AIEND

I'm wondering why you're so resistant to adding more damage types, I think it's groundwork that should be done to perfect the game, and it doesn't take too much time.

Because our purpose is to hope that these soldiers can better fight against armored units, rather than causing large damage to buildings and siege weapons at the same time.

I think the solution is to reduce the soldier's ability to work to some extent, adding citizens of both genders who can do all their jobs, because I noticed that many players are too focused on the economic function of the soldier and forget that their main task is as a warrior.

Microsoft found that they were incapable of perfecting a new game from scratch and making it popular. Therefore, it is better to add new content from mature old games, which is easier for players to pay.

I'm still not in favor of having soldiers and siege weapons share the same damage type. Another way is to have maceman and axeman inflict a "stun" side effect on the enemy every once in a while.

Mace and axe should really be more effective against armored units, I feel like this needs to specifically add new damage types and make armored units less resistant to this damage. Indeed, you should try to use long-range infantry to counter the horse archers, such as giving more faction slingers, and making the horse archers and slingers have the same range. If we want to achieve this effect, we may have to add new damage types. Or we just think of him as a cheaper ranged infantry that can outnumber the enemy archers (I think there should be different costs between different types of soldiers).

The Marine Corps should be trained as a very basic citizen infantry, because the navy itself is the characteristic of the Athenian civilization.

我觉得公开一些的讨论对平衡总是有更多好处，人们关注一些议题是因为希望参与进去，如果没有发言权，玩家就会认为这是与自己无关的事物而忽视掉。

I don't really agree with that, warships are not shields and armors that can be worn on the body, and even if the sailor goes from novice to veteran, it is too much to directly replace the ship with another new type of ship. The upgrade and replacement of mechanical equipment should require a certain amount of resources to research related technologies to complete, and the same is true for siege weapons. But I support making warships visually miniaturized. In addition, I also support that machinery such as warships and catapults can accumulate experience and upgrade from novice to advanced and elite. This upgrade does not require visual changes, because mechanical equipment It has not changed, but the operator is more skilled, can deploy and launch faster, and can hit the enemy more accurately.

The hit rate of catapults in reality is very low, especially in rough seas, and the stones fired by the catapults usually do not fly farther than the arrows fired from the city walls, so most of the time warships are not equipped with this kind of equipment. Not an effective weapon. It's just that there was a need for a "siege ship" in game design in the past, so there was it. But in fact, colliding with each other, shooting arrows, and throwing incendiary objects are more common naval warfare tactics. The large-scale ancient warships are usually to carry more soldiers, rather than to equip larger artillery like ironclad ships after the 19th century. If Quinquiremes itself has two attack methods, that is, it can carry more soldiers and launch more arrows, and at the same time, it comes with a catapult. At this time, the catapult is not the main weapon but a supplement, then I can support you. idea.

更新了一下 1.拉栖代孟派系删除公社食堂，以后精锐也从堡垒中训练。 2.调整了部分技术的前提和成本。 3.进一步提高了大象和攻城机械占用建筑物和船舶的容积。 1.The Spartan faction removed Syssition, after which champions trained from the fort. 2.Adjusted the premise and cost of some technologies. 3.Further increase the house space occupied by sieges and elephants.

Generally speaking, this kind of macro concept is more difficult to reflect. For example, I designed this for Athenians in the mod, when you build a prytaneion, this building will provide a global aura called "Democracy", which reduces the training time of Athenian civic soldiers by 20%. Because in my opinion, the more rights citizens have, the more actively they will participate in national affairs, including wars. The Romans' public baths are actually somewhat similar to the Spartans' public dining halls, but the latter being used as a military camp seems odd to me, and I think these types of facilities should provide some kind of overall effect.

The public baths were more representative of Roman concepts of social life, such as egalitarianism and civic participation in politics. But it's not very suitable for medical technology, because the sanitary conditions of public bathrooms are not as good as we think, and for those injured by weapons, public bathrooms often lead to bacterial infection of wounds.

The Roman Empire initially did not tend to maintain those expensive troops such as Cataphracts and chariots (used in the war with Epirus), war elephants for a long time, but to obtain them from the vassal states, which is a kind of money saving. way. But after the Jugurtha War, the Amazigh country was destroyed by the Romans. And by the time the Romans went to form these troops themselves, the Sassanians had already risen.

It has nothing to do with intelligence or something. If I express it in Chinese, this is what it says——我认为这是有违现实的认识，而且基于此的设计不会让游戏更有趣。与其单纯给剑盾手对其他步兵的加成，应当让它作为一种灵活的步兵，去包抄敌人的侧翼、攻击敌人的远程步兵，这样战斗会更加动态，更考验玩家的操作——而这正是指挥战斗的乐趣所在。 并且这样的设计也不是没有先例可循，帝国时代3里有一个“轻步兵”标签，被给予少林寺的藤牌手（Rattan Shield）和阿兹特克的土狼游击兵（Coyote Runner），这些步兵擅长攻击弓箭手、炮兵，但又会被长枪手克制。

Infantry Sword Counter Unit Attack: High Armor: Low Speed: High Bonus vs. Melee Infantry Countered by: Infantry Archer, Infantry Sword —————————————————————— This is clearly mentioned in the topic, just like that question about cavalry, here is not talking about weapons, but about soldiers, spearmen do not only have spears, but master both spears and swords, and swordsmen are actually degraded The swordsman's attack is higher than the spearman's is not reasonable in any sense, the meaning of their existence is to be flexible and easier to train, and the armor is cheaper. The result of abnormal thinking is the Greek and Spartan swordsmen in the game.

I do not recommend defining a swordsman as a "soldier who is more adept at melee combat", generally speaking, swordsmen are not opponents of spearmen, whether in formation or one-on-one combat. Spearmen usually also wear a sword as a backup weapon. Swordsmen are largely "soldiers who can't use spears proficiently but can only use swords", and in reality they are generally able to use more dispersed formations and more flexible Soldiers", swordsmen should run faster than spearmen, thus flanking the enemy and threatening their ranged infantry. The prejudice that swordsmen are more powerful than spearmen usually comes from the Middle Ages, when swordsmen were often knights who chose to dismount to fight, these warriors were not powerful because they used swords, but because they were more trained and better armored .

I mean, why add this? Why do polearms have this effect?

What is the principle of the deceleration effect?

Melee infantry may not be too convenient to be regarded as one type, but at least it can be divided into infantry with long weapons and infantry with short weapons.

Some materials resist tensile forces but not shear forces, such as Kevlar body armor that resists bullets but not daggers.

It should be said that it was his publication of this book in 1987 that influenced the popular online opinion, and in fact Age of Empires 3 applied this set of standards. But I don't recommend this division, because his point of view implies an idea that armor is related to function, for example, shooters are usually forced to use shooting weapons because they don't have armor. But in reality, on the one hand, because of the hot weather, warriors in Southeast Asia would choose not to wear shirts and armor and use swords to fight. The Mongolian, Safavid, and Chinese Cataphracts also made archery a top-priority attack. The division between light and heavy is largely outdated these days, and the Total War game is a prime example.

I came across these concepts in the book "The Art of War in the Western World" by Archer Jones. The division of light and heavy soldiers in this book is related to armor. For example, the Persian cavalry has armor and Throwing javelins, classified as general cavalry（通用骑兵） rather than light cavalry（轻骑兵）. In Archer Jones's view, a soldier's armor is related to its function. He believes that soldiers with heavy armor generally do not use shooting weapons, and soldiers without armor are not suitable for hand-to-hand combat. But in fact, for example, the Chinese, their armor is very standardized, sometimes whether it is a melee soldier or an archer, a cavalry or an infantry, they all wear the same armor.

I don't recommend this, because whether a cavalry uses a melee weapon or a throwing weapon has nothing to do with its level of armor protection, especially considering the fact that Asian cavalry might use both bows and spears. It's better to distinguish between melee cavalry and ranged cavalry, of course, you can define Cataphract as shock cavalry.

Bolt Shooter shouldn't have bonus damage to battering rams or siege towers, because what it fires is actually a javelin, and this kind of projectile is very difficult to cause damage to these solid armored machines, which is different from melee units, melee combat Troops destroy siege weapons by killing operators.