Jump to content


Balancing Advisors
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by LetswaveaBook

  1. I ran some 1v1 tests for rank 1 CS and that might give an impression. Spear cav vs. sword cav: Spear wins with 28 HP left. (sword would win a 10 vs. 9 battle) Spear cav. vs Javelin cav: Spear wins with 3 HP left. Sword cav vs. Javelin cav: Javelin cav wins with 1 HP left.
  2. Disappointingly, for most people it is reversed.
  3. I don't believe the 10% attack makes gauls significantly better than britons. If you want to do a very early cavalry build, britons are better by virtue of a better eco. However that does not mean it is a good strategy. Regular sword cavalry is good, but it is not OP. Carthaginians are an entirely different story.
  4. To me it feels like that is based on a misunderstanding of the situation. I have to admit that I am not a TG specialist. If I see champion cavalry being useful in team games, I think there are a few reason for that. Some possible reasons are 1. The player going for cavalry is a more skilled player able to control his troops better. 2. The opposing side does not play optimal. I suspect that champion cavalry are just now the favourite tool of some skilled players. If champion cavalry gets nerved, they will probably find another favourite tool to wreck opponents. Only if the majority of players would be able to use champion cavalry extremely effective, I would dare to claim that they are problematic. However I would like to be proven wrong if someone can send me some replays to prove the point. I have to warn you though, I will probably dismiss it as the opposing side misplaying. If you want me to share some replays of 1v1s with merc champions, I could provide some replays.
  5. There is no need to accuse people without serious suspicions. If it wasn't an accusation, I would say that there is no need to post something that could be seen as an accusation. Yeah, how does someone new to the forum know this big secret?
  6. I saw that in the mod selection menu, there is the option to chose for cute ponies with ponies ascendant or for the mod delenda est. Especially Delenda est seems good if you want diversity. In a25, civs are a little more unique than in a24. However they are mainly the same. Every faction is now affected by their own team bonus, which has substantial impact on some of them. Athens and Sparta received a technology for hoplites. The real benefit of A25 is that suddenly mercenaries and cavalry become very viable. One disadvantage is for me that units tend to stack a lot and it is difficult to see how many there are in a certain spot.
  7. What I think could be part of the solution is giving both sword cavalry 4 hack and 3 pierce armor. That would make them a little weaker and I don't see why they should have different armor than spear cavalry. The consular bodyguard could also get the same armor as the cataphract. I mainly think the mercenaries are a little problematic. Maybe they could use and increase in costs. When it comes to attack, I would give the spear cav a little more (3.5 hack, 2.5 pierce and 1 second repeat time) and sword cav a little less (6 hack, 0.75 second repeat time).
  8. I think all of that is true, but I would like to add something to that. a player should try to rush the Carthaginian player. if the Carthaginian player advances early (some like to do it with less than 60 pop), then he is vulnerable at that point. Also the cavalry can be used well for defending as they have 3 hack armor and their speed allows them to partol your borders to see your enemy coming. I don't know if this helps, but what the opposing team could do is to rush the Carthage player with javelin cavalry. If the Carthage player advances with less than 60 population, 30 javelin cavalry will surely be harmful. I think that a team could afford to have 2 players making 15 cavalry per player for rushing. But then again, there is tributes to be sent to the Carthaginian player.
  9. It is indeed odd that the lightning general can't keep up with the fastest units. Maybe it would also be nice to increase some aura ranges to 100m, such as Hamilcar, Pericles, Xerxes 1, Demetrius, Arakamani and antiochus IV.
  10. You are free to give your opinions on any of them, including Athenian ones.
  11. I have been chatting somewhat with ValihrAnt in the lobby about balance. He mentioned the Gallic bonus that used to grant population space to farmstead, storehouse, barracks and some others. Such a bonus would be a generic bonus that helps but is directed at something particular. So that bonus also could just mean that booming becomes more desirable. So this raises the question: What do you want the bonus to do? For Gauls I would imagine a faction that is limited in the lategame, but has a good rush/midgame (That is the typical RTS logic, if a faction has a good eco it should have disadvantages in the lategame). If we think about what is special about the Gallic midgame, there are two things that come to mind first. The harvesting machine technology, which used to be a better deal than the second farming upgrade. From a balance perspective, I dislike that it is now no longer a better deal. The other is the naked fanatic and if we want to encourage mid game play, I think we could look at this unit. So what I would like to transform it into, is a champion that cheaper (80f,50W,40M), trains faster and moves faster but falls off in the lategame (not affected by armor upgrades since it is naked). So in p2 it would potentially be a viable option for replacing sword cav as a rush unit. The units should be balanced such that both the sword cavalry and the naked fanatic have their advantages. Oh, I remember third thing which is impactful for the Gallic midgame, Their cavalry has 30% more attack. Oh, wait... It is only a meagre 10%. So this is not a post about economic bonuses, but it raises the question: Do we need economic bonuses and why a certain faction needs it?
  12. I would like to keep it fairly expensive, to make the decision when to place it difficult. So you would not place it to early and it won't be spammed. So I would go with 200s,100m and 150 seconds build time. Which means you can place a barracks and a pyramid with their 300 starting stone. Also the 100 metal is just what you have left after doing the wood and farming upgrade. So you get one to place wisely. Also I would enjoy it if building 1 pyramid, 1 barracks and going to p2 for camel merc rush would be a viable strategy. Maybe make those merc camps cheaper as well? If you want to boom with 3 barracks, I feel like the pyramid thing should only be a minor bonus.
  13. I totally agree with this. What I think is probably the worst is that a group of javilineers can now occupy a very condensed space and launch death from a super small area.
  14. On top of the minimap is an N for north. How is that N useful? It is just a waste of space.
  15. Well. that does not really look sweet to me. But I have to admitt that I thought Age of Empires 2: DE would fail because pathfinding initially left something to be desired.
  16. I don't strife to make them all top heroes, but at least useful. Any suggestions are welcome. I think some of these heroes are bad from a competitive view, but not from a design point of view. So I would say some of them are underpowered (which can be OK, as not every unit has to be OP) and some could use a buff. On Xerxes, I think if you position him near your CC, he might increase the gather rate of 40 farmers and 20 miners. So that is 60 units affected by his aura. However I think he might benefit from a bigger range and/or higher gather rate boost. On Ashoka, I would say that having temples for 75 stone with low construction time are useful. It is not over the top though. On Perikles, we see some unimpressive auras as well. However if we increase the values of the temple cost reduction to 50%(similar to ashoka) and boost the construction speed bonus to 50% and make it global, he would be a hero that would be worth having after Iphicrates died. Hamilcar provides a global speed boost, which allows you to outmaneuver the opponent. It means that your opponent can't catch your archers. So I think he is decent, though not the best. Alexander does make it less ridicule to capture CCs, so without siege a fully garrison CC is no longer extremely difficult to capture but only very difficult. The problem is that you can only capture things if you get rid of the opposing army first and Alexander does not help with that. I also build a theater once and the +20 territory range seemed nice on the minimap. If you can combine that with the territory bonus of Alexander a CC can have an nice territory pull. I think his design is not bad, but he is not fantastic either. However I think Alexanders could also benefit from granting all units +1 capture strength.
  17. I think there are uses for them. I heard that someone said that mysticjim recently uploaded a legendary game where the winning player used a catapult. Each unit should have advantages and disadvantages compared to other units. The most logical comparison is the ram. The ram has the disadvantage that is needs to expose itself and enter enemy territory. If a structure has garrisoned swordsmen, we are all familiar with the problem. The advantage of rams is that they destroy things faster. For catapults the story is reversed. The catapult does not deal damage as far but can do so from a safe distance. It would be unfair is the better unit is limited to a few factions and the ram seems to be the best of the two. Does the catapult have use cases? There are certainly moments when you can't approach a CC or fortress and you will choose to use a catapult. So from that perspective it is fine to me. All the factions that get catapults do get means to defend them against archers, so I don't see the problem here. Now on the organic units, I think this is not a catapult problem, but a crush damage problem. Crush damage is basically anti-building damage and organic units resist it very much. Macemen are not good in combat, simply because they do crush damage. I think organic units have to much crush armor. A catapult can destroy a sentry tower with 4 hits, wheres you need the same amount of hits to kill a melee cavalry. If I had to do a suggestion it would be: ranged citizen soldier to have 6 crush armor, melee citizen soldiers and ranged champions to get 9 and champion melee units to get 11. When the crush armor is reduced, other units also need to be re-balanced, most notably the elephants. Did they shatter?
  18. First of all, I think it is a pity if the game would become like age of empires 2, where each faction is expected to have an economy bonus and civilizations become very much their economy bonus. That would also make balancing more difficult as we would not only be bothered with tech tree, but also with economy bonusses for balancing. I prefer to create something that really suits the faction identity and make current ones more explicit. So I would toss the following ideas: Celtic factions: For me, celtic factions seem to be more about fast development than about a strong lategame. They have the wooden construction bonus, which makes building 20% faster to build, but have 20% less hit points and capture points. It might be a nice idea to double down on this identity and also give the celtic faction on top of that -20 stone cost for building. Persians: Put the levy upgrades in p1 for a quantity over quality approach. It makes your soldiers being trained faster at the cost of 300 food. The additional cost is of course that in the 40 seconds it is researched, no units can be trained. Kushites: The kushites have their iconic pyramids and I like to double down on that in order to distinguish the faction more from others. So I would suggest making the small pyramid available in p1, giving Kushites a boost to the economy in p1, but it needs to be strategically placed. Also, since the pyramids are associated with their culture we could make turn it into an extra research location for culture/spiritual related technologies, such as archery tradition,archery training, monumental architecture, conscription and will to fight.
  19. I would like to open the discussion on the auras of heroes. Some of them have uninteresting auras and I think that is a shame. I would just open this topic to suggest a few changes: The first thing I dislike is the +20 attack for champions aura. Not in all games it is viable to go for large numbers of champions. So I really feel like that is makes the aura disapointing. So I would suggest Boudica of the Britons - She affects champions and Britons have two variations of them, the chariot and the swordsmen. I think it suits the Briton identity to rely more on the chariot than on the swordsmen. So I would like to change the aura to affecting javilineers. I also like the aura to affect more than only champions. Philip of Macedon - Instead of affecting champions, he gives +20% HP and a capture bonus to all melee units. Philip was known for reforming the army, especially for adding the pikes and the companion cavalry. So these melee champions will still be affected and mostly the bonus becomes thus stronger. It is a disappointment for me that Macedon does not have an advantage for pikemen. Amaniremas the Kushite warrior queen - For me it is fine that she keeps affecting champions. The kushites have 5 different champions and some have other advantages going for them, so it suits their identity and supports their strong points. Champion axemen have the advantage to be trainable as soon as you reach p3 and the champion elephant is 20% cheaper. The champion swordsmen is also accessible and you only need a big temple to unlock them. You want to have the big temple probably anyway for the elite healers it trains and on top of that is can function as a place to heal and being able to train champions there is just a nice extra. Furthermore I think the champion archer and cavalry are also useful units. There are also a number of heroes that do not have any auras and it would be fair to give then some. Because I do not like to change things massively and suddenly make them the top heroes, so I prefer to go for smaller bonuses. Maurya Elephant hero - He was known for having for having an good elephant force. So I would think about him giving a global aura to train elephants even faster on top of the maurya bonus by reducing the batch training modifier to 0.5. If my math is correct that means that a batch of 9 elephants train in 84 seconds. For normall factions that would take 186 seconds and for mauryas it currently takes 130 seconds. For a perspective: 3 stables of a normal faction can train 9 elephants in 86 seconds. It means you get the elephants fast, but you still need the resources. This would also help to make Mauryans elephants archers become more viable. Themistokles of Athens - He does not provide a bonus on land maps and I think that is a pity. Another pity is that the Athenians can only train their marineers at when docks can be build. So if we combine them I come to suggest that marines should be allowed to be trained in the council hall once Themistocles is trained (maybe it could be more strict and demand him to be alive). Agis III of sparta - There a 3 things worth of mention about what I found on Wikipedia on him. Under his rule Spartan interest on Creta was secured. He also led an army consisting of 8000 mercenaries (and other troops). The third point is that he was an enemy of Macedon. So that would give me 2 suggestions for auras. The first one is reducing the HP of opposing pikemen by 10%, the signature unit of Macedon. The second suggestion is allowing Spartans to train Cretan mercenary archers once Agis III is trained (maybe it could be more strict and demand him to be alive). Agis III has been criticized before, but I think it would be nice to see the Spartans having a hero for each of their different enemies, namely the Athenians, the Persians and Macedon. Of course there are a number of heroes who have auras that could use re-balancing, but for brevity I skip that topic. Are there any heroes that you dislike for their auras? Let me and the community know your thoughts.
  20. I mean they always seemed weird to me from a design perspective. Rome was not known for its powerful cavalry, yet it gets the most powerful cavalry unit. Also they are significantly more powerful than the champion spear cavalry. For reference most melee champion infantry get double the HP and attack and +3 armor. I think champion spear cavalry follows the same trend as them getting double the attack, but get +4 armor and 300 instead of 320 hp. That +1 armor effectively is about the same as 333 HP, so there is not that much of a difference. I could agree if people because of aesthetics suggested to make it +3 armor and 320 HP. The fact is citizen infantry can gather resources and champions can't. If you have an citizen army, and decide to replace a certain group of the army, the obvious choice seems to replace the part of your army that can't work efficient: Cavalry. I think that is part of the reason why it is so popular to replace your citizen cavalry with champion cavalry as it does not affect the work force. Also, I think we should view the entire situation and not just adjust one unit because we had bad experiences with it. The idea that only 1 unit(spear cavalry champion) is problematic seems an oversimplification to me. We need to look at the bigger picture. I think player need to adjust to the new reality. If all your units are out of your base, it does not matter if it are 60 mauryan sword cavalry or 40 champion spear cavalry. In a world where these strategies are employed, you could employ these strategies yourself as well or build a big stone wall around your base. Maybe it is easy to say this from a sideline, but suppose a game with player 1-4 on team 1 against player 5-8 you are a spartan pocket(Lets call you player 2). Then in a world like this (200 pop game), the opposing pocket (Lets call him player 6) goes for 40 champion cavalry. I am assuming both flank players (player 1&5) are fighting a full war with each other and cannot afford to distribute resources to . Both pocket players should probably keep 150 units at your base. The other allied pocket player (Lets call him player 3,) on your team probably needs 40 champion cavalry. The Spartan player should create 50 champions to help your his player. So now the opposing flank is in trouble and player 6 needs to help him. If player 6 sends a large body of citizen infantry, that should be noted by the team and player 3 should see that as an invitation to wreck base of players 6. So that is not the best option. Helping player 5 with 40 champion cavalry against 50 spear champions is not an advisable strategy for player 6 either. So that means player 6 would need to counter. Either player 6 needs to attack player 1 or 2. Player 2 is the spartan player that has 150 units at home. Killing a 50 women of players 1 is possible, but then we would get in a situation where player 2 has 150 working units at home and he could easily send lots of resources towards player 1. If the women are killed and player 1 get enough resources, it only means player 1 has some free population space and can now field a larger army. So player 5 now need to worry about 160 units that player 1 is sending his way and the 50 champions of player 6. Off course, games probably wont go as you would predict on paper. This scenaria is purely fictional, but there is I have not seen any ideas why it would or wouldn't work. The big question is if there is no counter or whether people just did not adapt to the new balance. I think the if pocket players would adapt to the idea that you need to have units to defend your base, the cavalry threat can be dealt with. Also I suppose each team needs 1 player to go cavalry to be able to punish any opponent neglecting his defenses.
  21. I also had troubles with that. I thought maybe it was because I did not fully understand and putting units on defensive was the problem. However that you experience the same troubles convinces me that something else might be at play. I just tested and patrolling into opposing units works as intended, which can be a workaround for the current problem.
  22. By the way: I just tested and a consular body guard defeats a champion pikeman. But remember consular body guard is special.
  23. On one side we have an elite fighter costing 330 resources and the other side consist of amateurs worth 100 resources. I think melee camp cav deserve to do well against them, even if slightly outnumbered. What I could agree with is that higher level spear/pikemen get a larger attack multiplier against cavalry. The problem with this reasoning is that (first of all it is not true): it speaks only "generally". I would accept that if metal is more common than wood on particular maps, then mercenaries should dominate. However if there is an abundance of all resources to collect, the units should be well balanced. In my views we should not take scarcity of resources into consideration for balance. Also even if the cost of the units was comparable, one is still significantly better than the other.
  24. I think sword cav are good and being a mercenary is good. So those two combined are OP in my view. I think normal sword cavalry is not problematic and other mercenaries aren't as problematic either. If we look at the stats, we see that a regular sword cavalry costs 100 food, 40 wood and 10 metal. A mercenary cavalry costs 80 metal and is significantly stronger. They are to cheap for what they offer. Do you think it is a good idea to have a unit at 2/3rd of the cost being 25% stronger? Do you think it is a balanced that a basic sword cavalry has preferable defenses and a DPS of 8.67 while spear cavalry has 5.6 (9.8 against cavalry). I think the numbers give a clue on what to expect.
  25. You were asking for opinions and I agree with this one. I have seen some games of borg- and he seems to use champions more than I do. borg- certainly knows what he is doing and it is a legitimate style. My approach is getting good numbers with siege and p3 upgrades early and then advance and see what the enemy has. Such an approach doesn't suit waiting 60 seconds to unlock champions and then training them.
  • Create New...