BreakfastBurrito_007
-
Posts
1.397 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by BreakfastBurrito_007
-
-
On 07/06/2021 at 1:54 PM, Yekaterina said:
Or, even better, soldiers can swim
maybe she could train marines capable of swimming? so it would not affect a huge number of units.
if they swim, what stroke should they do as an animation?
- Butterfly
- backstroke
- breastroke
- freestyle
People may be joking, but I think it could be a fun feature
Unit could be like naked fanatic. Little armor but strong bod from swimming.
-
2
-
Are lancers and spearcav being differentiated in a25?
It just sounds like they are/will be.
-
It is indeed a map issue, however I think it would be nice if forts and towers costed a bit more stone. In a23 stone ran out a bit before metal because of the amount of slingers everyone was making, usually this would happen around minute 30 rather than 20, in most games people never saw stone completely run out, unless you were unlucky enough to only get one 5000 stone source. In a24 about half the time players can expect to have only 1 metal mine.
26 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:For me it seems that the people who play these4v4 settings, chose the map to be such that there is a metal shortage.
Right now choosing map to increase metal means choosing a larger map, many players don't like this due to sometimes increased lag and some players just don't like walking so far. I usually like playing on bigger maps for 4v4s. I would like it if there was a size between medium and large, or better yet, a slider between minimum map size and maximum, with a percentage listed for consistency.
Beyond metal supply issues, there is also the problem of having a maximum rate of 24 people on metal for one mine. Probably this is also solved by your mod. It remains to be seen how bad the metal problem is in a25.
-
3 hours ago, Freagarach said:
ranged infantry on top of the fortress
If I understood you guys correctly, this would mean that when garrisoning the fortress with ranged units, the ranged units appear on top, like on stone walls, and can be killed.
How would this mechanic work? I imagine it would go along with a more comprehensive siege/fortress overhaul. I might make a separate topic to discuss this.
- Increase garrison limit of fort to 40. First 20 units just stay in fortress and don't go on top, additional units get sorted so that only ranged units go on top. If there are 19 spears and 1 archer, then garrisoning 1 extra spear would make the 1 archer automatically go on top. Top capacity: 30 units. I think a UI button could be added as a formation for fort: where you choose "man the walls" or "hold the gate". "hold the gate" maximizes your internal garrison and leaves remaining ranged units on top. "man the walls" moves up to 30 ranged units from your overall garrison to the top positions. ranged units on top of walls/fort do not contribute to arrows or capture defense.
- Bonus to ranged units on top of Fort: +20% range+200% hack and pierce armor. On top of wall: +10% range, +200% hack and pierce armor
- Units that can damage units on top of walls/fort: bolt shooters, archers, catapults (with splash), siege towers (explained below)
- arrows/bolt from siege tower do 5x damage bonus versus units garrisoned on top of stone wall and fortress, and normal damage to all other units.
These changes would make defending forts a more active situation: I think we should remove 1250 HP from forts and raise their stone cost back up to 1000. Also, removing their territory root would be good. Fort's strength, low cost, and territory root made forts less about defense and more about drawing out the game time in a24.
I think that britons' and gauls' rams should get + some hack armor, because it is very frustrating to send 5 rams to a fort so that a few cheap swordsmen can quickly de-garrison and kill the rams. The overall changes would make a fort/wall siege a more interesting mechanic that takes effort and planning from both sides to be successful, but a process that can be finished fairly quickly, unlike real medieval and ancient sieges.
-
4 hours ago, wraitii said:
As discussed on the diff, the idea is that auto train is slightly worse than manually training, because it uses slightly more resources at any given time.
That being said, I do agree that the current diff is insufficient, since you can't easily do something custom and let the autoqueue resume its work.
I would say that autotraining is considerably worse than manually training. I could only see it being useful to resume wood gathering during/after a big attack when you are already at max pop and are losing units.
@YekaterinaI don't know how to tell which diffs are being added to the game, or how to navigate that page very well. There was one that reduced elephant pierce armor while increasing HP and there was another that extended the 3x counter to cavalry found in spears and pikes to also include elephants, also another was to give ranged units 3x counter versus eles.
I personally don't like that last one since I would hate to have my ele get deleted by a single volley of archers while it gets stuck on a tree XD.
As for eles 1-banging units in game, I would say a spread attack of hack would be ideal, for the 120 ˚ angle forward of the ele. For that matter I would like to see splash return in some form for catas.
-
I think if eles can keep the high hack attack if melee units can kill them faster, this way eles will still be effective against CS units but won't stand very long against champions of any type.
-
1 hour ago, alre said:
If yoy start the match with an extra metal mine you have won already.
This is not a change from a24. Metal already wins the game. I think starting resources in general should be less variable.
@LetswaveaBook that was a really good discussion! I think this gets even more problematic when more of the economy becomes trade based, and traders can generate equal flows of food, wood, stone and metal.
Making mercenaries cost only metal gives us a conundrum. That being their affordability is very volatile: if they are affordable, they are op, but metal scarcity makes them unaffordable often. My expectation for a25 is that mercenaries will be bad, but if they are viable, then they will be OP. I feel that, to simplify the balancing and create a unit that fits better between CS and champions, we should follow the cost model of skiritai commandos (except with 10 resources shifted to metal) and make the mercenaries rank 2 by default.
I am hoping that more of you agree with me after we play a25 some.
-
People were discussing elephant splash damage. This would be another reason to reduce ele crush damage. Sounds good to me.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Unless I am mistaken, the new mercs will be default rank 2 and have their food cost removed. I still think mercenaries will be quite bad, depending on metal availability. There is usually always a better way to use metal than getting mercs.
-
Hanni once got 9 catas in one.
-
Keep in mind that Persians have access to all of this and then some (axe cav+ full economy resource trickle, full stable upgrades) + 20 pop (being removed in a25?)
Mercenaries will still be unusable in TGs in a25 as far as I can forsee. The problem with champion spearcav of Seleucids is that they are way weaker than persian champs, despite having exactly the same stats. Since there is no unit that travels with sele champ spearcav so any opponent rightly prioritizes them and they die very quickly. If seleucids don't get a citizen soldier melee cavalry then they will have worse cavalry overall than Iberians. I understand you guys being worried about how seles were one of the best non-archer inf civs in a24 and how adding something to seles while archers are getting nerfed will make them op.
Any more optimism about replacing javelin cav with spearcav?
This is still an odd combo for cavalry but I generally see two paths being taken for this setup: 1)archer cav for surrounding enemy armies and endless harassment. 2) melee only cavalry army spears +melee champs and/or mercs if they ever get that good.
25 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:For your information, Seleucids all ready do have two types of spear cavalry, a mercenary and a champion. Their champion does also benefit from a +20%HP upgrade. So the preferred solution probably is to make the mercenary and champion more usable.
I am not sure if English is your first language or not, but generally "For your information" is not the nicest way to make a counter-argument. To clarify, I was trying to say that the champions, as much as I like them, have a problem of being super exposed when fighting without CS soldiers to bulk the army so they are not a viable option. For a25, I think it would be a shame to relegate these units to merely raiding by not giving them a CS melee cavalry unit to produce alongside. This problem does not exist for many other mounted champions.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Ok, I imagine it is a frustrating bug, but there are many issues that are more exciting/rewarding to work on, like new artwork, game mechanics, pathfinding, balance ect.
This is like people who played cyberpunk 2077 complaining about small gaps between wheels of car and the road (if you get the reference).
-
1
-
-
Seleucid cavalry are very awkward to use since they don't have any melee CS cavalry. If archer cavalry (presumably along with archers) are going to get nerfed in a25, then I feel the time is right to give seleucids a spearcav unit.
The way I understand it,@wowgetoffyourcellphone said that there is artwork ready to use for sele spear cav.
I feel it is a good opportunity for a fast change to a25, unless this is not permitted with the feature freeze and all.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
No, it just means I have an actor available if WFG wishes to use it. Lol
hmm, I have not heard anyone explain why seles shouldn't have spearcav. Ah, well I suppose its past the feature freeze anyway.
It sure would be a shame not to use that actor wink wink.
-
On 19/05/2021 at 2:32 AM, maroder said:
Eurasian Steppe
Can someone photoshop Borat in here? I feel like it would be funny.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 01/06/2021 at 6:55 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Regular spear cav.
less goooooo
does this mean spearcav might make it into a25 for seles?
-
I totally agree that siege towers (and for that matter archer eles) ought to be more interesting/dynamic units. History is definitely the right thing to use for inspiration in this regard, but we should not be slaves to it. I do quite dislike the way elephant archers are used in a24, as simply meatier archers. I think making siege towers garrisonable with a variety of unit types could be fun/ interesting and owe to their flexibility (I'm no historian but it seems people can't quite agree with what should go in them, so why not any ranged unit?), we would need to be careful with the accuracy while moving (decrease), range and repeat rate values to make sure it stays balanced.
Elephant archers and siege towers remain great topics for discussion during a25.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Expect a tsunami of rams pouring onto your cc at minute 5
Not really. Just think about the time it takes to go p3 from p1, even with instantaneous buildings, and infinite resources it would take you 1 minute and 20 seconds just to go p3. then 30 seconds for the first ram. It would be impossible to get 1 ram by minute 5 if you have 300 f 300 w 300 s 300 m starting res. Anyway, 1 ram at minute 5 is no problem, just use women to kill it. Just because you can get p3 early does not mean you can get a p3 eco early.
Also, people would see you phase up based upon the expansion of your territory, they would see the ram coming minutes in advance.
-
21 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
And for that matter, I would prefer there be no building requirements at all. If a player wants to go p3 with 20 pop, fine. If a player wants to rush p3 without a market, blacksmith or other p2 buildings, fine. If you want players to make more types of buildings then the buildings themselves should be more worthwhile.
At first this seems outrageous, but is actually hella logical. This also opens up a bunch of possible strategies that are out of the envelope due to building constraints on going p2/p3.
-
2
-
-
On 04/06/2021 at 3:31 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:
How good do you consider yourself creating new units?
I discovered that the Iberians are short of cavalry.
don't they still have the spearcav, javelin cav, and champion "fire-cav"?
I hope so. :I
+speaking of adding cavalry...... How about adding a spearcav unit to seleucids? :D.
-
So what would the gameplay role of siege towers be?
would they kill infantry from 90 m, with bolt shooters?
would they be stronger than rams in health, or in melee damage vs buildings?
would they be able to destroy buildings from a distance?
would they still need to be garrisoned by inf?
From your description of their actual historical characteristics it seems like they would be a merge of all the siege engines available.
-
Sorry @Yekaterina, while you may be no artist, I am neither an artist or programmer. I am simple gamer.
What I can say is that I dislike mercenary cost reduction as a tech or hero bonus that is available for only a few civs. This means that no one will use the mercs that can't use those bonuses. Also, we should not need a tech/hero bonus just to make mercs affordable for a subset of factions, they should be affordable for all civs that have mercs. Perhaps a mercenary armor buff like +3 hack +3 pierce would be nice with a range of 60 m.
After all, mercenaries are in a tough position, and I don't expect them to be usable in a25 either.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Assuming an Iberian and a siege tower faction ally up, yes. However, it would still take at least 2 arrows to kill a female citizen as opposed to 1, and this only applies to one siege tower.
I am considering removing Herod from the heroes list as Thorfinn thinks he is more of a villainous character.
Is it ok for a civ to have fewer heros? I mean sparta at the moment only has 2, one being pretty much useless. If Jesus were to be a great and versatile hero, I don't think people would complain if he was the only one from the civ.
-
On 05/06/2021 at 7:36 AM, Yekaterina said:
Killing support units do not have that much of an effect in an actual engagement as the time you waste on killing support units means your soldiers are getting hurt by enemy projectiles while the enemy is not taking any damage, therefore, the aura is not too OP. However, if you are in a TG (unlikely) and your ally has a siege tower, then this aura can be very significant as you can take out the enemy's economy completely within seconds.
Can't this already be done? If you garrison Caros (iber arrow hero) in a siege tower, the arrows go from 10 to 17, +75%. This is almost equal to 3 defense towers.
unless the +75% arrows does not work for siege towers.
Lancer cavalry ( Shock cavalry) how do they differ from spear cavalry? and which are they?
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
People in the topic were trying to figure out separating lancer cavalry versus spear cavalry. I was confused and wondered how far they got in making a gameplay distinction.