chrstgtr

The problem with walls is that their only current purpose is to delay defeat. They don’t change the outcome of fights. They just make the defeat slower. In other words, they’re just meant to frustrate—that doesn’t seem like good game design to me. Walls act this way for two main reasons. 1-Rams can’t be defended from behind walls. To do so you either (A) need ranged counter siege (better cata like @Fabius has said), which isn’t a unit available to all civs; or (B) make ram attacks less viable. (A) already has a ticket made, but that only addresses the few civs that have cata. (B) wasn’t as big of a problem until all civs got rams in a24 (ele can be killed from behind walls whereas rams cannot be). I think the decision to make rams available to all civs should be reconsidered. 2-Walls don’t do anything. They’re just a barrier. There should be more garrison capacity so they function more like towers. Note, shooting turrets were taken out from a24–>a25, I think that change should be reconsidered and/or other garrison features should be considered to replace it Until (1) and/or (2) are addressed walls will be nothing more than annoying blockades that temporarily separate warring range armies.

So we break healing rate and repair rate to prettify some numbers? I suspect people like @chrstgtr are only bothered with those numbers because they have to look at them regularly for checking the opponents upgrades. If they weren't reflected or only accessible via other means, like entity model changes or let's say changes to the spy interface they couldn't be bothered. If you want to go ahead with this please also state how you intend to handle healing/repair It’s just not intuitive, which makes the game inaccessible to new players. It doesn’t impact me much. New players will ask me questions all the time that are like “what wins—one spear or one jav?” That shouldn’t be a difficult question and we shouldn’t need to play the game for hours to have an intuitive feel. Even though I know how units perform against one another, I can’t guess what units stats are and that’s probably a problem. its not probably not a problem for anyone commenting here, but I think it would be good for new players.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting changing the actual balance. Just that health should be the biggest indicator. And then things should have something like 10 armor standard for piece and hack and that can be slightly increased or decreased. Right now the values are all over the place, which makes looking at stats impossible to understand Unfortunately, this would be quite a math project.

We should just rebase all the health and armor, so that a unit's base armor and health points are more representative of the true health. Right now, it requires a lot of calculations (or gameplay to get a feel for it). Stats should be more intuitive. @letsplay0adwe can do this without changing any of their values...Just make it more intuitive to read by looking at health.

I would imagine that units revert to their normal behavior if theirs orders are now longer available—so same as now. If there units are chasing one unit in the back then that is the players issue to micro. I’m not trying to automate the game. I also imagine that range units would be the ones getting ordered to target specific units types I would see this as possible in what j suggest—you select all u it’s you want to control and tell them what to do, which is the same as now but you can tell them to target a ubit type instead of just and individual unit. Again, not trying to automate the game-just trying to give control to the player and avoid the problem where players have to click a 100 times to do this now.

Same reason why some people want some version of an 'attack ground': melee units don't deal as much damage as the ranged units. Melee units also have more non-attacking time because they have to walk up to the enemy to do damage whereas range units can just slightly change their aim and continue attacking without having to walk up to another unit. Additionally, Range units tend to 'overkill' melee untis because melee units have a tendency to walk to specific a fighting point whereas range units form a line. So what I am suggesting will pragmatically mean that more units are being shot at because two lines of range units may form where the units shoot at the unit standing directly across from them. The reason why the meatshield winner wins is because once a player loses their meatshield then their range units, which are more susceptible to damage, will get quickly overrun. Basically, I am just trying to propose an alternative to the attack ground debate that occurred in another thread where no one could agree how an attack ground should function (i.e. range units shooting randomly within an area vs range units targeting specific units in an area vs. etc.).

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