Jump to content

faction02

Community Members
  • Posts

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

866 profile views

faction02's Achievements

Sesquiplicarius

Sesquiplicarius (3/14)

144

Reputation

  1. Not sure that a tech for sieges could work well for palisades spam. Even if they one shot a palisades, they are slow to move and it would still takes a lot of time to destroy the palisades if they are in large number. I would prefer having units able to do that task to prevent palisades layers/spam.
  2. As a basic principle, I think it would be good if basic defenses used in P1 looses efficiency as the game progresses. In a23, increase in units HP when phasing up helped to fulfill this purpose. All units were buffed with the change in phases but towers weren't, so they be less effective at killing units. I agree. For palisades, the application of this principle I mentioned was, and still is missing. Palisades are often misused currently since they shouldn't be useful to block sieges but mostly be useful in early game. The idea of a tech available in p2/p3 to allow fast destruction of palisades seems good. A tech that could allow units to destroy extremely fast palisades in late game would work well, especially against palisades spam. So if someone used palisades in early game, he has to replace them by walls to have defenses in late game. Walls are barely used currently. Some players build palisades around them to solve that problem. In a24 (slower training time of units, no hp increase when phasing up), there is a very weak timing in multiplayers (smaller distance to the enemy) when you transition from P1 to P2. You spent a lot of resources and lose some training time from your cc to phase up so a player P1 is often stronger than a player that just reached P2. I have tried a few all-in with 4 to 6 barracks while P1 when the enemy reached P2, they seem currently quite strong. You start fighting with a population lead and usually, the enemy is unable to replace units dying fast enough even if he receives extra resources because he will lack production buildings. If on top of that you remove towers usage when they are upgraded, this weakness is even reinforced. I might limit cc's additional arrows to 10 maximum instead of 20 but keep a garrison capacity of 20. This would not change much the cc's role in early game but it would reduce its defensive usage in late game.
  3. Thanks for organizing everything. How can I help?
  4. The 300/300/300/300 starting resources used to be quite useful to differentiate gameplay: - It allowed Britons to go for an early slingers rush. It was also enjoyed by beginners since they could get their first 10 soldiers faster for a safe start; - Ptolemies could go for faster boom thanks to stones available for the barrack which needed 200 stones and mercenary costing metal. During the a22 -"No cav" period, that was often used as a substitute for rush, you could send your woodcutters away for a relatively long time without slowing much your economy since Ptolemies could keep growing without much wood; - I heard about a time when going for swordmen attack in early game using the roman bonus of faster soldiers training time, the starting stones for faster barrack and the starting metal to finance part of the swordmen was a strategy; - In a23, the starting stones allowed Persia to get the stable costing 300 stones at game start. With some hunts available it was possible to reach pop 100 with 20 cavalry to harass without being slowing down with respect to a player booming without cavalry; - In a23, with some extra berries, Seleucids could have boom comparable to faster civilization since with 300 woods and their starting 300 stones, they could get 2 barracks; As a player, I like each of these specificities of the different civilization, and I would prefer to see more of them rather than less of them, even if they might be difficult to balance. That being said, I guess there must have been some discussions about starting resources in the past since I remember a mod adjusting starting resources for each civilization. I would guess because many of these strategies were seen as too strong. That makes sense since other civilizations do not have comparable strategies, and depending on how the question is interpreted, one might want to remove these strategies but he could also add some for the other civilizations and try to work on balancing them. I guess a number of people who enjoy 0ad for the uniqueness of each civilization would also enjoy this part to survive.
  5. I remember reading this arguments here too and I am no expert in history nor elephants but this morning I came across that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxlmmtragFU I noticed that they choose to put archers on bigger elephants and "melee" elephants are smaller one for Seleucids. 0ad does the opposite for Maurya. Don't know if something there could make sense to insert some changes... On the topic of "elephant racism", I was wondering about the balance of the two types of elephants. Indian elephants feels pretty good compared to the other one especially because both takes 3 population space but one type has better stats. The Indian elephant is therefore more efficient in term of population space and quite good from this perspective. It is easier to move around 4 Indian elephants than 5 African elephants in the middle of buildings. But I am not entirely convinced that increasing the population space taken by the Indian elephants would be perfect... maybe 3.6666?
  6. I tried to search for the original motivations behind the introduction of this, but it is probably too old to be easily found. I was guessing that it was introduced as a indirect way to force players to gather stones even if it is not realistic to think that you might need these resources to make these upgrades. I did like this feature of a23, although I wouldn't say that it shouldn't be touched. I also liked that a player might not be able to afford all upgrades in the game and he would be forced to choose which one are important depending on the situation. But this might be a personal preference...
  7. This makes sense but then come the question associated with slingers. It makes the question more complicated since Athens or Ptolemies often run out of stones if the game last too long. Maybe going in the direction suggested by chrstgtr, it could be possible to use civilization differentiation and some specific buildings to make some adjustments. D3680 in the list if I copied it correctly this time... I do like the question of the role of the fortress too but I don't have any interesting idea on this specific topic.
  8. Thanks for reading it all. nani did a great job at summarizing the key idea. I have only describe what I see as a problem because it is a complex problem with many possible solutions and no easy way to say which one is better. Roughly, stone is the main resource for defense (towers/forts...), metal the main resource needed for attack (military upgrades, elephants, rams...) Many balance changes have increase this separation between stone and metal. Too much stones => Lack of metal
  9. I agree there too, I mentioned that I am not sure I wanted to see them used more simply because I am not sure they fit this thread. Wonders aren't really used frequently simply because if you can win with it, you might have won without it in most cases. This part refers more to the thread mentioned by maroder. I don't think changing the function of the wonders should make it more used by itself. I also agree that currently they are useful as tiebreaker. I would add there that they should make sense as an instrument to punish turtling. If you notice that the enemy invest a lot of resources into defenses, then making a wonder should make sense as a strategy to punish someone sitting back. If there wasn't the issue with slingers civilization, I would have suggested to rise the importance of stone in their cost from that perspective to force a decision between getting multiple fort/towers and building a wonder.
  10. A number of changes in a24 have contributed to alter significantly the status of stone within the game. While in a23 it was an important resources for all civilizations, in a24, some civilizations might simply buy their way out of stone collection. The role of stone is a complex question since it relates to many balance changes. Starting with some extreme example to illustrate the question: Mauryas can go to P3 and get all military upgrades except will-to-fight for only 750 stones. The player might decide then to add some optional 200 for a palace, 300 for a temple or 200 for an elephant stable or skip them all and go for a fast push with rams instead. Gauls might even need less stones since outside of will-to-fight and defensive structures, only slingers might be useful to spend stones. As a reference point, upgrading stones gathering rates costs currently: 200Wood+100metal / 400Wood+200 metal / 600Wood+300metal. Simply using the resources you would have used to upgrade stones gathering rates to buy stones seems therefore like a good strategy, since it could be sufficient to cover stones needs and avoid the time spent on gathering the resource. Changes that have contributed to reduce stone needs between a23 and a24: - The last wood/metal/stone upgrades stone cost was replaced by a metal cost (150 stones for each) - Stone cost has been removed from military upgrades (1000 stones in total for both melee and range infantry upgrades) - Fortress cost went from 1000 stones to 600 stones and most civilization required a fortress to get their hero/sieges in a23 - Barrack stone cost is set to a standard value of 100 for most civilization instead of 150 or 200 for some civilization Tickets that would affect the current issue: - D307: cheaper economic cost of technologies : 200wood+100metal / 300wood+150metal / 400wood+200 metal - D3680: Remove stone cost from will-to-fight I see 3 critical points for the role of stones: - Limited supply of stones: For some civilization, stone is a rare resource with a limited supply (Ptolemies, Athens…) while for other civilization it doesn’t have more value than wood. Removing stones usages benefits to civilizations with citizen-soldiers with stone cost. The problem of missing stones for these civilizations was however eased by switching to a system in which military upgrades applies to both infantry and cavalry. It allowed for an easier transition from slingers to cavalry/camels (even if it still requires stones to build stables); - Reinforce(create?) a negative correlation between the value of stones and the value of metal: With the change in fortress cost, the reduction of stones alternative usages also reduces significantly the cost of turtling. With too much stones available, there is no limiting factors to the production of fortress and towers. As a consequence of the multiplication of defensive buildings, it also increases the need for metal to build sieges leaving less available to play champions or mercenaries. In a24, it is frequent to see players using about twice more sieges; - Excess stone availability gives an advantage to civilization with range advantages: Since not all civilization have long range units (archers, catapults, bolts…), too much turtling makes some civilization really unpleasant to play in late game. Attacking a players with multiples fortresses/towers and archers that can shoot and retreat as needed to kill the enemy is far from being pleasant when a civilization has a range disadvantage. In a23, the value of stones in team games was usually correlated to the value of metal up until relatively late into the game. Stones would be always gathered and either used or sold for metal at a relatively good price. In a24, its value starts falling relatively fast once p3 timing is passed. In a23, the lack of stones had the advantage of being limiting factor to the spam of the best unit in the game. In a24, the overproduction of stones is extremely unpleasant since it raises new questions such as how to balance towers/fortress. Through my description of this problem, I would like to question indirectly some of the arguments that are motivating changes. For example, if you interpret the lack of metal within the game as being the result of expensive upgrades among others, the current values of D307 can make sense. If instead you interpret the excess supply of stones and too many defensive structures as an important factor behind the lack of metal, then D307 might in fact make the problem worst since instead of buying stones through the market or simply skipping stones gathering upgrades, it might makes sense to gather them and build 5/6 fortresses to force the enemy to waste metal on sieges. Comments on my description of the question?
  11. Roman siege walls were more useful when the army camp could make sieges and catapults wouldn't die to archers. I am not sure I would like to see wonders being frequently used in general. Once a player manage to get his wonder, the game is often over if he has time to use it. But I would agree that changing the repartition of the cost between how much is spent on the building and how much is spent on the tech makes sense. Civilization that have advantage on technology cost or research time might benefits a bit too much of their bonus there.
  12. I love the idea but I (and I think a few other players, chrstgtr in the topic below) dislike the flee mechanics in general. I think the part we dislike about it might be a problem here too. Having units running when they flee and other chasing them instead of fighting is problematic in battles. It is common to have a player setting his hero in passive to trigger the chasing mechanic in the enemy army. It can put you at a strong disadvantage. To abuse this feature, I would send my melee cavalry to attack your elephants and therefore force your ranged infantry to chase my melee cavalry instead of killing my ranged infantry. I would suggest testing some large battle with it, I would expect the result to be chaotic (I tried to make a video while testing it to show you what I mean but I messed up the installation. I might try again when I have more time). While this might looks like a real battle from a gameplay perspective, it might become quite messy. It will be great to try it. Keep up with the great job and the nice ideas !
  13. The higher gathering rate of cavalry is one of the reasons that cavalry rushes are interesting in early game. It allows to increase food faster and to pay for the more important food cost of these units. Removing/reducing the differences would remove the incentive to make any cavalry units in early game since as it was mentioned, hunt is a finite resource and once hunt is over, cavalry have no economic role. Assuming that all players have the same amount of hunt, if my enemy see me making cavalry and produce citizen soldiers, I would be behind by a large amount since I would have made units which are more expensive, need more time to be trained and will be useless for my economy later on in the game. Scouting will be highly rewarding since it will remove most incentives to rush with cavalry. For me, this is a solution that might create more new problems than it solves exiting one. I think this guide provides a relatively good idea about the importance of scouting and what a typical early game should look like. I guess once you have scouted the enemy, a greedy player might simply stop producing cavalry earlier if he thinks he is safe. Putting the cavalry on chicken in early game also makes sense since as illustrated in this guide, you might have quite a lot of other actions to do in the first few seconds of the game anyway (I guess that this could be a reason to have chicken in addition to the berries in the first place). I think it might have made more sense to start this topic with this part (if this is the final purpose), it would avoid the talk to focus too much on the suggestion made. While the idea of scout/hunters that have been made on the forum are interesting in themselves, I don't think they would solve this particular problem. How would Sparta fight archers cavalry/camels without having cavalry ? What about nerfing Sparta cavalry in late game rather than in early game? Gauls have better sword cavalry currently, so worse spear cavalry for Sparta? I might also have less issue if the nerf was set on stables rather than on the cavalry itself if the aim is to have Sparta producing few cavalry. Producing a few cavalry through the civic center would work as it is the case now, but you wouldn't be able to mass a lot of them since stable would be more complicated to get. If the aim of the post is to brainstorm to improve historical accuracy, it might also be helpful to define "poor cavalry". If Sparta had poor cavalry because they simply didn't think it was useful, then the restriction on stable construction time could make sense for me (I might even consider the idea removing them)
  14. Notice that no palisades were (ab)used by this player !!!!!!!! This is clearly an invitation for the enemy to come and try to take the civic center down. To me this demonstrate a high sense of morality and ethic by this player who wanted to assess the strengh of the combination fort/civic center with the only aim to try to comment on balancing posts in the forum!
  15. I made a quick test of your mod, thanks for taking time to think about the issue. A few remarks: - there is still the upgrade to increase the default number of arrows, so abusing tower concentration could be an issue. - I tried to think about early placement of fields, I have to admit that they would be tricky to defend effectively. I placed them around the initial farmstead that I used for berries in order to save early wood. I might have set them between my first woodline (ideally on the side of the map border so there is one less side to watch out for enemy) and the civic center since it has the advantage of providing a nice vision. Mines are still right next to the civic center, so I might also be tempted to have farms around mines. Soldiers would be very close to the fields and remain productive this way, an alternative approach might be to start farming with soldiers. - I noticed that the restrictions on the distance between fortress was still there but that there was no restriction on distance with respect to the civic center. I would guess that removing the defensive property of the civic center would increase the incentive to add military structure very close. With the aura that you have added, the civic center might be even easier to protect since it would also work in late game. I have tried to illustrate what my city might look like after 15-20 minutes as an illustration of what the changes might imply (though I probably built too many forts to be a very good example). About the issue with respect to defensive structure, I have tried to illustrate what I meant with my defensive city example above. Sieging a city is costly: if an attacker has to destroy all buildings preventing him from moving forward with sieges, there is an opportunity cost in terms of economy he cannot produce with the citizen soldiers protecting the sieges. If sieges are not protected they would be sniped for free. I added a "palisades net" here, since it is cheaper than a regular palisades wall but quite effective at slowing down sieges. I could also add a few palisades pillar and more layers there to increase the density of cheap stuffs to be destroyed before the enemy can reach my valuable buildings. I let you imagine how annoying it is to destroy something like this and how much worse it can become if the city is protected with archers/slingers, and you don't have any with your civilization. About the choices you made for your mod: - Removing the distance limit between towers: You could concentrate too many towers in one spot, with a wall in front and the upgrade for an additional arrow they would probably be abused. You could build squares of 9 turrets with a wall around to act as a mini-fort which doesn't need to garrison soldiers inside. There is also some maps with narrow passages where stacking towers on top of one another would be too strong probably. The current solution is not perfect but probably better the suggested alternative of completely removing the distance limit. - Removing the storehouse capacity of the civic center: What if your storehouse get captured by the enemy and you have no wood available to build a new one? There would be an incentive to fight to the death to protect a storehouse, probably outside of the aura of the civic center. The potential usage of the civic center as a storehouse and the struggler trees prevent from having this undesirable effect. For food, it might make sense but in general, I think I would prefer an incentive system. A system of fertile land like the one from Delenta Est could makes sense. We could also imagine alternative system that might not require to modify all maps like for example a small malus for farming if the farm is too close to a building which is not a farmstead (because it creates the shadow or poor land quality... ). You could then choose a safe build with farms next to the civic center or choose the one providing a better economy with farms in the most productive area. - Ungarrisoned arrow count is reduced to 0: I don't see an obvious issue to apply this for tower but I don't know what was the original motivation to introduce it in the first place. - The civic center ability to shoot arrows has been removed and replaced by an aura, that increases the attack and armor of soldiers close to it: I think this might be problematic since it could create an incentive in late game to fight right next to a civic center (the initial cc or a forward one). The second potential issue I can think off relates to differences in range from different units. As you mentioned, the civic center defensive capacity is very important in early game and if you have weaker units you might not be able to survive the first few minutes of game. I would put a red flag toward removing it completely since it could change dramatically the early game balance. Some civilization can use their starting stones to get very early slingers, maurya elephants worker make early hunting highly effective and offer plenty of potential for deadly rushes. Other civilization won't be able to compete with this type of advantages (especially in team games for which the distance between players is quite small). Finally, just a bit of food for thoughts since a forum is the right place to farm ideas. I really like Changeset 24971 – Wildfire Games, which introduces smoke at the armory when it is researching upgrades. The changes is great since it has a strategic interest for competitive player, and it is probably a tiny step in the direction your are aiming at. I usually put my forges in front line to protect more valuable buildings (they slow down the enemy, have no value once upgrades are done....). The animation change might give me the incentive to hide it from the enemy sight since if he sees smoke during an assault, the building could be targeted. Teleportation through buildings probably doesn't give any incentive to leave space for movement between buildings (if I remember correctly, in previous alpha units would always exit on the same side, so teleportation could go only in one direction). If that wasn't possible, I would probaly leave much more space between buildings which could help having city which have a more realistic look. I don't know if something like this would be desirable but at least I know it is feasible and might help to reach your aim. As mentioned in the other post, working through incentives would be better but in some cases it might be difficult to do... For example, it would be nice to prevent palisades spam somehow, something close to a minimum distance rules could make sense there too (though I imagine it would create issues when it is not in a straight line). I don't think that stacking palisades is desirable in any way so maybe there, why not working with some hard limit.
×
×
  • Create New...