BreakfastBurrito_007

archers being faster would not make them the slightest bit better in fights. They would only become a frustrating unit to deal with in p1, whenever a player is full ranged units. No matter how great the damage dealt by the highest damaging ranged unit, so long as melee are always killed before ranged units, the one with less damage will always be inferior. The game changed in more ways than just nerfing archers. Archers still deal significant damage to skirmishers, but they are almost never able to attack other ranged units due to ranged units' preference for closer units. If we allow the player to choose what area of the army to attack with ranged units, then the fights will not always be dictated by the loss of melee units.

These 3 issues at least are all caused by the same issue. I wonder what could be done to help archers without simply giving them more damage? or giving pikes less armor, or reducing skirmisher damage? What could be added to make range matter again? It seems I am the only one who has any excitement about attack-ground, at this point I am more interested in why other people think it is not worth implementing. Please share your thoughts. By the way, I would love to test the current attack-ground that exists unimplemented, but I have no idea how. :I

what is wrong with swords or spearmen to beat this? how does this relate to territory? I guess you can see when they are p3, but this does not show how many rams will come and the direction they come from. Dizaka is talking about p1. berries can form on the outside of your territory, so if there is a small bulge there, then you can reliably assume it is a farmstead for women gathering berries. As a joke we should all change our pfp to purple D.

At least there is no miles/hour, just thinking of all the frustration that system has caused for people who deal with units.

Range reduction serves 2 purposes as a way to nerf iber cav, it would mean they need to get closer to cc to destroy it, which gives the defender more opportunity to surprise them. Also, it enables other champions, and other cavalry units to be more effective against them. Also, if cavalry have slower acceleration, then palisade or stone walls would be useful for controlling invading cavalry movement and enabling spearmen to trap them. Also, iber cavalry would be more at-risk from spearmen or spearcav, or any of the logical counter units than other cavalry because they would usually exist closer to the cc, or enemy units. I also like a reduction in accuracy, and it might make sense to balance the nerf between range reduction and accuracy reduction. Ideally, at the end of the changes, iberian cavalry would still be good but vulnerable to other civs cavalry who have heroes and specialty units.

@Dizaka @LetswaveaBook do you think a range reduction makes sense for ibercav? I think it is a bit too easy to take down cc's. If in the next alpha, cavalry have slower acceleration to put some risk back into cavalry, then ibercav would be more impacted by this if their range was reduced. It at least makes sense to have reduced range since a javelin covered in fuel will weigh more and have more drag than one without the fuel. I think combining this with the removal of fire damage affecting units would be a good starting point to re-evaluate how op it is. As for an overall iber nerf, what do you think about removing the indibil -20% train time?

now think how good sele is after u have kush, iber, and rome on ur team. :O cheaper eles, faster, cheaper training of the best CS infantry composition.

A big attack with ptol or seleucids pike/skirm or pike/sling with hero and elephants is something an iber player can not counter at minute 15 if he is going for ibercav. While iberians have the best CS ranged infantry, seleucids also have that alongside the best CS melee infantry, which means that their skirmishers will be invincible for longer than the iberian ones (melee always die first). If there is any setup that can beat iber, then this has got to be it. Civ team bonuses now affect the civ that give it too, so in a 1v1 an iber will have 45/45 costing skirms.

Roman cavalry can definitely beat iberian cavalry, especially if the iber player does not have at least half of their cav army as CS spearcav. Keep in mind that ibers don't have a hero that can boost their cavalry, so if you mix cataphracts or consular bodyguard with a melee cavalry you can beat them. I have even seen Persian CS only cavalry beat 40-50 of them at once by trapping them against another army they were attacking. I am not saying the unit is balanced of course, it certainly takes way more skill to counter iberian cavalry than it does to use them. I think indibil should have the -20% training time removed, because the -15% cost is both unique and also good enough. As for ibercav, the unit, I would like to keep base damage of firecav the same, but just no fire damage to units, this way, the briton chariots are better when they are head to head. Also, reducing their range would help other units counter them, as well as make it harder to keep them alive while killing buildings such as CC, barracks, or fort because spearmen could degarrison. Let's not forget that cavalry in general are a bit too survivable in a25 anyway, and spearmen are really not an effective counter. If infantry are given fast acceleration and cavalry very slow acceleration, then there will be more instances where spearmen can touch cavalry, and this will effect firecav more if they have their range reduced. Adding or reducing damage is not always the best way to balance a unit. Many players who try to win by making this unit do wind up being useless anyway and the firecav come too late to make a difference.

If cavalry are given acceleration values that are slower than CS, cavalry players would need to be more careful, and palisades would be more effective at slowing down cavalry. If this is combined with eliminating the extra fire damage of firecav to units, then it would be a good starting point. I notice few players can do a conventional attack at min 15 and still make firecav on time. I usually do a small attack with about 100 men and a ram or two, and then retrain directly into the firecav and/or CS cavalry depending on the resources stocked. It can be overwhelmed if a player makes a big enough army to steamroll before my champions come out.

From youtube videos I have watched, it seems the maps absolutely fill with buildings by the late-game, making it feel super claustrophobic. It seems players have a hard time finding open battlefields where they can maneuver or scout.

I have used the iber champions in many TG's since the release of a25, they are indeed quite overpowered. I now feel kinda bad when I use them. There are things in the game that can beat ibercav (this chamion and CS cav that can go with it), and that would be persian, roman, gaul and perhaps seleucid champion/CS cavalry mixture. The main thing is that these civs have fantastic cavalry of their own as well as heroes to go with it (iber has no cavalry hero). I will say that while these civs and their cavalry can beat iberian champion cavalry, it takes much more skill to counter the firecav than it does to use them. Usually, once the firecav are greater than 20 in number, then there is nothing you can do. However, there are a bunch of different ways to stop the iber player from making champions. Delivering a fast, sudden and large attack (all available CS) will make it harder for your enemy to keep units working while only fielding a small army. I have thought about how OP fire damage is, both in damage to units, and to buildings. Previously I have said that the best way to nerf them was to reduce their armor. What if firecav only got their fire effect as a short boost and it took 2 minutes to recharge (out of pitch, I guess)?

I at first liked this idea, but the problem is that you can't go back. This is why I was in favor of adding the option to train rank 2 or 3 at a higher cost. If we were to make units such as these, I would be concerned with having 1-use units. A main problem could be the situation where it is efficient to make one unit for a specific purpose and then delete it right after. I like the idea of workers, I feel they should have increased gather rates for stone metal and wood, but be slower than CS for food gathering. I think a good cost for that unit would be 75 food, 25 wood, 1 pop. @faction02 I am intrigued by your idea for the specializations, but I have some questions. What is the reasoning behind making the units specialized by resource type? I feel it could be a good thing to make it harder to switch eco plans so quickly. Would the unit have a lower gather rate for non-specialty resources? Also, would these units come from cc or perhaps train them (fertility festival style) from farmsteads/storehouses? Another question I have is would the "metal miner" have a slower metal gathering rate than a CS when fully upgraded? If people tend toward slaves, I feel they should be for mining mostly (metal and stone), with same mining rate as CS, but cost a bit more food than women (60).

That's awesome, I wish we had something like that where I live. As long as it was not the only option. I googled some photos and it seems really small too. Is it at least super cheap?

Ah, the reason I mentioned it was because in the US Taco Bell is a meme for being ok tasting but lethal in the bathroom the next day.

Ah so Ugi's is like the Taco Bell of Argentina?

Dang, it looks like the spot! I just looked at the menu online and it looks soo good. Do you like the pizza or empanadas more?

Yea it is super awkward the way units get on and off walls. I feel they should disappear into the turret for 1 s and then pop out at the bottom, rather than taking inspiration from assassins creed. I would not say that this is overpowered though, since it could be easily countered by a mangonel or two.

I heard about 100 pop "trained" versus "reached". Often times players talk about each others population to gauge how well they are doing before the cartography upgrade comes in. They will go off of the housing metric shown on the UI, rather than the number of units that have come out of the barracks/stable/cc. Which metric of population is being used here? Is it the actual number of spawned units, or the "population" indicator, which includes unspawned units? indibil hero for iberians would make their skirms cost 38 food 38 wood (insane). If you pair that with ptol food trickle, roman inf training speed, then you have an outrageous boom. I think an interesting experiment would be to see who has the fastest build under constant conditions, like just kush and with an identical map and 0 team each time. This would mean that if someone were to have a better result, it would have been due to a difference caused by a player.

Swimming OP. Best sport full stop. On topic: I feel like this would be a nice thing to give to athenian units. Perhaps that naval hero that is super bad could enable swimming in some way? and maybe Athenian marines could swim without hero or upgrade. Perhaps the animations could have the swimmers tug some of their gear on inflated animal bladders?

How did Biden create this oil shortage then? and why would he do that? I also don't get how this is such a huge scandal.

"short life expectancies" surely you mean their time in usage, and not the time they spend in existance? Are you upset about the gas prices being super high, or the climate arrogance, or what?

Are you serious? even if they buy saudi oil, burning it still releases emissions in the usa. This notably does not increase emissions in saudi arabia. Either way, this does not reduce USA's carbon footprint. A better example of exporting emissions is buying beef from brazil, where the emissions happen in the country the product is bought from.

To be honest, the overemphasis on individual actions, such as people having fewer children or the president being less ostentatious is crazy. Oil producers in the us even support reducing carbon footprint, because they know it can improve their image and it won't lead to any decrease in sales. People can not change their carbon footprint very easily while the systems they live in are not designed to reduce it. With all this talk about individual responsibility, people forget the amount of power that governments/corporations have over our behavior as well as the changes that could be made to decrease waste and emissions. For example, there is the good idea to make companies responsible for the packaging that they sell with their product. At least in the USA, packaging is not made to be easily dismantled. If it were, it would be easy to sort one's recycling and improve efficiency there. I feel this should be a no-brainer and all it requires are some new, clever designs for packaging. Another idea would be to sponsor car trade ins, exchanging super old gas guzzlers for newer electric cars or efficient hybrids. I can totally understand people being financially trapped into continuing to use an old car, because they have exceeded the economic service life and now need to repair/ refuel very frequently.

I don't think you understand the time difference between cancelling future projects in the US, and OPEC oil selling (they don't ever slow drilling, they just slow selling) . When OPEC wants the price to be higher, they simply sell less oil. Energy infrastructure is expensive and it is not feasible to expand oil production capacity simply because of price hikes dictated by OPEC that can sometimes last only a month. The best way to fix the situation (which is not one of long term oil availability, but one of short term trade economics) would be to discuss this with OPEC and try to get a lower price, otherwise oil will still be very expensive. I am not saying this is going to be successful, just that it makes no sense to build more rigs/wells just for price fluctuations. Do you think OPEC countries care about pollution? Also please consider the fact that those hydrocarbons are burned in the USA despite being unearthed from OPEC, so that means all the pollution and carbon emissions happen in the USA and not in Saudi Arabia and such countries. This means that this is not a "scheme" to make the USA look like it has lower carbon emissions than it does.