BreakfastBurrito_007
-
Posts
1.395 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by BreakfastBurrito_007
-
-
I think @ValihrAnt's justification is great, the destruction of a city would logically lead to people leaving that city and entering the surrounding countryside where storehouses and farmsteads offer roofs.
-
15 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
For Persians I think we could really do something with spear cavalry in p1. Maybe give them the unique option to train both the spear cavalry and the javelin cavalry in the CC.
I have not played persians very much this alpha, but one thing that stands out to me is that they are very vulnerable to rush, even among the other archer civs. Mauryans have an easier time making cavalry because they can hunt more usually, carthaginians have a power spike from an op unit in p2, Kushites can also train good mercenaries in p2 although they are not overpowered, and can also train pikes and swords which can help defend from p2 attacks. Persia on the other hand is pretty bare, only getting the skirmisher in p2 to help their defense.
Perhaps this bonus idea is not well used on persians because it does not help them that much. Also, many things that I mentioned that make persia weak in p1 and p2 are likely to change in the next alpha, like merc swordcav, hopefully spearcav like you have been discussing, and (I wish) the addition of attack-ground.
I think giving persians spearcav in addition to javelin cavalry in p1 would be a good compromise because it does not give them a direct eco advantage in p1 but it helps them survive the rushes from civs that do have that eco advantage in p1.
-
On 20/09/2021 at 1:00 PM, LetswaveaBook said:
Also I would enjoy it if building 1 pyramid, 1 barracks and going to p2 for camel merc rush would be a viable strategy. Maybe make those merc camps cheaper as well?
A cool extra gameplay detail with this would be trying to get 2 metal mines within range of the pyramid if you want to make a lot of mercs.
Players have been talking about possibly differentiating the starting units to shape an eco advantage. For persians, it could be they start with 8 women and 2 cav, rather than 4 women 4 men and 1 cav. Does this add enough differentiation or enough eco bonus to be worthwhile? What do you guys think?
My thinking is that they already have one of the best late game eco with Apadanas and +10% population, so any additional bonus given to them should not be an inherent or long lasting bonus. I like giving them this because it would help them survive the early game/play it differently.
I suppose an alternative could be to have only an extra horse rather than changing 4 men to women.
-
43 minutes ago, hyperion said:
in a healthy environment
This is a healthy environment right?
How does it take less skill to do what @LetswaveaBook did? I think it is worth noting how successful @LetswaveaBook's rush was and also how even it was despite the advantage he gained from it. Also, his civ choice (seles) is perhaps the best civ to counter the carth rush, because its military colonies are quite cheap, and the combination of spearmen/pikemen/javlineers is much better to counter merc swordcav than spearmen and archers will counter merc spearcav, so in each fight where he included CS infantry, he had an advantage from that.
@hyperion have you personally tried playing against this in a TG or 1v1?
-
51 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
I play Kush and club Iberian CC's @roscany.
lul epic
52 minutes ago, Dizaka said:I *think* it would be different in 1v1s if CIVS were hidden from other players when selecting them.
This is a cool idea, but maybe better as a host option because I am sure people will want both options.
-
1
-
-
@alre this is true, it is possible to lose once training those mercs.
However, any strategy to counter them requires way more resources, way more skill just to stay alive, rather than turn over the fight. In a TG, it will make you disadvantaged compared to the carth players' allies.
-
58 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
n my "All civs are my favorite" thread, I suggested promotion techs for all units, up to advanced, with 1 unit getting an elite rank tech and 1 unit not receiving a rank tech at all. I'd say the either the Roman spear cav or the jav cav would be the troop type not getting any rank tech, and neither would be the one to get an elite tech.
I actually really like this idea of his, because it gives an extra way for players to respond to changes in enemy unit composition. A player would want to be careful with the units they select for rank 2 or rank 3, because they would want to leave some at home for eco. I have not heard many people talk about it in opposition or support, so if you are interested go to "all civs are my favorite" and see how you like it.
-
4 hours ago, faction02 said:
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.
@ValihrAnt is leading a thread for coming up with civilization economic bonuses. For example, one idea for kushite eco bonus is farms and corrals are 50% cheaper.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
ut it does not help so much to balance ranged units against melee units
By this you mean that skirmishers can beat either pikes or spears 1 to 1?
I agree this is a problem that won't be addressed by attack-ground. Would you prefer just reducing the damage of skirmishers? (I guess we could also reduce skirm cav damage too since they beat spearcav in 1 to 1 also)
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, alre said:
When coming to infantry, I think differentiation is much less enjoyable: archers are very different from skirmishers, but they are also very worse. I still think it was an error to take away from them the walking speed they had in A24, because archers could actually be employed in a way that is quite enjoyably different from shorter range units, if it just was viable
The main thing making archers underpowered in a25 is their inability to target ranged units like skirmishers because the skirms are behind some melee units. This effectively means their range advantage is nearly useless. Since they do so much less damage, they would be unable to kill melee inf as fast as skirms can, so skirms are a better unit.
If you add attack-ground into the equation, it could be possible to begin killing enemy skirms before they can even attack your melee units. This adds variability and balancing to gameplay without even changing unit stats.
@alre the main reason champions are massed (champion cavalry) is because there is no way to beat them with CS units, even spearmen.
I would be in support of adding back champion training to forts with no unlock upgrade, and adding 500 food 500 wood and 500 metal to the barracks or stable training upgrades. If this were the case, you would usually see a few champions added to mostly CS or merc armies, and would see massed champions only after a long game.
Also I recommend should go to the "all civs are my favorite" page and share their thoughts on @wowgetoffyourcellphone's ideas for civ differentiation there. I am particularly interested in the new kinds of military upgrades that would raise the cost and gather rate of the unit they affect (buy rank 2 for spearmen), these upgrades could be offered in different amounts to different units per civilization.
-
2
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
This could be coupled with their champions having reduced stats that improve with each subsequent phase
Hmm, perhaps 100 hp in p1 and +50 per phase
-
1
-
-
Another example of a possible mechanic that boosts immersion, and improves gameplay all in one:
attack-ground for ranged units
Also melee unit charging (much further from implementable I think)
-
9 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
I think we should brainstorm, it is a creative and group exercise to open the mind.
Iberians = Defensive and skimishers, good cavalry.
Rep. Romans = Good defenses and superior infantry as well as siege engines.
Carthage Commercial Strong Walls defenses and Mercenaries.
Egypt = Economic granary of the Mediterranean the southern kingdom complement of the Seleucids.
Seleucids = Large variety of powerful troops rapidly expanding across the map.
Macedon, simple compact Strong and flexible infantry army with fast and effective cavalry. Lots of Greek science.
Gauls, rapids, good use of metal and Rush fast good looting and burning cities. Good rush.
Britons = would be like the Gauls but with more success defending and counterattacking., Good complement for defensive civs.
Maurya = good cavalry and mighty archers and elephants.Good for Rush and Defend. (booming spam)
Persians = Economy, good cavalry and infantry fast and easy to produce, civ for booming.
Athens = civilization of water and technology, well balanced.
Spartans = slave economy, nation of warriors and constant training, good quality with few troops.
Kushites = Millennial wealth, mercenaries, trade archers and very diverse troops. ( booming)
I would say this is pretty similar to both what @Dizaka had brought up for ideas and agrees with how civs behave in-game.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
Be able to train Spartans at phase 1. Simply speaking Sparta without Spartans is stupid. My proposal in a thread regarding ways to diversify champions included making making Spartan hoplites free as well, only offset by a lengthly recruitment time, two population, and a hard cap of one Syssiton in the Village Phase and +1 for each subsequent one. Technologies would be able to change the characteristics of its citizenry over time, making each Phase give an option to represent the political elements affecting Spartans.
The only way I could see this happening would be to give the sparta the option to train hoplites 1 at a time for 30 seconds each from the cc to prevent them from booming women while making hoplites for free, this way the 0 cost of hoplites would also be an opportunity cost of the CS and women that could not be trained in the meantime. This feature is one that would be either not strong enough and no one would ever use or too strong and it would be OP.
-
1
-
-
I feel a26 could be a great improvement if we are able to add and then balance out some good civ differentiation options like those from @Dizaka and an attack-ground feature for ranged units. Bringing AOE catapults back alongside attack-ground feature would be awesome.
-
4
-
-
55 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
in p2 upgrade skiritai to cavalry skiritai
I feel this might go to far for sparta, but I like the "make him ride a horse" upgrade idea for some civs.
58 minutes ago, Dizaka said:3 and 4 population elephant archers
Could you please elaborate on this one?
1 hour ago, Dizaka said:Camel swordsmen
Is this a new merc?
@Dizaka I think these are great ideas overall, and I like the vision for each civ. There are a couple things here and there that seem a little op.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
In my view, increasing damage of spear cavalry does not make cavalry better overall. It just makes spear cavalry better.
We have swordcav, which are considered slightly op by many people. If we buff spearcav rather than nerf swordcav, more cavalry units become more powerful, which by weighted average makes cavalry as a class of unit more powerful.
4 hours ago, chrstgtr said:That would mess with inf vs cav balance a lot (which needs a little work, but not much for generic sword cav)
What problems would arise?
In my opinion, buffing the counter to other cav would make them annoyingly effective at stopping other cavalry during early game, and leave them simply worse than swordcavalry for everything else. I think -1 armor for swordcavalry would be fine.
-
1
-
-
I know that we are all looking to diversify civilizations, and I think it is great to focus the civilization on what they do best. However, I think we should avoid narrowing the options available to that civ.
Britons, for example:
3 hours ago, maroder said:Britons could be the civs who shine at early agression but kind of suck in late game
The problem with this is it would make player behavior predictable. I prefer giving britons a great early game, and an average late game.
3 hours ago, maroder said:the playstyles of each civ
If I can sum up my views on civs in one sentence it is: civilisations should not have playstyles, civilizations should have options, players should make the playstyles. Does this make sense?
I think it is good to give each civ a few things they are great at, but not limit player choices because they feel the need to do what is "best" for that civ. I give an example of a bad civ for uniqueness/options balance in a25: Carthaginians. Carthage has one strategy that is "the best", it is almost impossible to counter. Uniqueness should come from unique options and not entire unique strategies.
-
3
-
-
35 years is nothing compared to the time wasted by hosting a game that will then be ddosed XD.
-
2
-
-
@maroder perhaps that would lead to some outageous women booming as well.
Either way, the main reason palisades are not used to protect from rushes is because they are too difficult to place and too difficult to ensure a good seal.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
romans
Assuming those cavalry are fixed from their current state right? Right now they are needing a -2 reduction in hack/pierce armor types, and probably also a small reduction in damage.
Right now they don't need a bonus XD.
-
@maroder I was thinking about your idea that fortifications should help with rushes. I agree. I was wondering what makes palisade walls so ineffective to protect from rushing and I am thinking that it is because you can not easily wall of wood-gathering. sentry towers should not prevent entry to an area, but they should prevent long term existence in an area, so they don't need to be changed. palisade walls are primarily for denial of entry, and should be made easier to build in order for that mission to be viable.
Do you think a good mechanic addition to 0ad would be walls automatically re-routing around small obstructions. In a woodline, it would look a bit jagged, but would still be sealed. I think also reducing the build time of palisades, and improving their ease of placement would be an improvement. I don't think palisades should be given extra HP, since this would make them more frustrating, and would not help against rushing.
Another possibility would be that a palisade can be built in a woodline, ignoring resource obstructions until it is fully built, and then it deletes the obstructions. possible issues with this would be players trying to delete enemy resources by building palisades that interfere with them.
-
1
-
-
@Dizaka I like this idea as well, since it could break the usual boom or rush continuum. However, we need to be careful with starting resoures and starting buidlings.
I would advocate for an upgrade unlocking champions in p1 to have a substantial food and wood cost as well as metal, since this would mean you need to have a food/ wood economic presence before taking metal and spamming champions. This reduces the effectiveness of the earliest merc rushes. Units that I could forsee as mercs in p1, skirmisher from ptol, slinger from carthage, and maybe macemen from kush in p1; javelin cavalry are a lot more problematic in p1 in my opinion.
As for p2 champions, I think they should be the same stats as they are in p3, since the player is probably already making economic sacrifices in p2 to make those champs, he/she should be able to get the value they purchased. That being written, I don't think any cavalry champions should be available in p2, given that p2 is so transitional, it would be game ending to lose 20 women on food at that time because of the loss of population growth momentum, especially if it costs your enemy only 5-6 champions, which would not slow down the economy greatly.
-
5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Because it is supposed to be the counter to cav with its anti cav bonus. If spear DPS is better then there is no reason to ever make sword cav instead of spear cav.
Swordcavalry would still be better at most other things if spearcav were to have better DPS against swordcav after accounting for the 1.75x. I argue that instead of increasing spear damage, we reduce swordcav armor. If we increase spear damage, it would make cavalry even better overall, which I don't think we need. That way we would still train swordcav for dealing lots of damage to non-spear/pike infantry, and we would train spearcav to try to counter cavalry as well as resist spears/pikes slightly better than swordcav (not by killing them fast like we see with carth merc, but by not dying to them super quickly).
I think this leaves a varied and diverse set of possibilities to use each unit, and prevents cavalry from becoming more op. @chrstgtr does this seem like a good compromise?
What if pikemen had their attack rate halved?
in General Discussion
Posted
@Dizaka That seems like a great idea, especially if it is based off of their proximity rather than a particular formation, since formations are not always the best way to move around in game.
This would add some element of skill in the positioning of pikemen, especially if you bring attack-ground into the equation. With both features, a player using pikemen needs to decide between the compactness of their pikes versus the volume of ranged units they protect from attack-ground, as well as how far to advance forward.