and eliminates features that you seek in every other thread.

That was the purported reason--you could create a thicket of extremely strong towers. I never saw it done, though. Even if it did happen, a much better solution would've been to limit how closely they could be placed next to each other. Eliminating features is just a lazy way to 'fix' something that could otherwise be properly adjusted.

Turrets used to be this way. It was taken out because someone for some reason thought it was OP. I disagree and think this was a very lazy solution, but I digress…either way it was rarely used.

This sounds nice. I think keeping the current bell functionality but making the area that the bell impacts would work (and then a second click that make it apply to a larger area).

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.