chrstgtr

there are some big caveats here, though, which I would contend make all the difference. See celts building pop bonus, stables, ptol eco buildings now have a cost (although still technically unique it is less so), all civs have rams, all civs have siege factories, multiple civs lost universities, lighthouse changed and as a result is now unused, cav health tech was propagated to all civs which devalued Persian and sele civ, Maury ele is less helpful now, Athens lost p2 champs, Sparta lost champ types, Roman army camp while still unique is also less capable and therefore not used as much. There are more but that is what I can come up with without having to think. I know some of these might be coming back, but there is no doubt that a lot of the game is fundamentally different now. For some civs like mace their uniqueness has basically been almost totally eliminated. The diversity isn’t as bad as it was in a24, but I don’t think it is anywhere near where it was in a23 (as imperfect some things were in a23) I agree that the game should put back in many of the unique aspects that are most noticeably and used

It seems to be correlated to the number of people in the lobby, which was high towards the end of a23 and is again beginning to get up there.

I haven't seen it posted on the forums, and I thought the devs should know.

On holiday until the 7th. Enjoy

Three cav raiding doesn't sound like a rush. That sounds like a harass. Killing five women with 3 cav is also not a successful rush--at best you are even after that exchange if the defender doesn't panic and create a bunch of idle time. Loot would help--saying having extra res isn't helpful is clearly misguided. No, clearly a good play should be rewarded, and a bad play should be punished. The point of what I proposed is that you would have to keep rushing (and keep doing it well) or else the rushed player will eventually recover and their natural late-game strength will overwhelm the rushing civ, which is naturally weaker late game. It could also be the case that that rushing civ provides a lot of loot if they do a bad rush, so that one bad engagement could flip the game back or even or upside down.

Not in the games current state. You could if loot was higher. That’s why I said it would be nice if there was a civ that had high loot, so they wouldn’t be slower as much by rushing. To offset this benefit they would need to be weak in p3 (ie weak siege, fewer upgrades to have weaker units, or something like that). That would create a true raiding civ that is meant to fight early and often

The problem isn’t 1v1s. The problem exists in team games where a player can have an incredibly successful rush and then get steamrolled by an enemy that boomed (ally of the player that got rushed). As a result, most rushes are only partially done because at some point (which occurs quite early) you put yourself more at risk of doing damage to yourself (vis a vis the booming enemy) than you can ever do to the rushed player. This is particularly true if your pocket ally is worse than your enemy’s pocket ally. Because of all this, most rushes in team games last only one or two waves. Multiple wave rushes are also much more common in 1v1s, which is partially the result of farther walk distances that give rushed players a chance to recover. ETA: so basically, loot helps make a “good” rush (ie, something like 10 kills and 5 deaths) be a viable strategy. “Lesser” rushes like 7 kills and 5 deaths can often cause you to lose a game even though you actually “won” that initial fight

Loot has a big purpose early game when rushing is very detrimental to your eco. It helps offset that. it would be nice if there was a civ that was naturally weak in p3, but derived extra loot bonuses so they could be a constant rushing civ

Or forced on every map. For example, some people like regicide. Some people don't. It is an option in every game, but that doesn't mean it has to exist in every game. It seems like this should be able to be added via an optional victory condition to every map.

Based on the games I've played, sword cav feels OP. They're able to run around so much that they never have to take a bad fight and can quickly find good fights. They can quickly collapse onto units and then can quickly escape when enemy reinforcements arrive. And if you ignore them, they can wreck your city. Your points are well taken, but I've seem some pretty absurd KDs wracked up by using sword cav. I'm not saying it's a must-fix right now--we need some time to adjust to the meta. But many games seem to come down to who made the most CS sword cav and who made the most champ melee cav. While this problem is obviously relevant in mid-game rushes, it is also relevant in late game when players mostly leave their bases to attack. In these late stage games, a relatively small group of cav can decimate an enemy's eco. Because this wasn't the case in previous alphas, I assume it has something to do with a25, the most obvious possible culprit being unit pushing.

I don't think spear cav is OP, it is just sword cav, who have 55% more DPS than spear cav and on top of that they deal full hack damage. @Jofursloft Also I think the palisade fell, but it did a decent job of buying time. If there would be no pallisade, you would have lost 15 women in the situation. See above where I later say sword. with respect to point 2, I agree the palisade did exactly what it’s supposed to do—buy you time to respond. putting men in fields doesnt address half the problem here, which is sword cav is op. And putting men in fields (which is already possible) takes away unit differentiation (ie men and women are different). note: the fix shouldn’t be one where we get rid of field raids as that eliminates a part of the game. It should be just to balance it, which is achieved by making op sword cav more easily countered (which is a problem here and elsewhere in the game)

Disagree. As I said above, I don’t think palisades are too weak. They are the same strength as before as were a big part of the turtling problem in a24. — they’re cheap and quickly built. So I don’t think having weak palisades is a problem as I said above. Palisades are meant to slow down attackers and give your army a chance to react—not to stop the attack. to the extent palisades are too weak, slower cav would still help with the “problem” because inf would have more time to react. change rep rate would have a big effect on the strength of the unit which wasn’t a problem until a25, where the rep rate and attack strength wasn’t changed. This the problem is something else (ie, the better path finding makes them quicker (and hence stronger) than before, as I suggest above).

Biggest problem is that sword cav is too fast with unit pushing. I would start by decreasing speed by 1 or so and seeing how that looks.

This indicates that cav, I particular melee cav, are too strong this alpha—not that palisades are too weak. palisades and walls are just meant to delay attackers fir long enough for reinforcements to come. Palasaides and walls are not meant to be an impenetrable barrier (and they would be OP and result in the turtle mats he’s of a24 if they were). Palisades are also buoy extremely quickly, so they should not be too strong

But that's effectively the same thing, right?

I'm not sure I understand. Does this mean that each unit/batch effectively take .2 seconds longer when made with auto queue compared to when it is manually done?

I'm aware it's different. But that difference is worse because you aren't actually controlling where they go/controlling your eco. Early game it it particularly problematic with women going onto mines.

FYI You can basically already do this by setting the rally point on the res itself. Setting it to a storehouse would be more inexact(I.e. should the unit go to the stone, metal or wood that is close to the storehouse)

Most 1v1 matches I’ve played in that are competitive for more than 15 minutes featured champs. For me it’s been TGs that are too frantic to wait to build champs

Yeah, this would require a big champ balance overhaul, but that’s ok IMO. Esp since initial reports from a25 seem to indicate that CS balance is good (I.e. nearing a potential final state). In terms of balancing, in some places, it might be easier to keep with we have (ie standardized champ units that are basically just stronger CS) and introduce all new units with these types of special characteristics. So for something like Sparta we could do as you suggest and then bring back a standardized sword champ or skirm champ. There are some civs that basically already do this (i.e. fire cav for iber is totally unique while Iber’s sword other sword champ is the standardized Doing something like what you describe above would bring back some of the civ differentiation/unique civ play that was lost in a24 and would also introduce some unit differentiation that people have (rightly) complained about without needing to totally restart balancing

I like most of these. Balancing gets tough. But this makes them closer to somewhere between a hero and a CS instead of just being a stronger CS.

Having 50 archers shoot and repeatedly miss is obviously a big loss of offensive power. That is why there is "a lot" of incentive to organize your troops better to ensure that 50 units aren't doing a duplicative job. With that said, my critique applies mostly to non-hero units. The main problem I see with applying a max number of attackers to heros (which again do most of the dancing) is that this will limit players' ability to snipe heros, which is often a big strategy in regicide games. In this balance, I could go either way.

Setting a max number of attackers takes out a lot of strategy/micro in the game since it takes away a lot of the incentive to position your armies when attacking. An alternative solution that would have less unintended consequences would be to just make heros' turn rates even slower than they are now since dancing abuse tends to only really occur with heros. Also please note that heros' turn rates did not change from a24 to a25. Nonetheless, I have not seen this happen much, so I am inclined to just leave things as they are until it becomes a pervasive problem like it once was.

Camels have shorter range and are less accurate. Still, it remains to be seen if this will make a difference (I’ve only played against it with players who are clearly better or worse than me, so the jury is still out here for me)

I’m also very biased (and it is still a bit early), but I think A25 is great step in the right direction. I would like more civ differentiation in a26 that creates unique strategies (e.g., fanatics in a21, Athens champs/slingers in a23, mace siege rush in a23 and earlier alphas, etc.)