LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
8 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
I don't think taking away stackable fire will do anything about firecav being OP against units, which IMO is the biggest problem. Again, this is because most units would have already died by the time the fire damage builds up.
That is partially true, I tested 22 spearman+14 fire cav vs 22 spearman+14 Briton chariots and the results varied and I would say the chance were close to being 50-50.
However when we put 12 fire cav against 13 spear champ cav and compare that with 12 Briton chariots against 13 spear champ cav, I noticed that the fire cav consisitantly win with 2-3 surviving units and the Briton chariots consistenly lose with 5 spear champ cav surviving.
Against most units we can say that Briton chariots are so OP that adding more damage does not add much to their lethality.
I think the entire champion idea is prone to being problematic in 200 population games. If you have 40 champions, that means you have a force that is stronger than 100 citizen units of the same type. If the maximum population is 200, then this 60 or so difference in "population strength" is really advantageous for the champion user.
-
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
I also identified the two most problematic units in a25.
There are only 3 types problematic mercenary cavalry units: Merc Sword cav, Mace merc cav and kushite Blemmye mercs. There is also 1 faction that has the most OP champ cav.
All 13 factions have problematic ships and 6 out of the 13 factions have problematic CS spear cav. 3 more factions have merc spear cavalry, which currently is not OP.
So it that sense, I might differ on the idea what is problematic. I can also see why you think those other 2 units are more problematic, but we have better things to do than arguing what is most important.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, maroder said:
Fire cav has already received a nerf: https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP26474
fire damage does not stack anymore making them way less effective against buildings.
2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:I would personally like firecav to go back to their status before a24 where they were basically roaming siege that would quickly destroy buildings and not be very effective units, so a huge nerf to pierce and an increase to crush/fire.
What I think fire should be is a feature that deals damage over time, otherwise there is nothing fiery about the cavalry.
12 hours ago, maroder said:Slightly increase tower attack : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4510
Rather than increasing its attack, I would prefer to change the sentries upgrade such that the number of arrows is increased by +2.
Some personal thoughts:
Ships should do less damage against non-ships.
CS spear cav should get +1 hack/pierce armor.
Melee infantry should get +9% attack (If it doesn't help, it doesn't hurt either)
Roman sword cavalry would be fine with 6 hack and 7 pierce armor.
Fire cav need a nerf and @breakfastBurrito_007 pointed out there are various ways to do so.
-
21 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
I made a video if that wiki page is too confusing
On fedora it is super easy. You create a folder, download the code with pre-installed git and compile it.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I'd just keep acceleration for siege and ships, instant or nearly instance acceleration for regular soldiers. It's the super quick turn rates that look weird to me.
I think the acceleration also looks wierd. It looks like there is an invisible man the cavalry pushing (or pulling) them forward until they reach maximum speed. I think there would be a very improved visual experience if the animations between the acceleration and full speed phases where different.
Maybe scaling the length of the run animation with the units current speed would make it look very decent.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
What about we give spear cav near infinite accelereation and a smaller value for ranged units? That way we can nerf camel rush.
That would have side effects and kills the entire accerelation idea. I personally am not convinced we need accerelation to begin with, but we should respect the hard work that has been done to enable the feature.
I think we should address the problem at its core: reducing the time in which the unit does not move. Though I can't claim this is a programmable solution.
-
1
-
1
-
-
The big thing people seem to be curious about is unit acceleration and the ability for cavalry to escape bad situations.
I watched on the SVN version in slow motion and compared speed of an infantry javelineer against the speed of cavalry javelineer. I would assume that the most important factor in this situation is the time cavalry needs to accelarate to a speed such that it is faster than infantry. Only during the first step the infantry javelineer seems a tiny little bit faster. So that seems not very impactful.
What does seem impactful is the following: I ran away with a cavalry archer from a chasing spear cavalry. Everytime the spear cavalry attacks, it needs to stop. In A25 that because of this stopping, after the attack finishes and the spear cavalry starts moving, the cavalry archer is about one length of a horse ahead of the spear cavalry. In A25 the spear cavalry needs to accelerate after each stop/attack, the length of the gap will get more than twice as long.
Basically chasing and killing cavalry with other cavalry becomes nearly impossible even if your cavalry is faster.
If we consider it a problem, a solution would be to reduce the stopping time such that it is close to 0.
-
1
-
3
-
-
What I would suggest for A27 for ships is this set of changes:
-ships do not increase their arrow count as easily as currently, if they increase it at all.
-make ships capturable.
-give ships a capture attack (possibly with some tricks to only make it able to capture ships and not buildings)
-this capture attack increases with the amount of garrisoned infantry
-garrisoned infantry increase the speed of the ship
This means you can focus on different strategies. Either focus on the amount of ships, which would allow you to shoot as many arrows as possible and sink ships this way. Or you could decide to build one (or two) triremes and go for the strategy of capturing enemy ships.
I think these features would be possible without much need for coding
A cherry on the cake would be to add a ramming attack to ships. This would probably require some serious programming. That could give rise to 3 dimensions of naval play.
-
On 06/02/2022 at 7:06 PM, Stan` said:
Upload it on Phabricator, please?
Done.
I also uploaded the CS spear cav buff
-
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:
What you are proposing is to totally change unit balance.
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:Increasing melee dmg will only mean that melee units may die faster to each other. That doesn’t change the current meta because range will still do the bulk of the damage and melee units still won’t be able to reach the range units before they die (ie they’re still a meat shield)
Please give me a day to think about how these two will fit together.
-
32 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
If you want melee to play a bigger role, then you should increase walk speeds.
Why would it be the only option?
32 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:It also makes sense in the current structure--units with largest range have the slowest walk speeds and units with the shortest range (except for melee) have the quickest walk speed (i.e., archers are slowest, then slingers, then javs).
I think it does not necessarily need to be this way. It is a decent start, but it is not the only option.
34 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:For whatever reason though, all melee is slower than the slowest of range units. That should change.
I think it is fine if melee is slower. it does not mean that archers can endlessly hit and run, that is a false assumtion. Suppose you want to hit and run against this: If you get 80% sword/spear infantry and 20% javelin cavalry, the infantry can never catch the archers, but the archers can't afford to turn around to deal with the chasing jav cav or the infantry will close the distance.
Honestly, I think these 3 points made by you are more like assumptions than solid facts.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
20 swords or spears will easily defeat 20 skirmishers or slingers if the military upgrades are the same and if no micro is taken into account.
In most situations 20 spearmen struggle to beat 20 skirmishers even without micro. In reality the player with ranged units get the chance to decide when to fight, can micro during the fight and can easily retreat when needed. I tried going for high numbers of CS spearman in TGs and the results were very poor.
I don't think that is just an A25 conclusion. I think the spearmen never performed well. When talking about units, people are only obsessed by "This ranged unit is OP" or "This ranged unit is worthless". So melee units are ranked as Pikemen are the best for absorbing damage, spearmen are as good at absorbing damage but are a little cheaper than swordsmen. Can the melee infantry do enough damage for any other role? I don't think so and damage output is not their only disadvantage (lack of speed, can't hit and run on opponents).
Pikemen do so little damage that sometimes in a fight I consider it better to use them to capture a temple than actually attacking the enemy units. When I have javelin cavalry and the opponent has pikemen and infantry javelins, I don't bother if the pikes can attack my jav cav with their 3x multiplier, as longs as I can target and eliminate the more dangerous skirmishers.
So I feel the 9% damage boost is a very conservative boost.
-
3
-
-
On 20/02/2022 at 10:55 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:
1. Rice paddies - same price as field, but smaller in size and only 3 women per paddy. However, gathering rate is 0.6 instead of 0.5. Suppose you want to go heavy on cav, other civs might need 12 fields and 60 women on them. For Han, you will only need 50 women + 17 paddies. So paddies are more expensive to set up but great for late game. In early game around 6 paddies are enough, so the wood demand in early game is slightly higher.
2. Ministers - they can speed up gathering -> compensates for greater resource demand.
3. A lot of techs available - good for late game.
4. +10% pop bonus -> amazing late game.
For the smaller farms and higher cost, we also need to consider the full cost per farming lady. We need 50 food for the woman, 20 wood for 1/5th of a farm and 15 wood 1/5th of a small house and there is thus 16 seconds build time. All of that adds to a cost of 50 food, 35 wood and 16 seconds of build time. For Han the cost are 50 food, 48.33 wood and 22.66 build time. Not only the wood cost, but also the build time each worker needs to do is increased. I don't think it gives a comfortable early economy.
When other factions place 3 farms for 300 wood and 150 seconds build time and research the farming tech, the Han need to place 5 rice paddies for 500 wood and 250 seconds build time and thus lack the wood for the farming tech early on.
If we ignore the ministers, this faction has similarities with Persians. Persians also get the 10% more pop and the Persian palace also gives resource tickle worth 3 population. Persians have a very strong lategame, but they start with archers/crossbows. Persians are not a good 1v1 and are below average. Ptolemies and Iberians are way better than the average faction. I don't expect Han in 1v1s to be more potent than Ptolemies or Iberians, unless these factions receive major nerfs.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:
In Alpha 24 archers made the same amount of damage but they have been the OP ranged unit. So if we buff them again they might be suddenly OP again.
In A24 we had inefficient pathfinding for groups. In A25 units in groups almost move like there aren't any obstructions at all.
I also think the speed difference between the units is to much. The long range of archers makes it seems as if they are meant to do hit and run tactics and their speed prevents that.
-
On 22/02/2022 at 8:05 AM, maroder said:
Would you be ok with just replacing mainland with balanced mainland?
While mainland has the best distribution of resources, I wouldn't consider it a piece of art. Replacing mainland with balanced mainland would be fine to me.
Though I do feel that we discussing what we do with mainland is harmful. We can do it all, so we need to discuss how to do it all. I suggested making several different types of mainland and put them into their own category.
-
On 17/02/2022 at 1:55 AM, Yekaterina said:
@LetswaveaBook what do you think about these maps in 1v1 situation
I think the best biome for 1v1 on mainland is Aegean. It has less wood, which makes controlling area more important. This map suits my taste sufficiently well, so I don't really bother trying the other maps, which am might have their issues. That also means I am not qualified to compare other maps to mainland or any other standard.
Also, if you and your opponent have the APM then empire can be nice. If I wouldn't be interesting about learning more about how different strategies are executed well and work against each other on mainland, then I would consider empire very much worth my time.
-
1
-
-
By the way, it is bad for historical accuracy. You can't gather a lot of fruit from a blossoming apple tree.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 16/02/2022 at 9:58 PM, Yekaterina said:
Show me a picture please, I think I might know what you are talking about but an example would be nice.
On the scenario editor it can be found as gaia/fruit/apple
I haven't tried anything successful with visuals, but I think it is just a case of giving each fruit template
<VisualActor>
<Actor>flora/trees/apple_bloom.xml</Actor>
</VisualActor>
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Except for rome, which has more powerful ones that train units and shoot arrows.
I didn't think about Rome, but it is true that it is not completely unique.
The roman one is more expensive, takes longer to build and doesn't train ranged siege units.
-
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:
I find peacocks still a little bit hard to click on ( because I am nub), would you mind me replacing it with baby elephants or giraffes or uncommon cattles (with different skin colour)?
What I would consider an improvement is not using the pink blobs for fruit plants but rather use those recognizable trees with pink blossoms.
-
On 15/02/2022 at 4:57 PM, Yekaterina said:
Chickens are now blue peacocks - easy to see and click on meanwhile not so ghastly looking
That seems like a good move.
Another idea: Why can't mainland have peacocks instead of chickens?
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
@LetswaveaBook what do you think about my carth team bonus idea. I thought it sounded fun and maintains carth as the merc civ. Considering that merc cav are op, I thought a 5 metal discount was appropriate, which would affect inf a little more than cav. Although i don't know how one could allow a team bonus to influence what units are trainable by buildings.
I am not really a fan of team bonusses that give a raw power increase or cost reduction to spamable units.
-
1
-
-
On 15/02/2022 at 2:56 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:
it seems counterintuitive to build a theatre just for a discount on 3-5 techs, also only a few civs have theatres. Also it seems kind of cheap to use it just to get to p3 faster. In other words its uninteresting
It would only benefit the techs at the CC, but it also keeps its old aura of the extra territory. Also I disagree with the idea that team bonusses should have synergy with all possible allies. Only 4 other factions have theatres, which is indeed on the low side. But it is still better than the current team bonus.
On 15/02/2022 at 2:56 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:<here is another idea: For Athen's team: UNIQUE CIV buildings are cheaper and build faster (ie pyramids for kush, champ buildings, temple of vesta, Lighthouse, iber monument, etc. not wonders)>
I don't see any historical justification why Athenians should make buildings in iberia or India cheaper.
20 hours ago, Dizaka said:However, because of that bonus I fear they'll never be in the line to get p2 siege camps similar to Mauryas ele stables :(.
In a world where each faction is unique, there is no such thing as being in line.
Also it does not hinder siege in p2. I think siege in p2 is a bad idea, but I would not be opposed to trying out bad ideas. Though I can't try out any idea tossed towards me.
Another possible civ bonus for Mace could be "can build siege workshops in neutral territory". That would also make Mace unique.
-
1
-
Teamwork Team Bonus Concept
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
I would rephrase it as "What I am envisioning is a Team Bonus concept where to benefit from the Team Bonus, you actually have to do some change in strategy. "
I would be in favor of this change, but that is something to discuss in https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/66538-tribute-fees-and-related-ptol-team-bonus-nerf-and-persian-civ-buff/
I don't know if the engine easily allows for your suggestion. What would be very possible is to allow the gallic player to create a wagon unit at the forge which can garrison in forges and function a bit like the Mauryan healer hero, with adjusted stats. In delenda est, there is a possibilty to let carts unpack into buidings. Maybe another idea would be that gauls can produce a cart and unpack it in allied territory and donate a "special" forge with lower upgrade costs to their allies. The cart and the special forge would be capturable by your opponents.
If my history is correct, the Romans stationed some citizens in allied towns. I don't know if it is workable, but a Roman team bonus could allow team members to put a garrison buiding(with a limit of 1) in allied towns if the owner of the building is "in some sense" the dominant player. So if an ally has an garrison building in your territory, he is the dominant player and the "weaker player" can't build a garrison building in territory of the dominant player. I would also be in favour of it being an unfair relations, where the weaker player needs to accepts the domminance for protection but in return the "weaker" player get a disavantage. Like having his own military troops train slower (+20% training time might seem fine), less grain gathering rate(The garrison eats the food) or a lower population limit (the lost population capacity could be added to that of the "dominant" player). This would be a slightly abusive relationship that could benefit the team in some situations and give some extra strategical options as a team. But that concept would need more thought.
When it comes to suggested team bonusses, I think we should also think if it wouldn't be just more fitting as a civ bonus than a team bonus.