Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by faction02

  1. This could work too, Valihrant suggestion: " Should female citizen gather rates be increased ?" might be a good solution too. I would be curious to know why in previous alpha, it was decided that reducing women wood gathering relative to CS and giving an aura bonus to women to incentive their production would be a good approach too (if anyone remember...?). The gap between women and CS wood gathering rate has been reduced For point 1, I agree with the excess complexity argument. I would guess that more unit types are suited for environment with relatively low amount of units or slow game speed. Having too many unit types to manage separately in a 200 population game is very likely to become not enjoyable if each of them require different micro. For 0ad, if anything, I would guess that the early/mid game might be better suited. You raise interesting questions, I think I would prefer seeing a few of them used for civilization differentiation rather than to solve some problems with the game mechanic that can be addressed differently. Dogs or worker elephants bring more to the game than what could do a woodcutter.
  2. Yes, I agree that the complexity of the micro (rather than the quantity) might be an issue, I didn't think about that part.
  3. More units diversity will indeed make the game more complex and adjusting the art work to make all units easy to differentiate for all civilizations might be indeed a challenge. I am not saying that this is the best way to achieve it, but breaking the "turtling=booming" link in midgame seems important. Currently I would summarize midgame strategy as choosing between either being aggressive, either being passive. What I would find desirable is to have the choice between more than two styles of play. For example to be able to play aggressive, defensive or to be booming. Aggressive should beat booming, defensive should beat aggressive (in the sense that the defensive player has a better eco after the aggression) and booming should beat defensive If you try to balance a system with only two options (active vs passive), you will create a gameplay where either midgame is irrelevant because none of the strategies is better than the other, either players rely on micro to make one of the two strategy better than the other. In a system with three options, you can have a rock-paper-scissor system, and strategy become more relevant than micro to determine what happens in midgame.
  4. I kind of agree with that idea, but it would fit more a post about military units. To be compatible with citizen soldiers and global technology, I think the idea would be to have specialized units available in early game. A drill master would be fast to produce and interesting if you only use one barrack for example, but researching conscription technology would be better in the late game when you have many barracks. The idea might be the same as the one you had in mind with training rank2 or rank3 at higher cost, they should be interesting if you want to train a small number of them but in late game, if you want a larger number, normal units + military upgrades would provide a better return on the resources spent. Not sure about the exact cost that specialized economic units should have, I thought making them comparable to a swordman would make it easier to think about. The small metal cost would prevent early spam and potentially delay the normal economic upgrade. But I didn't spend to much time thinking about it since in any case, the exact number chosen depends on other potential balance changes. I had in mind that observing the economic specialization of your enemy might give you information about the strategy that your enemy might play. Not sure that's very relevant right now but I am taking a long term perspective here. For example, you might not invest in woodcutters if you plan to go for a mercenary/champions based strategy in P2. If they weren't specialized, you might mass them on wood before moving them to metal later on. Also, if you can harass the economic units out of their main function, you are countering the economic advantage that can be gained through their use. If you see the enemy running around your wood lines, you would have an incentive to keep your woodcutters there rather than giving them another safer task, encouraging risk taking therefore. Giving them 0 resources gathering in non-specialty resources sounds like going too far. For example, if a mine runs out, the miners should not have no utility. Setting their non-specialty gathering rate in line with other unit sounds fair from that perspective. I haven't thought too much about that part, it might depends on the name given to these units. Ideally, they should be substitute to the production of soldiers so civic center might make sense. From a logical perspective storehouse/farmstead might however make sense since their are "upgraded" units. If you call them slave, you might think about other buildings. I wanted to use them as a way to make the early/mid game more interesting but not change too much the late game. In early game the metal miner should be better but in the late game, he should be as good as the citizen soldiers equivalent (so same gathering rate as men, not women here). If the metal miner is better, you should start producing them as soon as you mine. Making the citizen-soldier fully upgraded better might work but it would raise the question about whether you want to get metal miner in early/mid-game unnecessarily complicated.
  5. I am not sure what you mean by that it would introduce a "lot more micro". From what I have in mind, you could simply set the rally point of the production building to the woodline and click on woodcutters to have specialized units on wood rather than women. From that point of view, there is no difference in micro with the current game. More micro would come however as a side effect since scouting and rushing might be more rewarding. Behind the concept of specialized economic unit, I was searching for a way to allow for more diversified early game that could still allow to play late game (without touching the concept of citizen soldiers). To be suited for the early game, ideally, that change should have only small effects that could be however meaningful. From a gameplay perspective, applying a tech at the unit level sounds like a good "trick" to allow for more diversified gameplay in the early game. Because it affects only one unit at the time and it is only temporary (the difference between specialized economic units and women disappear when economic upgrades are researched), the differences between the two types of units is designed to slowly disappear. The specificity that I dislike about techs for the goal that I had in mind is that they are "global", that specificity make them quite unlikely to be able to be have only small effects, i.e. allow to play the late game too. In the simple example that you mention, the logical follow up seems to be go for an all-in to end the game since you will have a worst eco forever. The fertility festival seems another example of a tech that can allow to differentiate between booming and building an army. However, to be balanced and because it is a global tech, it has to be designed in such a way such that it impacts mostly the late game. If the economic advantage given was visible too early, the player researching the tech would definitively has the advantage later in the game. Global techs do seem to be good tool to differentiate the early game.
  6. Just throwing an idea... Gameplay issue: Early/Mid-game aggression not favored by the concept of citizen-soldiers. Citizen-soldiers being about as good at collecting resources as women, the difference between booming and building army is significative only during the period in which fields are settled and the wood produced is allocated to fields construction rather than soldiers production. As a consequence, once a player has settled his food production, there is no real trade-off between booming and building an army since both strategy are about the same. Among the main suggestions that have been suggested: - Offer different set of strategies favored by tech: defensive, economic, aggressive - Adjust gathering stat/loot to change incentives - Differentiate more workers from soldiers Idea: Combine some of the ideas suggested and add specialized economic units (on top of the existing set of units) : "farmer, woodcutter or miner". A specialized economic unit is a unit with: low military capacity (similar to a women); high cost (similar to a swordman in terms of resources cost and training time); high productivity in his speciality (similar to a women with p3 upgrades in his specialty domain, similar to a woman with no upgrade in other domain); high loot (similar to a swordman) ; do not benefit from economic upgrades. The aim of the specialized worker units would be to give to a player the opportunity to actually choose between booming or building an army in early/mid game, without affecting the overall economic balance with other units in late game. With respect to a women boom, the specialized economic unit boom is more risky since: - they cost more to produce and replace; - the opportunity cost of denying them access to their workplace is higher; - they will be tracked more carefully by the enemy since loosing a soldier to kill a specialized unit is not a bad tradeoff; They should be useful to take mid game economic advantage (if not punished) or develop more specific strategies by developing one sector of the economy extensively. They might also favor CS all-in on players using mixed of economic specialized units and CS in mid-game and therefore reward more scouting at the same time. Related discussions: - booming = turtling - Strategies choice - Balancing Gatherers - Interaction and early gameplay
  7. The best would be to start with the exact same map generation
  8. Thanks for the fun challenge, it gives a nice opportunity for anyone to evaluate how well he is doing or try to copy some other people build. I usually don't think too much about the build order, I just try to spend all resources that I have and maximize workers efficiency. Trying various "normal" build order, I would always get to something between 7:40 and 7:50 but I would also usually float quite a lot of resources since it is also the timing around which I normally phase up. Taking a paper and a pen to write down the key steps of Vali's build then trying to implement it at slow speed is a nice exercise for anyone who want to improve his early game (or don't remember how to play). In a poor attempt to copy Vali's build at 0.75x speed with many mistakes (completely forgetting the berries upgrade among others ), I got to 7:35. I think putting 2 extra women or taking the upgrade is close to be equivalent in general, if you don't have extra berries. Taking the upgrade is however a dominant strategy in a normal game because you might have berries that you haven't scouted yet. Since you need to decide from the start if you want the upgrade, you should take the upgrade before scouting just in case you have some extra. In this challenge, since we know from the start that you will never have extra berries to take, it makes sense to consider build orders without the upgrade to get a faster first houses and barrack and focus on training units faster. About the food upgrade, 40 seconds is quite a long time for techs to be researched relative to the length of the challenge. If you start researching the food upgrade around minute 4-5, it won't make much of a difference relative to someone not taking that upgrade but getting extra fields. Vali research it quite late but get 7 fields, I tried early food upgrade with 6 fields or later food upgrade with 7 fields, both seems to give about the same result. The 7 fields/later tech is however better for a normal game. For the wood upgrad, Vali researches it before he makes the second house, so it kicks in very early. The main issue there is when the research is completed, Vali needs to develop his farm/build houses&barrack, i.e. add workers to the less efficient sector of his economy instead of adding them to his wood economy where they would be the most productive. Vali has only between 14 to 20 woodcutters in most of the challenge so it doesn't take too many extra woodcutters to compensate for the missing +25%. Relative to a non-tech build, on top of being better for middle-late game, I would guess Vali's build would also be much better, even around minute 7, if you have extra food: - The berries tech would be beneficial if you have extra berries; - You would be able to delay building farms to get more woodcutters in early game, therefore benefiting more from the wood tech advantage.
  9. I like the idea, but maybe it could be used to affect more the gameplay. For example, if there is a minimum distance between pyramids (similar to the one of tower), then the Kushites would be forced to spread pyramids (it could be interpreted as spreading cultural influence? ). This would make phasing up slightly more risky and makes early aggression on Kushites a more relevant strategy.
  10. Not sure if my explanation was very clear. I made two examples. For the first, it goes through all the chicken without hunting at all. For the second cavalry, it started to hunt only with the last chicken, the first one was ignored again. The issue seems to be for intermediate rally point, the hunting target is ignored.
  11. In previous alpha, I used to set rally points for cavalry units exiting stables for efficient hunting as shown below. The cavalry would go behind the deer and chase it in direction of the cc/farmstead, collect the food before moving to the next deer. A big advantage of this is that the order would be given to all cavalry units produced by the building as long as I didn't change the rally point, leaving me time to focus on other actions on the meantime. I could add scouting through rally point after the hunting and many other actions without any issues. In this alpha, if I try to do this, the cavalry units will simply move through all rally points, ignoring the deers. If apply the same principle for other tasks, like for example setting rally points on each berries then a tree next to my cc, all women produced, as long as the rally points remain, will collect berries before moving to wood when the berries are over. The only case where it doesn't work seem to be for hunting. I tried to apply it on chicken next to the cc, so there wouldn't be issue with vision. All chicken get ignored until the cavalry reach the last rally point. If the last rally point is a chicken, then the cavalry start hunting, but if it is not a chicken then the cavalry unit won't hunt. So it doesn't seem to be about the chicken exact location when the cavalry reach the rally point. I would guess that hunting can't be set as an intermediate rally point anymore. Is that correct? Any reason for this change ?
  12. I would guess you used to play Macedonians a lot too but mercenary skirm cav cost 25 metal back in a23.
  13. Outside of balancing the strength of mercenaries, I don't get how their prices are determined to start with. Mercenaries benefit from a discount on their cost that do not seem to be justified: - for slingers or swordmen, the wood cost is substituted for mineral at a 1-to-1 rate, all infantry CS costs 100 resources whereas their mercenary equivalent costs only 60. The argument that "mercenaries cost metal which is harder to get" doesn't seem to be a good argument from that perspective. For almost the same price, you can get 2 CS slingers (100 food, 40 wood, 60mineral) or 1 women + 1 CS + 1 mercenary infantry (100 food, 50 wood, 60 mineral); - on the non-economic role of mercenaries, any additional cavalry units trained in phase2 has no economic role in practice since coral are already setup and hunt is usually gone. So no clue why mercenary cavalry (80 metal) should be that cheap relative to their citizen (100food+50wood/40wood&10metal) equivalent. Mercenary cavalry are stronger, faster to train, and the embassy is even cheaper than the stable. In late game, many of the CS infantry trained won't ever collect resources neither, so this specificity would stop being relevant for infantry too; - with current metal setup on the map, the argument that "metal is scarce" doesn't seem to be very strong argument neither. I won't talk about low wood maps, where you can consider instant resign against a mercenary civilization with the advantage that a 100% metal cost gives; - if we compare the current early rush mercenary build to the fanatic one, fanatics need about twice the training time (20seconds) of mercenary cavalry (11 seconds), and they cost 80 food and 60 wood extra with respect to a mercenary cavalry. One fanatic costs 80food+60wood+80metal whereas 1 mercenary sword cav+1 CS skirmisher cav would cost 100 food+50 wood+80 metal (and the fanatic can't even build stuffs!!); - A cavalry swordman costs 100food, 40wood & 10 metal whereas the stronger mercenary equivalent costs only 80 metal. Anytime you can get 70 metal for less than 100food+40wood at the market, you have a substantial advantage. The first player to get a market can get his first 5 mercenary sword cavalries by simply selling 500 food for 400 metal... these 500 foods would only cover the food part of the cost of the 5 citizen sword cavalry.
  14. I played a game against 7 AI Macedonians, after capturing 5-6 theatrons, the game was suddenly kind of over. My territory influence became so strong that I automatically captured the remaining half of the map without doing anything. Every buildings with no units (including more theatrons, cc and forts) were captured just through the gain in territory influence. Where it becomes really weird is that: - the bonus apply to all buildings, so even a tower has enough territory influence to capture many buildings around it (to give an idea, the aura range of a tower is only about 3/4 of the territory influence it provided with 7 theatrons). - it cancelled enemy territory: even for the enemy cc that weren't lost, they weren't able to provide any territory root since all map was part of my own territory. The AI were confused because there were no spot available to build anything on the map. +20% in itself is pretty small, but when the theatrons bonuses are cumulated ( *1.2 or +20% for each additionnal theatron?) they seem to snowball into something huge. 1 theatrons useless, many theatrons OP?
  15. Rushing metal mines sounds indeed like a natural counter to mercenary rushes. There are however many potential side effects with this kind of change. What if in a teamgame, your mines spawn on the side where is your enemy (assuming you have no extra)? It would get quite easy to tower them and you would be at a strong disadvantage. I also wonder about how strong would be agressive cc/mc with theatron to completely deny mines, compatibility with iber walls, mountains(?) ... But I would agree that trying to get a working version of mainland with this feature in addition of keeping the current one could be a great addition to the game.
  16. My suggestion wasn't aimed at balancing sword cav mercenary nor prevent massing of mercenary but rather an incentive to use more variety in the type of mercenary used. If the more mercenary gallic cavalry you make, the more expensive they become, and you apply the same to Iberian mercenary cavalry separately. Building your army of swordmen cavalry would be cheaper if you mix both types rather than use only one of them. Once you have build both embassy, you would also have the incentive to produce the infantry from each embassy since the first few infantry mercenary trained are strong for their cost. The ideal result would be an incentive to have a mix of both citizen and mercenaries but also some incentives to use infantry mercenary which feels less interesting in the current stage of the game. It sounds more natural to apply changes in training cost to mercenaries than to champions, it would reflect the idea that the more you try to use mercenary, the stepper their price become. Kind if a supply-demand on a labour market logic.
  17. This sounds like a game feature which would limit the number of elephants trained in a game rather than the number of elephants used at the same time on a map, no? Just throwing an idea here, but would it make sense that the cost of mercenary increases with the number of mercenary trained but it would return slowly to its initial cost as time goes (if that's possible?)? Mercenary could be designed to be quite strong for their initial cost, but as their cost raise when more are trained, they would tend to get expensive for their strength. One should then wait for their cost to slowly reduce before training more mercenaries of that type. The interest of that feature is that it should encourage using all types of mercenaries/building all types of embassy rather than just cavalry which seems an issue currently.
  18. If we take ptolemies food trickle, pyramid available in p1 or starting initial soldiers, they would all be different form of economic bonuses (if we can call them bonuses?) allowing to differentiate gameplay and strategies. The food trickle is inherent to the civilization and can't be lost. pyramids need to be built, the player would have to decide how to implement his economic bonus by deciding the position of his pyramid: food, wood... That bonus would be also at risk since the pyramid might be lost. A starting additional soldiers would also bring an economic boost, the player could decide whether he wants to apply it to any resources. The bonus resulting from that starting soldiers could be lost or even converted into an aggressive advantage. Differentiation of economic bonuses should allow for different strategies and allow for some uniqueness. If you want a particular civilization to have economic bonuses with respect to other civilization, we should also consider removing map unbalances in starting resources as part of the civilization design plan. I am not arguing that it is not possible, just that citizen soldiers will make balancing the different civilization with economic bonus only to a few civilization very difficult.
  19. Catapults/bolts are specific units that do allow for some civilization to have some strategies that other do not have. As mentioned by Dizaka in one of his post, catapults/bolts can be countered by mobility (which can be played by any civilization but unfortunately not on every map). If while the enemy attacks your base with catapults you can at least engage in a base trade with your rams/elephants damaging faster the enemy base than what the enemy can do with catapults, then having civilization(s) with (better) catapults might be ok. The issue arise if the Roman can also turtle too easily. In that example, I would see Roman civilization specificity not countered by other civilization specificity but by a particular way to play the game available to every civilization. If you give a strong economic bonus in early game to a particular civilization (as it was the case in a23), citizen soldiers implies that this civilization is likely to play any strategy better than the other and it would dominate all the others with mass infantry in late game. I would rather see different economic bonus for each civilization kind of balancing each other out such that there is no big difference in late game. To come back to my previous example, an additional starting citizen soldiers for romans would be a form of differentiated economic bonus which would compensate them from not having the faster wood cutting bonus that you would give to Gauls. The different type of economic bonus would give incentives to play differently each civilization, but they wouldn't imply that you should play a civilization in the way it was design. I think the game should be balanced only on mainland, for other maps just put a warning sign that game might be unbalanced. It would be the responsibility of the players to ban some civilizations, play mirror civilization etc... if they really want to play balanced game on these maps. balancing civilization on all maps would simply kill any attempts for differentiation. I strongly agree there, there are many ways to balance the game and every suggestions made might be the best for a particular vision of how the game should be played. Some people might want to cook a pizza, others might want to cook a pie, if we don't agree on what we are cooking, it is not possible to know if we need sugar...
  20. While I would agree that 0ad would benefit from some balancing strategy, "playstyle" sounds like something hard to be anywhere close to balanced. If I look at that example, your description let me think that all Brit-Mace matchup would be about an early game in which Brit aggress Mace. In most case Brits should take a decisive advantage and if that wouldn't happen, Brit should simply resign before late game because they missed their shot and Macedonian superior siege and late game would allow them to take the advantage. I think my view is close to breakfastburrito, I would offer to each civilization similar option but allow players to decide how they want to play it. It is important that every civilization do not become too predictable. A system with at least a "threat strategy" (rushing) and a "punishing strategy" (booming/lategame play) would make more sense (Mid games strategy feels currently missing...). The gameplay could later be further differentiated by introducing potentially several threats, various definitions of what is early game/late game for each civilization etc... Rushing/booming/harassing should be decent strategies for every civilization, but it would be nice if each civilization is able to do it differently. Defining a rush specific to a civilization would consist in combining civilization bonus+starting units+ starting building+available units/technology to allow for that rush to be specific. For example: Romans have faster training of soldiers, giving them a barrack that cost only stones, the availability of swordmen p1 which allow to use starting resources for faster soldiers production and maybe one additional starting units could allow that civilization to go for early infantry rush. A Roman player would decide whether he wants to go for that infantry rush, if we wants to add a few spear cavalries to implement a more complex version, or if he prefers booming and plays something specific to Romans in late game. The enemy would have to decide whether he prepares to defend the Roman infantry rush, goes for a rush specific to his civilization or boom to play a later game strategy specific to his civilization but about equally valid as a lategame strategy.
  21. Nice, worth looking what others think about it. Not sure if I explained well my intuition. My issue with ships is that the arrows are spread over all ships in range instead of having them used to kill one units after the other as it is the case for other units type. The first arrow goes to the first ships, the second arrow to another ships etc...( vs all arrows goes to one ship until it dies as it would be the case for another unit type). If I can put my 10 ships in the same spot, I can make sure the enemy ships will spread the arrows on the 10 of them and if I have more ships, I also have more units to split the arrows while I would at the same time fire more arrows on the enemy. When my ships do not overlap, ships in the back will usually be out of range. They will therefore not be targeted nor fire at the enemy ships. If I do a quick drawing of ships range with each color standing for a different player: - ship B only targets the enemy ship F; - ship C will spread one third of his arrows on each ship D, E and F; - ships D and E will fire only at ship C; - ship F will fire at ship C and ship B, both receiving half of the dps; If ships do not move, ships C will be the first one to die since it receive all arrows from D and E and half of the arrows from ship F. Ship F will be the second one to die since it receives all arrows from ship B and one third of the arrow from ship C. Both player loose one ship. With overlapping ships: - B and C send one third of their arrows on each enemy ship; - D, E and F send half of their arrows on each enemy ship; In this case, I would expect the blue player to loose 0 ship while the red player loose everything. Since repairing is free, the blue player may never loose a ship if he is active in repairing them and there is no possibility to ever come back. The initial number advantage can be cumulated over time.
  22. I haven't tested much the feature yet, but it seems problematic for ships. Since ships do not target a particular units but spread their arrows on all the targets, overlapping units is quite problematic. If we think about 9 ships perfectly overlapping each other fighting 10 identical ships perfectly overlapping each other, the 9 ships would all die while the 10 ships would all be damaged but survive. Of course, in practice, ships do not overlap perfectly but this is just to illustrate the issue. I was wondering whether the pathfinding problematic should be split into 2 parts: ground pathfinding and naval pathfinding? The two problems are quite different I would guess since on water, there is usually fewer units and less obstacles. On games like Starcraft2, flying units overlap each other while ground units do not so I was wondering if something like this could make sense for 0ad and potentially help to get an easy/temporary fix at least.
  23. Thanks, many interesting posts that I missed but are closed to the suggestions that I wanted to make. Improving naval warfare: Currently with ships overlapping each others, there is no possibility to target damaged ships or even to flank enemy ships to maximize your own damages while minimizing enemy damages. Snowballing on naval maps is currently pretty strong since once a player has more ships, there is very little actions that the opponent could do to reverse a number advantage. Having a larger variety of upgrades available for ships and adjusting ships movements to allow for some micro could help to make naval maps more fun and reduce snowballing on naval maps. Improving formations: While there is a lot to do to improve formations, a part that I particularly dislike is that units run to get into formation. If anything, units should be slow to get into formations (but formations would provide other advantages). Currently, if a player clicks on square formations, melee and range infantry will run toward each other, making it impossible to use cavalry to effectively flank range infantry since one click will counter it. Players often goes for mass cavalry or no cavalry at all. If flanking was effective, then players might have more incentives to use a mix of infantry/cavalry for their army. Introducing mainland variety: Many ideas have been made to improve maps with many being already coded (mercenary camps, tree groves, fertile lands...). These changes could have important implications for the overall gameplay, the choices of strategies, the overall balance or even game performances. Having them implemented at the map level could allow for more experimentation without any damages to the development of other aspects of the game. These experimental maps could be useful to test the features themselves (for example the lag generated by tree groves), help to understand how map designs affect current balance and contribute to understand how new features could contribute to the improvement of the existing map pools. If anything, the new maps would therefore only contribute to improve the interest for the game. Seasonal rating: I think resetting ratings with the release of each new alpha might help to stimulate the interest of players to have rated games. It would be easier to become, at least temporarily, the best 0ad player for anyone and player who were slower to learn the game could have a fresh start. For each season, the ratings at the end of the season could be saved on the website for posterity.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  • Create New...