alre

For some reason I can't log in on svn (it says I'm being rate-limited), but I'm following a discussion there and I need a clarification: there is a difference in the game between spearmen and pikemen? I thought they were synonyms. If it's not the case, which civ has wich?

Trying to pick up the point of the discussion as we left it, I'd say there is enough consent on the fact that spearmen and other melee units should have a more similar profile of damage (no piercing), spearmen should retain some bonus against cavalry (the way it is is fine to me, although @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded argued that there should be less difference, I guess there is room for balance tweaking) and that swordmen should have some kind of edge over spearmen where cavalry is not involved. This is only fair, considering the bonus of spears against cavalry, even if it's been argued that this difference is not as easy to catch in history, as soldiers using swords generally would have throwing weapons too, and contestual advantage depended on many subtle factors we don't even know entirely. However, unless (until?) trowing side weapons are implemented, I think we can let swordmen have a little bonus over spearmen, or just higher stats overall. Mace and axe folks can have the same treatment. I think this is the best solution for making the game more intuitive to play for everybody, it's the best compromise, until new features are introduced in the game.

I tried that already, all solutions still appear "non compatible", although I have to admit I don't really know what I'm doing and what VS solutions are altogether. Language of the screenshot is italian.

found it, but after installing I don't see any change.

I can't find that checkbox. What's precisely its name?

what's that?

I installed the required version. Don't know about the toolset though. That would be a fine patch, very much AoE-ish.

after cloning the repo, I tried running the game as that post says, and the game actually started, but just the main menu and nothing else. Following this guide instead, the VS solutions appear non compatible.

I think any of the proposed solutions here is better than the game as it is now! My proposal is just the simplest alternative I could imagine, to be fair, I like so much better the system proposed by @ChronA in the other thread. Anyway, before adding a lot of cool functionalities, we should fix what's broken. I don't care how, if the fix turns up to be another problem, we'll fix that too.

found it.

Agree. Although a bonus agains cavalry makes sense I believe. Could you link me the thread please?

tried that, didn't work. I'll see again some other day, a friend of mine made it, but he uses mac.

I'm not able to install the SVN version of the game, I can only read the gameplay patches in this thread. Hack damage of spearmen was indeed raised (and I was aware of it) but still remains this distinction between melee troups that are effective against rams and melee troups that aren't. This is not justified. Tagging the developers (from the other thread): @Acumen, @Alex, @Alexandermb, @alpha123, @arissa_nightblade, @bb_, @borg-, @Deiz, @elexis, @fatherbushido, @Feldfeld, @Freagarach, @Grugnas, @Hannibal_Barca, @historic_bruno, @LordGood, @Matei, @mimo, @Mythos_Ruler, @Nescio, @niektb, @Pureon, @quantumstate, @sanderd17, @scythetwirler, @Stan`, @temple, @ValihrAnt, @Wijitmaker, @wraitii

Spearmen already have an extra bonus against cavalry I think (dev confirm please).

yeah I know, if you notice, my first proposal didn't consider terminology. So what's the next move?

I can't possibly agree more! I think this change would make the game a lot more intuitive, coherent with other titles, and also quite a bit more trustworthy to history: from a tactical point of view, the hack/pierce/crush system, as opposed to melee/ranged/siege, if we want to call it this way, has two relevant consequences: spearmen are powerless against siege machines slingers can destroy walls Neither of them has any support in history. Let's fix this to normalize the game, then we can think of other types of attack (in vanilla at least - if modders need other types of attack I guess it's best to add them already). In general I think that toups stats should be designed to serve gameplay and tactical dynamics.

I mean the fact that you have to spare some particular units for killing siege machines, as the other melee units are not effective against them, whis mechanic is nowere to be found in other RTS. In AoE for instance, rams have high ranged units armor, but low melee armor, so any melee unit can damage it quickly enough, this is the first solution I mentioned above:

If it was someone decent at his job to make the structure of the ram, no man waved blunt weapon can ever destroy it. Not to mention swords. I've always assumed that attacking a ram was a representation of the soldiers killing the people inside of it, they aren't tanks! I don't know guys, it feels a lot weird to me, and also this is the only game that has this mechanic.

I like the idea! I had a similar one some time ago, but I would probably prefer if rams were still able to move with no unit inside, that would be easier for newcomers. Anyway, I support it if it's being implemented. The fact that spearmen are useless against rams is still problematic though IMHO. Thanks for the answer, nice addings! However, why is that maces and swords are good against rams, and spears are not? This looks to me rather arbitrary and completely out of history, correct me if I'm wrong. Now, these are my ideas: First option is simple and very much AoE-like: rethink hack/pierce/crash system in a way that hack is 80 to 100% of any melee attack. My personal opinion is that this would only be for the better. Second option: we make rams easy enough to conquer, even if there's people inside. This way any group of soldiers that's close to it and is big enuogh could counter it. If conquering is an issue for balancing reasons, we could make that conquered rams die instantly. We could make that people inside rams (and non fortified buildings?) get damaged when under conquest, that would be more realistic. There is plenty of solutions if we want this fix, and it doesn't seem to me like they are much work either.

Hello everybody, I'm a long time follower, first time poster. First of all I have to thanks the developers for the continued amazing work! The game is not perfect yet, but it actually may be the one of its genre that gives most importance to real strategy in a multiplayer setting, which is an impressive achievement. I've been told that a new alpha is going to be relaesed and that rams are being reworked a little, but does this mean that they will only be unable to attack troops? Is there any other planned change? Honestly, the way rams work at now perplexes me a lot, and this is a feeling I share with my friends (we play team games together), so I wanted to ask if anybody else agrees with me here: at present stage, if one or more rams are attacking my place, and I only have spearmen and ranged units, I can do almost nothing to stop them. I can use slingers and women more or less effectively, but really, it makes no sense that spearmen are powerless. Is this a byproduct of hack/pierce/dunno mechanich, or is it a wanted feature? To me, it would make a lot more sense if any melee unit would be able to destroy or convert a ram easy, I also have in mind a reworking proposal that wouldn't need too much work, would make rams a lot more realistic, and would solve the problem without sacrificing gameplay balance, but first I wanted to know if you too see the problem.