AIEND

Another point, the stone beasts outside the door are a kind of decoration that appeared very late, and the Han Dynasty did not have them.

I want to make "hunting" and "arson" similar to "slaughter" attacks, which are not affected by the main attack method of the unit, what should I do?

At present, the special buildings of the Han Dynasty are also against historical facts. What I mean is that the Han Dynasty may not need special buildings at all. The training of officials and related technologies can be placed in CC, and the champion soldiers can be placed in stables and barracks.

I think it is normal for an elephant to not be able to enter the CC. It would be better to directly modify the settings so that the elephant cannot enter the building outside the elephant stable.

In this case, the Romans should also have chariots that can throw incendiary javelins. In the war between Rome and Epirus, the Romans used chariots to fight the war elephant of Pyrrhus

How do I add a second ranged attack to ranged units? I added the code for the torch to the shooter, but it doesn't work. @ Freagarach

<Attack> <Ranged> <AttackName>Torch</AttackName> <Damage> <Fire>5</Fire> </Damage> <MaxRange>10</MaxRange> <MinRange>2</MinRange> <PrepareTime>1000</PrepareTime> <RepeatTime>1250</RepeatTime> <Projectile> <Speed>40</Speed> <Spread>6</Spread> <Gravity>20</Gravity> <FriendlyFire>false</FriendlyFire> <LaunchPoint y="3"/> </Projectile> <ApplyStatus> <Burning> <Interval>1250</Interval> <Damage> <Fire>2</Fire> </Damage> <Stackability>Stack</Stackability> <Duration>5000</Duration> </Burning> </ApplyStatus> <RestrictedClasses datatype="tokens">Organic Siege</RestrictedClasses> <PreferredClasses datatype="tokens">Structure</PreferredClasses> </Ranged> </Attack>

You have to remove the crush damage of the slinger and maceman together, otherwise just lowering the soldier's defense against crush damage will affect the balance.

I suggest that all "armed" buildings need certain conditions to resist occupation, including barracks, stables, and CCs, because once these buildings are captured, they will be used by the enemy immediately, causing great danger to the original owner, so it must be guaranteed These structures cannot be "complete" when they fall into enemy hands. I suggest that buildings can only be captured when their HP is lower than 25%. At the same time, buildings with HP lower than 25% cannot be garrisoned, so that if the player who captures a building is defeated later, he will also quickly lose the building he just acquired.

The metals mentioned in the game are actually copper, gold, silver and other metals that are commonly used as currency raw materials. I don't think we need to add iron ore. Otherwise, we need to add monetary resources, let copper, gold, silver mine provide currency, and let iron ore provide metal instead of them.

I think the remaining HP can't be higher than 50%, and the occupied tower should be easier to destroy by the counter if it is not repaired or protected by the army.

Command & Conquer: Red Alert has a setting where you have to reduce the HP of a building to 25% in order to capture it.

I can get someone to record it if needed.

I want towers to be uncapable or hard to capture, so at least the enemy has to carry a battering ram to destroy these obstacles.

The problem with stone walls is that they need to be built in territory, which means you need to wrap your town in a full circle to be safe, but it's stupid, because on the one hand it limits the development of the town, and at the same time there is a lot of narrow terrain on the map , only a narrow section of wall is needed to block the road.

If we need better defense, we need to strengthen the tower.

It would be more interesting if we added arson, the stone walls are basically not afraid of fire, but the city gate is another matter.

Even if there is no new model it doesn't hinder the adjustment of the data, I suggest you try my mod, there is a battering ram in P2, it is cheaper, has lower HP and damage, and is easier to be destroyed by melee infantry.

In addition to removing the damage bonus of spearmen and pikeman to cavalry, and adding the damage reduction of cavalry to spearmen and pikeman, it is also necessary to add the damage bonus of melee cavalry to ranged units, and increase the damage and HP of archers. Before I tested in the mod, a small number of cavalry (10) charged directly to most archers (25), and when they were all recruits, the cavalry only killed 6 archers and were eliminated. The impact would be much better if the cavalry attacked from the side and behind while the infantry on both sides was engaged, or if part of the cataphract was used to take the bow fire at the front of the cavalry line. And compared with pure melee cavalry, adding a part of javelin and archer cavalry has better killing effect on archers. Overall, more experimentation is required, I'll refine these settings in the mod and get someone to test it.

In fact, it does not necessarily need to be a shelter. It can be that the army gathers to the hero. The retreat is not a scattered operation without command, but usually follows the order of the commander.

In our eyes, the confrontation between infantry and cavalry is the firepower of the infantry against the mobility of the cavalry. Melee infantry is relatively passive against cavalry, cavalry can choose whether to attack infantry, but infantry usually cannot. Infantry with long weapons and shields can better resist cavalry attacks, but this resistance is because cavalry cannot kill them well, not because they can kill cavalry well. Because the melee infantry generally did not dare to take the risk of spreading out and chasing the cavalry. On the other hand, an archer is equivalent to a pikeman holding a 100-meter-long pike to the cavalry. Even if the cavalry wants to charge the archer, he must ensure that he is not destroyed by the arrow rain first. In this process, the cavalry is passive. Because if the cavalry doesn't rush to the pikeman, the pike can't poke it, and the cavalry has the option to leave the battle at any time. But even if the cavalry did not approach the archer, the arrows would still fly towards him. Projection weapons such as bows and arrows are compressing the cavalry's range of activities with their range, which weakens the cavalry's greatest tactical advantage, that is, the choice of contact or no contact, and the power to contact when and where. Of course, the premise of this advantage is that the firepower must be dense enough for infantry archers to do it. The nomads sometimes let the cavalry maneuver near the enemy, and then dismount to shoot arrows. This mobile infantry archer on horseback further compresses the flexibility advantage of the cavalry. Therefore, the archers are not unilaterally restrained by the cavalry, but a dynamic confrontation relationship of mutual restraint. The cavalry should take advantage of their mobility and approach the archers unexpectedly and quickly, while the archers should give full play to their range to compress the cavalry's battlefield activity space and prevent the cavalry from approaching. The change I propose is actually to simulate this dynamic confrontation in reality.

Would it be better to remove the damage bonus from spearmen and pikeman to cavalry and replace it with melee cavalry's damage reduction to spearmen and pikeman? I don't want to follow the Empire era definition and define spearmen and pikeman as "restrained cavalry" units, in this design spearmen and pikeman are trash soldiers, while in my opinion they are the main force of infantry, swordsmen are theoretically melee combat Can't beat them either. In addition, according to the basic point of view in Asia, the best weapon to restrain cavalry is the bow and arrow.

So a battering ram with a roof is the minimum, otherwise it is better to let the soldiers directly take the sledgehammer and the logging axe to demolish the building (some games have such a combat sapper setting). But as far as battering rams are concerned, we need the minimum battering rams of P2 and the advanced battering rams of P3, the latter may be wrapped in more rawhide, use more hardwood and metal parts, which is heavier , slower and stronger. As for the possibility of joining P4 in the future? I think if there is a technical upgrade in P4, it should be reserved for more complex siege weapons such as catapults.

The navy should probably give one more button command "withdraw to port", of course I would suggest adding an aura of repairing ships to the dock.

In fact, it doesn't matter even if the archer shoots the target randomly, because it is mainly a melee armored elephant rather than a long-range unit. The existence of the turret is on the one hand to make the Indian war elephant more in line with history, on the other hand, it is a weak enhancement. The elephant can have a certain amount of power to fight back against the harassment of units such as horse archers.