chrstgtr

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.

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.