[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

1 minute ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I think there is nothing wrong with using seleucid cavalry archers as 111 hp archers with extra speed

You are right, it is by no means underpowered, and when combined with the hero can sometimes be fun. I guess one thing to consider is, a24 TGs were so clogged with defenses and buildings and crowds of archers that it was hard to move anywhere, so it got boring to use those archercav.

Does anyone agree with me that seles could use some kind of CS melee cav? or does it sacrifice too much uniqueness to make one civ more flexible?

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

13 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

You don't have to go all cav, push with pikemen first then follow up with some ranged cav and caraphracts. 

no matter how you play cataphracts (except for raiding) they will always separate from ranged units and slow melee units and be obvious high-value targets. 

 

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

idk, but I expect there will be no point in getting seleucid spearcav champ until they get a melee CS cavalry unit; unless you do the mass horse archer strategy. Then just add mass pikes/spears and other cavalry wont kill you. 

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

2 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

tbh from balancing point of view sele cav is already pretty strong as you can charge the cataphracts at the front then use archer chariots at the back for damage output.

All of this costs metal, so any melee cav from sele is unusable because there is no CS cav to extend the lives of champions. These expensive units will get focused down and it will not be worth it. Persians can get all of this but also CS units mixed in. I am not asking for seles to have full cavalry composition like persia, it is just tiresome to mass archercav and simply use them as 111 hp archers. 

I would argue that sele cav is substantially worse than ibers, romans, gauls, brits. If it is a no-archer game as they are more enjoyable in a24, then sele cav is the very worst in the game.

 

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

6 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

These should not be the bread and butter of Ptolemaic or Seleucid army compositions.

should there perhaps be spearcav?  I just want seles to have spearcav anyway because it is so awkward not to have them in the composition.

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

@Yekaterina Thank you so much for the in-depth explanation.

Champions only cost a little more metal and everyone already has a wood and food eco so it is likely if the can afford mercenaries, that they can also afford champs.

1 hour ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

less metal perhaps  like 40 metal and replace the other 40 metal for additional food.

I have been advocating for this as well but for all mercs. Maybe for some mercs metal cost diverted to stone, wood, or food. This would also make the ptol hero a little less "enabling" of mercenaries with its -35% metal cost being less influential. I still think it should be -25%.

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

Pardon the reaction, I was just imagining if this was implemented.

No civ can afford to make a substantial amount of mercenaries, this is one of the biggest problems with making a unit a mercenary. Units such as the ptol camel and the seleucid archer cavalry are the backbone of their civs cavalry, doing this will deprive those civs of cheap options for cavalry. 

What makes persian, iberian, roman, and gaul cavalry so powerful is that they can preserve the more expensive units in the composition by surrounding them with cheaper, but still resilient units. 

Ibers: spearcav, firecav

Romans: champ swordcav, spearcav, skirmcav

Persians: everything

now imagine seleucid or ptol cavalry (with archer cav as mercs): everything costs lots of metal, nothing cheap to bulk the army.

For ptol and seleucids as they are, archer cavalry are their only viable cavalry option, so it is really bad to make that cost so much metal. I know that in a25 metal will become more available, but this does not mean that people will still want to make large portions of their army cost large amounts of metal. Lets say you make the huge investment to get 20-30 archer cav (as mercs), then any player with CS archers can easily fight at an economic advantage against them primarily because archer cav will stand out due to greater range and be focused down.

Making a unit a mercenary is a very big change that must be more carefully considered beyond whether or not it is an improvement in historical accuracy. In these cases it will cause a cascading effect of balance problems that need controversial and tedious solutions.

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

6 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

As an aside, the Dahae cavalry archer should probably be a mercenary also

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

1 hour ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

To be honest giving every civ the 3 basic units, spearman, skirmisher/slinger/archer and jav cav hurts the game.

Agreed.

The only way to do this and still have a somewhat varied game would be to follow AoE2 unit balance, meaning just make most civs access most units, but have some civs have an extra upgrade or two, and civ bonuses could apply to particular units for different civs. 

The main issue I have with making camel archers a mercenary unit is we are doing something that will most likely have a negative gameplay impact in order to solve a minor historical inaccuracy.

In the beginning I was interested in you guys discussion how to balance the new p1 merc unit, but I did not realize this is all because the camel unit is named "nabatEAEn"

Also we know Ptolemies:

1.  Had camels
2.  Had bows
3.  Had brains

How bad would it be to just call them Egyptian Camels, and leave them as CS?

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

3 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I feel 500 food and 500 wood would be better if you know what I mean. Reducing the cost to 400 food and 400 wood might also be fine.

In your mod previously it seemed to be just the p2 upgrade from CC, meaning that mercs are only allowed in p2 and after. Do you still think mercenaries should never be made in p1? Some other players have warmed to the idea of some civs getting p1 mercs. 

The reason I chose costs of 200 food 100 wood 100 metal is to give a moderate nerf to the strategy of immediately building a barracks, getting the upgrade, and training mercs from it. This way you could only train 2-3 mercs if you went for them immediately, making the strategy quite risky. If you built a barracks, got the upgrade, and then trained 2-3 mercenaries you would have 0 wood 100 food and 20 or 40 metal, so it is a tough economic situation to have unless your 2-3 mercenary rush is extremely successful.

Do you think this is reasonable or are you sure the only way to do a merc rush would be after advancing to p2?

Also I saw many people are frustrated about camels being OP for rushing, this is true. I feel making camels a mercenary is likely to make them more OP in p1 as the rank 2 archers either range or accuracy over rank 1 archer. Also, in p3 I am worried about the potential for insane levels of spam because of the hero that reduces merc cost by 35%. In TGs 20-30 traders could make camels a very easy thing to spam. 

It seems from a simple uninformed google search, that territory from ptolemaic egypt and nabatean kingdoms did overlap, so I feel it is not a very big stretch to allow those camels to be CS. Besides, there are vastly greater historical inaccuracies in 0ad that do not affect gameplay.

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

I like to go with "don't fix it if it ain't broken"

1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:

True. Perhaps we want to ban them from spamming camels early on. In late game it might be fine, if the opponent has pikes and spears. 

That means we put camels in merc camps. 

I am a proponent of leaving camels the way they are, but enabling the skirmisher mercenary to be trained from barracks in p1. What is the issue with the current camels? If the issue is that they are foreign unit that is not mercenary then we can just call it "Egyptian camel archer" and then its solved.

Mercs have the potential to provide much excitement in p1 and p2, I feel they are an awkward unit to use later in the game even in a25. I feel the ability to purchase mercenaries in p1 for some civs would be a nice way to give those civs an interesting rush option. 

I feel a 200 food 100 wood 100 metal 20 seconds upgrade from barracks in p1 is a perfect way to allow different merc rush strategies for all civs that have mercs.

 

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

@chrstgtr what do you think about the other option that I wrote about earlier today?

 

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

@Yekaterina do you intend to give ptols a CS javelin cavalry unit to replace the food role of camels with this mod? or do you think ptol bonus is enough?

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

Skirmishers are still a fine unit to rush with, especially with mercenary power. They do more damage, and can build things. This way also ptols have more options for rushing, they could do camel or merc skirms.

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:

I gave it some further thought and here are my conclusions:

1. Do make camel archers mercenaries, costing 60 metal. 

2. Give the Ptol player 1 free camel at the beginning of the game.

3. Still allow training camels from the CC, but as mercenaries. 

The expensive price of camels means your starting 300 metal can only get you 5 extra camels, giving a total of 6. This is enough for a small rush early on but at the cost of not being able to research any early techs, which is a huge trade-off. In late game players are discouraged from spamming camels because the metal could be used more effectively elsewhere. 

We can combine this idea with Nescio's idea of making camels have 120 health but slightly slower than cavalry. 

I was thinking about this too, with the "mercs in p1" topic. I think training them with starting metal could be allowed depending on mercenary training time. I feel that an upgrade of (200 food 100 wood 100 metal, 20 second upgrade) available from barracks would be a good addition to prevent the instant spam that would be boring due to the lack of an economic road to get the merc rush. The cost of this upgrade still allows the instantaneous purchase of mercenaries after barracks, but means that it would be only a few, making that a higher risk mercenary rush. It also allows a more delayed mercenary rush where you still get women and CS, but leave some mining metal.

Overall, I feel putting mercenaries in p1 for some civs could partly justify their still outrageous metal cost, and allow for more diverse p1 and p2 military/economic strategies (right now it is mostly just focus all on wood and food).

To be honest, I would rather see the p1 mercenary for ptol be the skirmisher unit rather than the camel. camels are needed for eco, and skirmisher units are already mercenaries. Making camels mercenaries would leave ptol with only 2 CS units, pike and sling.

[Walk vs. run]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone what is a battalion system?

only other RTS I have played is AoE3 and that had some very frustrating pathfinding and battle mechanics. If I remember correctly, any group of units were always in a formation of some kind. One thing I liked about 0ad when I joined was the freedom with which units moved.

 

[Walk vs. run]

It is true I am pretty ignorant of what is possible/easy to program or easier/harder for the engine to run, so I thought a simpler solution would automatically be better. The more I think about it, the charge mechanic could be pretty good. If people like this charge mechanic, then I think we would like a way to select the units that are ready to charge, or at least see how many of the units are ready to charge. 

11 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

If you get such an annoying situation, it is your own fault since you are the one that gave the orders

Please could you just be a little bit nicer when you talk to me? 

I was not saying I would be incapable of microing such a situation, I was saying that there needs to be some kind of way to micromanage this effect, like there is for most other things in 0ad.

I was also not trying to denigrate your idea, in fact I like it quite a bit. I was just coming up with what I thought was a simpler alternative for people to consider. 

 

[Walk vs. run]

On 20/06/2021 at 12:16 PM, LetswaveaBook said:

If we are talking about AoM, I would like to push forward the idea of(possibly once a minute) having a battle charge ability. This would mean you send your (infantry) units in battle using the run speed for a short sprint. They would aggressively attack the first unit they see, so it can't be used for fleeing. Units doing a battle charge get the enraged bloodlust status effect, significantly reducing their gathering ability for a while.

I like this quite a bit but I am worried about the timing, what if you attack once with 20 spears and then add 20 more spears, then your army separates from each other and it could get frustrating. 

What do you guys think about melee units simply moving at a faster (x% faster) when they are 10 or 20 m from an enemy? I feel this is simple, but there might be situations where this is frustrating that are not coming to mind. I don't think it can be eco-abused at least. 

maybe the x% faster within 10 m mechanic could be used only when an attack order is given, so they could not retreat at the same speed which would be super annoying.

I have been bugged by this for a long time and I am very appreciative of you guys for starting to do something about it

[Syracuse Mod Idea/Brainstorming]

3 hours ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

Seaside Outpost/fortified port

 

Syracuse itself went on to expand their influence ove other greek colonies although these were more akin to fortified trading posts than full blown colonies, much like the Portuguese Feitoria.

Can only be placed along shorelines and functions like a cross between a military colony and a market, where one can send caravans to.

Can’t train ships except for the merchant vessel but can heal all ships, otherwise it can train caravans, one champion and some of the mercs available to this civ.

This building will also have a technology that improves trade goods received by caravans that visit this building, again building on that risk/reward thing.

Its cost should also be between a military colony and a CC.

This is an awesome idea and I like the creativity of having blended buildings. From this, I expect the traders of this civ to be easier to protect, and to have a more blended economy.

The only thing about the general design of the civ is that people will want to play it on land too. I love the idea of making a dock/military colony/market, but I am worried about how infrequently 0ad players in general use water maps. Perhaps there can be added a function similar to iber starting walls, where on an all land map a pond spawns somewhere along the p1 border of territory so that a syracuse playe could at least build one "fortified port". This would enable the civ to be played more comfortably on land maps. 

I think this civ idea is unique and awesome. Good work

[A25 Feedbacks from testing]

I just tried romans and I really like the compromise that was reached at the army camps. Training the rank 2 units is a nice perk for the camps and the rams make them a lethal threat. I think I prefer this so far to the a23 camps where a great variety of ranged siege was available to torture civs like ptol and gauls/brits from the back of the base. In a23, the army camps were mostly used either to quickly spam out some siege weapons without a fort or to do what I previously described.

Nice work!

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I'm glad that people are receptive to the idea of a farm bonus.  Regarding the mercenaries, I do not want to eliminate the possibility of a rush; rather, it would merely change into something I would argue would be even more unique and diverse, both of which I would assume would be good things while hopefully providing a nerf making it less frustrating.  

This sort of change would make the rush somewhat unsustainable as it would require heavy metal usage, but the units themselves would be higher quality than typical citizen soldier counterparts.  

What sounds to be the bigger problem in this case is the state of mercenaries more than anything else.  As things are tweaked for the eventual alpha 26, I suspect that we will  be able to better consider this proposal.

Did you see the discussion about p1 mercenaries? the forum is worth a read, but we reached an impasse, and most ideas brought up there were at least partially unsatisfactory for a quite a few people.

The end result of the p1 mercs discussion was that we should see how they are in a25. If mercenaries are balanced to be less outrageous in metal cost, but still metal intense (like skiri) then I feel a p1 merc rush could be an easier thing to balance and implement. To be honest, modeling merc cost after skiritai cost would make everything related to mercenaries easier.

[Special Unit : Scouts]

Should the scouts be able to hunt? 

To be fair I was imagining a unit much more divorced from the cavalry role than the scout unit could be. I feel as long as the scout unit costs the same as a regular horse, it is ok for it to gather meat.

[Special Unit : Scouts]

On 11/04/2021 at 10:29 AM, Edwarf said:

but if it is a unit meant to replace current phase 1 cavalry, I am not very enthusiastic.

I am assuming we abide by this statement. I would like p1 scout cavalry to be faster than normal cavalry, and lower hp and a weak hack melee attack. 

I think it is reasonable for them to be cheaper than standard cavalry as well, provided they can't hunt. Imagine briton war dog but with less attack and more hp and more vision range costing 80 food and 40 wood, assuming food and wood are equal value, this is only 20 more res than outpost. I think this would be a cool unique unit for one or two civs. Perhaps it could have an upgrade that gave them more vision range, like outposts. Scout should be available from cc and stable, I feel this gives more flexibility to player, and perhaps can help lay the groundwork for a rush, to scout someone's base undetected. Also, these units could give a tactical edge in p1-p2 fights, if your scouts see the enemy without them seeing you, you have more time to prepare and more time to make a good decision.

the stats as described by @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded seem a bit too good in my opinion, perhaps hack attack 5 but repeat rate of 1.25?

 

[Blacksmith rework idea]

I saw the 1,2,3 tiers of upgrades are available in the blacksmith. I think I like this change so far. Would it be good to correlate the tier 1,2,3 techs with phase 1,2,3 and make blacksmith available in p1? I feel this would be an interesting option to allow players to somewhat counter that booming=turtling situation that we have discussed a lot. 

If I remember correctly @ValihrAnt you came up with the third tier? what do you think?

 

[Should Camel Archers be Mercenaries?]

@alre I like this idea, but I don't like making camels a mercenary. Mercenaries are very bad right now, and camel rush is OP and frustrating, but also unique and diverse.

I know ptols are already the less wood intensive, and I think a 80 wood farm rather than 100 wood farm would be an interesting bonus. When balancing, however, you should keep in mind that in a25, ptols will get their own food trickle bonus applied to themselves.