alre

I made some more tests. You can make your men flee too, if you put them in passive stance, however, and this holds true for women and priests too, if you command them directly where to flee, they will stop running. So you can't have both your people run for their life, and behave smart.

I think flee running is bad for the game. You have these unshakable men that fight to the last man without hesitation (they actually walk when retreating), but priests run away like babies, they are ridiculous. Also, the triggers are not very sophisticated, for instance when women are hit they run away, but not if you give the alarm, and if you call some of them away from the enemy, also they will be walking. I wasn't sure so I tested it: they run when a target gets out of range, but they only do small sprints, so it's hard to notice. By the way this makes them slow down if you tell them how to chase the enemy, therefore making a dumb AI possibly convenient over a smarter direct order, same as when you have people fleeing. All this running also makes chasing women with jav cavalry very uneffective: the javelin almost never hits. That's not enough for an introduction, to me. Sorry.

I think formation could use a rework. If someone introduces me to the code, I'd like to try something. To be clear, running to join formation is not the problem, for AoE-style formations (like we have, more or less), I agree is kinda necessary, otherwise formations would feel very sluggish as you said.

Honestly, I would disable running entirely.

Did Syracuse ever use elephants? I don't think there were numidian/african mercenary elephants.

why not a stable?

priests and women run away when hit, I'm sure of it. So making formations is the other use case... aren't there any others?

the click snaps too easy to the building. if I don't have the pointer on the building volume, it shouldn't take it as a click on the building.

wait... 25 spear cav cost more than 5 cataphracts

@user1 me: alre other player: Lubacca98 he quitted and I finished the game, but I didn't have my rating changed thanks commands.txt metadata.json

querias dos edificios diferentes, uno con los barcos en la playa, y otro que es la factoria? cual seria la diferencia en el juego? supongo que la factoria podria construir unidades mercenarias punicas. Pero en el juego los puertos ya son edificios bastante endependientes (todas la civilizationes tienen puertos que se pueden construir afuera del teritorio, usar para descargar recursos, construir barcos, a veces soldados, y hacer comercio tambien), asì que la factoria pareceria coherente con la manera en que se usan los puertos normalmente.

same does autociv, at now

Sorry but I couldn't agree less, built in advantage to high APM is not fun. Not in single player, not in MP. Micromanaging is fun when you do something that upstages unitAI, or whatever basic AI the game has, to help players do basic things (yes, pathfinder is one of those). It's fun to have your cav circle around melee and kill archers and women, it's not fun to click two buttons repetitively. Also, you are exaggerating the utility of autotrain. It can be a thorn as well as a bliss, you have to manage it too. Autotrain is only op when combined to corrals, and even then it's not really overwhelmingly op. And that's a problem of how corral works anyway, in my opinion. Are we still going to change them some day?

it would be confusing though. If we make lancer cav, we don't need spear cav anymore.

balanced map mod should really be in the game. I am not a fan of enforced symmetry, but that kind of balancing just makes the game smoother.

what!? amazing! what do you think about that option? I guess that would require a lot of work from the art team though.

I know right? It's quite odd how siege machines work in general, there is no consistency. Removing crash damage from ST would smooth that. I don't think this is the best possible solution, but it is a good balance to me, that allows a more realism-based gameplay. It also makes it less problematic to nerf elephants. The point here is that bolt shooters and ballistas from inside STs, were used during sieges, of course, but against the garrison, not against the walls, because they weren't big enough to actually damage walls from the distance. Their scope was to clear the area around the ram to break trough. For further convenience, rams were in fact included into the towers. Since this is a game and you don't want a single unit to do a lot of different things (cav doesn't dismount, soldiers don't switch weapons...), it's logic to have one that does the clearance, and one that does the ramming. references: - crash damage was removed from bolt shooters with this changeset, I don't know where and how it was discussed - looking in the internet, it looks like the widespread opinion is that ballistas were too weak to breach walls, although it's not clear how large one should be to have a chance on it - also looking in the internet, it seems that "helepolis" was given as a name to a tower that had a gangway to the wall (the one at Rhodes) and also to later towers that included a ram instead. The usage could depend on the age and the most general meaning would refer to any siege engine. Ammianus came out as a source in my quick research.

kushites have it too. maybe romans too? Even if you could garrison a bolt shooter in a ST, bolt shooters only have pierce damage.

mmmh true but helepolis was a general term, the one at Rhodes is just the antonomasia. Also STs are accessible to various other civs, so the discussions here are about the general unit. Also the naming in old languages is not really thrustworthy, the game is being made in english, and the original language names are given afterwards: you can see a clear example of this with greek barracks, called "strategeion", not to say about civs for which we don't really even know the original language.

this thread is about a quick balancing issue. displaying the garrison on top of fortresses, like they are on walls, is something I would like a lot, but I don't dare to ask because it's also a lot of work. If you want to try that, I can only say thank you.

STs in game don't look such as the one used at Rhodes, they look like ordinary, much more modest STs that throw arrows, or darts at best. Their projectiles have that appearance too. Elephant archers are too good for their cost. It's been proposed to raise their population to two. I agree. I agree with you here, but It think that, as siege weapons, they look weird. It strikes me as very strange that a ST can destroy a fortress, while a fortress can't hope to do any damage to STs. What I'm suggesting is to make a quick rebalancing of STs to define better their role while not changing it too much. Siege in general could be changed again in the future. For instance, if garrison is displayed one day on top of fortresses and fortifications, the ST could be given a much more realistic role of shooting at them (not the building).

I like the idea, and maybe have 5 siluette turrets? One can only dream... What do you mean? catapult and ramming are two very different things.

With this feature soldiers move much more smootly, meaning that in those situations where you would use formations in a24 to smooth out your men, you don't need anymore. On the other hand, formations still move in a clumsy and rigid way that loses a lot of time, and brings no advantage anymore.

This may be late to discuss in time for A25, but I think it's the case. From the point of view of game experience, it's weird that STs have crush damage, while fortress and stone towers don't have it, and bolt shooters don't have it either. For the way a ST looks, and the way is darts look, it's odd that it has crush damage. Also, from the look of it, a siege tower may host a little bolt shooter, maybe, but not a whole catapult. From an historic point of view, STs built by most civilizations in the game generally only hosted light infantry hand shooting at the besieged, and if other siege engines where present, they would have been used on the garrison anyway. AFAIK the only siege towers we know to have been used to breach walls were those that included a battering ram. From a balancing point of view, crush damage makes ST pretty strong, not much against buildings (also against buildings of course, but that's not the relevant bit), but against enemy rams, which should intuitively make splinters of siege towers (at least by my intuition). Rams are a clear candidate for countering STs, but they can't sustain STs crush damage in practice. Especially if elephants are nerfed, STs should still have viable counters, because they don't have many. In practice, if crush damage was removed from STs, it would make it necessary to play ST together with rams, which would make the strategy more expensive and micro-requiring. Other strategies that employ STs as mobile fortifications would not be changed, as pierce damage it what counts against people.

noone is going to use formations in a25. this feature makes them totally useless.