chrstgtr

Any thoughts and opinions on whether players should be able to target specific unit types? Players are already able to do this for their own units (i.e., double clicking on a jav cav will select all jac cav on the screen). But players are currently not able to select which enemy units they attack aside from doing it one by one. I envision somewhere where units will target the closet unit type within their vision, so basically the same thing as now, but units will ignore all enemies but the type that they've been told to fight. Such an option would help with the meatshield targeting issue where all archers target the closest couple of spears while ignoring all the jav inf standing behind the meatshield. It seems like it would also create better symmetry in what you can select with your units vs what you can select of your enemy units.

I’d prefer it only be CS. I have concerns that that’ll make champ spear cav OP, especially because there is a tech for champ spear cav with Sele and Persia.

Agree on all

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4506 people just can’t agree. If nothing else, I think the 2x multiplier should be implemented since there is agreement in that

It would be nice if there was a runaway option whenever charging is implemented. Otherwise, it will be all offense and no defense.

The only other thing I really have to say is that a lot of people (too many in my opinion) see problems in the the current game and want to create their own ‘perfect’ game from scratch. But everyone has a different idea of perfect and everyone can’t have their own perfect game that everyone plays. At some point, someone will be unhappy. We have what we have and unless you want to be like Wow and create your own game from new cloth then revisions can’t forget everything and become something brand new. Change will be gradual and frustrating because it isn’t anyone’s perfect game. But it’s also worth noting that there is wide consensus that this slow gradual change is an improvement from where we came. It’s not ‘perfect’ but let’s appreciate that it is ‘better’

Just want to say, we appreciate you, Stan. Lots of toxicity has been around the last 18 months or so and it’s easy to forget about good people like you.

Could you not just give them an aura that makes close enemy units slow?

I think a simple aura bonus (something like the old woman eco bonus but for fighting) would be simple (easy to understand so the game doest become overly compacted) and nice (creates new strategies and features). It also wouldn’t require code changes or anything like that. ton of its options here for sure.

Fine. But stats are adjustable. My point is, it is something g that was lost and it would be nice to bring back

Competitive team games too. Basically if you keep melee units around for that long it’s because the other side isn’t doing a very good job of killing units. It’s rare to see level 3 units in the game now and when you do it’s probably because the game is already over. sparta also used to have champ swords. Would like more than just the champ spears there. Yeah, I meant more cost etc. so that it isn’t just a backdoor to make champs also strong agree re officers. I think also suggested that somewhere back in the forums, though, and no one seemed interest. I think of something like that being a cool semi-hero bonus.

This was discussed before. It would be virtually impossible to do in competitive games for most melee units. The exception would be games where skill isn't close (i.e., not competitive) or with skirati (units that get a 2 rank head start). As a result, I would prefer @wowgetoffyourcellphone's suggestion in the abstract. I would be curious on how to do it so that cost makes sense and isn't just a work around for training champs to beginwith

That’s what I was thinking. I’m sure there are more (options and interesting) ways it can be done, but I def prefer something like that to an alternative where everyone just gets the same roster

Maybe, sure. My point is that if all civs have all the same units or have all the same “unique” features then nothing is unique. Realistically, all civs that existed around the same time period could basically all look the same: some spears, some swords, some cav, some archers, etc. But just because everyone had everything, doesn’t mean the game should look that way too because that would create a boring game. At some point, the game needs to be a game. That is why something like the Roman sword and Greek hoplite should be emphasized whereas some other units should just be left out to some degree

The old siege differences weren’t easily noticeable. I would to bring back full capabilities to the camp, though, which was very noticeable. I tend to agree that if all the civs all have the same units then things get boring fast. It might make sense to have some civs have primary and auxiliary units. Something like rome gets the base of swords and skirms and has the option of choosing one of archers or slings. This only works once the choices are more or less equal, though, which currently isn’t the case with archers being the worst unit.

One of, if not the biggest, factor on how fast units can kill enemy units is dmg values. The point stands: if a shift is to occur, it will be a delicate balancing act to keep range relevant.

You keep repeating how slingers weren't balanced in a23. Everyone knows this. That didn't mean you had to get rid of anything I listed above. Unit balance ≠ diversification even if that results in more civs being played. See how everyone wanted to play Maurya in a24 even though it had all the features you now mention. No one said the current alphas didn't bring some good changes. But most everyone agrees that it also brought some bad changes. This is the part that you don't seem to want to accept.

As for your metal reference, there was a change made to address that. That is how the process is supposed to work (Thanks, @wratii) We were discussing whether a23 was more diverse than a25. I didn't opine on how I thought those things should be except for one place where I said it was a good change. I was directly responding to someone who made false assertions to support a narrative that is clearly untrue (and notably the current narrative is now different than the narrative that they told a year ago to defend a24). If someone repeatedly misquotes you in a way that negatively reflects on you then that person is either doing it on purpose or not very smart. I do not believe the former is true. 100% agree. But sometimes moving forward means recognizing mistakes and correcting them--this is the only reason why a23 is a benchmark.

This isn’t true. When siege factories were unique to Mace you could push siege much earlier than with other civs. Now all the civs are the same with that respect

Stop purposely misquoting me. I already said I couldn't care less about stables. And stop claiming responsibly for more civs being used now when those are just balancing changes (many of which you had nothing to do with)-- for proof see how a24 had people ONLY wanting to play Maurya because balance issues. Want a list on how a23 was more diverse? See below for a list off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more because I know I can't even remember all the civs off the top of my head in the time that I am willing to spend to write this post. Sele a cav health tech that actually mattered Persia a cav health tech that actually mattered unique stables, which are a handicap and much more than something that just "'looks' different" Brits building pop bonus Gauls building pop bonus Ptol free houses/storehouses/farmhouses/corrals Mace a unique siege building that allowed for unique strats Rome Camps could do more Sparta More champs options Less pop (I wasn't sad to see this go) Athens More champs options p2 champs Yeah, there are few things that are present in a24 and a25 that didn't exist in a23. That's a good thing. But almost none of those changes (I can't think of any besides mers, which have caused huge balancing problems) have anywhere near the impact that 1-7 above had.

Unit balancing is totally different. Asking for balanced slingers isn't the same as asking for barracks to make cav or for Persia to be a unique cav civ. And nothing you mentioned that was an improvement occurred because of feature/design changes. People use more units because they're better balanced now. Also, a23 was a more diverse and differentiated version of the game than what we have now. Was it perfect? Obviously not--units should be balanced. But there are long lists out there about how all the civs are basically the same now, which wasn't always the case and stables and the lack of a special Perisa cav tech are on those lists. Just like how we shouldn't be afraid to implement new features that will improve the game, we shouldn't be beholden to keep bad changes that were implemented just because they exist now.

That's fine. I don't really care, though. Skirm and spear cav would only be a differentiator in so far as a player rushes p1 cav. So whatever impact this has will be pretty limited. The true differentiator civ differentiator in a23 (and before) was that Persia got +10% health, which was globalized to all civs in a24. In my opinion, that and stables were much better of civ differentiators than what we have now or what is proposed. Honestly, I would be fine reverting to what it was before and rebalancing cav so all the other civs have viable cav strats

You missed the point: you can’t play MP in old alphas because the lobbies are dead (even if all the old players are in the new lobby complaining how the old alpha was better)

Yeah, because it's actually called SP

Requiring stables is more expensive than having a barrack that can produce inf+cav. Stables make rushing less viable for p1 because it means a failed rush strategy can't be easily converted to boom strat. I don't think this is good thing. After p1, I don't think stables changes the game a ton. But I also don't see any real benefits of having stables and I haven't seen anyone put forth an argument on why they should exist where the reason why didn't already exist (i.e., scouting is always beneficial--I always want to know if my enemy made early military buildings). I'm personally not a fan because of this p1 issue and how it took away civ differentiation, but I am not losing a ton of sleep over it. Lastly, it isn't helpful to tell people to buzz off when they describe how they want the game to become. Sometimes people want the game to revert to have features it used to have. If you don't like that then you never should've downloaded a25 and should go back to a24 (see how unhelpful that line of reasoning is?).