AIEND

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.

Yes, unless the opponent has no projectile weapons at all, soldiers without any protection will be shot into hedgehogs.

It has to be guarded by soldiers, this thing is not a tank, no one wants it to go on a rampage.

Actually I think it doesn't matter if there is no upgrade, just lower the HP and damage of the battering ram and make it cheaper.

The previous Han Dynasty siege tower model had some "Ji" inserted on it, very similar to this Ming Dynasty illustration, but the real Chinese siege tower will not have this on it, these melee weapons are a metaphor, like a weapon rack , meaning this is armed.

Two levels are enough.

The current model in the game is acceptable, but it is recommended to remove the weapon inserted on it, because this is a painting expression method in later generations, and it is not true.

If not specially manufactured machinery. Then the ram may usually just be a log with no metal wrapped around it.

This type of vehicle is very common in China, of course, the illustrations here mainly depict the situation around the 10th century, which may not be so comprehensive in the Han Dynasty. This is the siege tower recorded in the Ming Dynasty books in the 17th century. At that time, the Ming Dynasty army no longer used it, but some Tusi troops in the southwest area still retained this kind of equipment because they mainly used cold weapons, so the soldiers in the illustrations are all It is a southwestern ethnic group.

There is also a pattern of a battering ram without a roof. In theory, this ram can be arbitrarily matched with the roofs of the above vehicles.

There are also other vehicles with no rams inside, mainly to cover soldiers to reach under the city wall, dig tunnels or excavate the city wall.

This is 宋Song Dynasty

Then in theory we should allow soldiers who enter the Assyrian battering ram to shoot arrows out, the Assyrian battering ram should have more wood cost. It seems that the Egyptians and Nubians did not have wheels on their battering rams, perhaps because of the desert terrain, the wheels tend to get stuck in the sand and not move.

Do such battering rams theoretically also function as siege towers? I know the soldiers won't climb to the wall from above, but they can shoot arrows at the people on the wall.

Kushite is now using the same Assyrian battering ram as Persian, I know this is definitely not the reality, but has anyone researched this, if we want to make a new model of the Kushite battering ram, what would it look like of?

I would like the Elephant Archer to be merged with the Armored Elephant into one unit, which means the Armored Elephant has a "turret".

When will we allow livestock to be stolen like in the age of empires? I think this has a great influence on joining the nomads in the future. Would you like to start working on a patch or mod now?

Why not make shared sight a basic setup? This kind of convenient place for players does not need to be special.