LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
I played a game and after 2 minutes there were connection issues and the game ended. For this subforum it is nice if game are short.
What is remarkable, is that when I watch the replay and select one of the players and click on the "follow player" button, then a number of errors appear after some time. The first error that appears is on GuInterface.js line 258. This appears at 12 seconds after the start of the game when the blue player is selected and you click on "follow player". For the red player, the issue appears around 1:35. I haven't checked if they were exactly the same errors.
So my question are:
Do you get the error on your machine as well?
Is it a known issue?
What could be the effects of these errors? Has it something to do with the disconnecting of the game?
I would even be happy if you could answer the 1st question. The mods that I use are feldmap and autociv, disabling feldmap or both did not solve the issue.
-
5 hours ago, Dakara said:
For light infantry? when they swimming, 0 armor and move speed -50%
Swimming over rivers would be okay, swimming over oceans would not. Also combat while swimming would be awkward. Wet bowstrings should not be good for shooting, so even after getting out on the water you need some time to dry the bowstring.
-
10 hours ago, Freagarach said:
Ranged infantry:
- Low armour, vulnerable against any unit when in range.
- When the enemy is too close, they switch to their melee weapon, which is merely a dagger, so they'll be massacred by (almost) anything.
Melee infantry:
-
Good armour, depending on the exact unit type, meaning they can hold their ground against cavalry.
- Spearmen have their "range" advantage so multiple men can attack one target more easily.
- Their lack of speed make them sustain casualties against ranged infantry, but when up close they hack them away.
This is not close to how it currently is for ranged infantry. If a single skirmisher is attacking a spearman, which walks right at the skirmisher and attacks it, then the skirmisher can win. So it is not vulnerable. If there is a battle with 40 opposing skirmishers and you send 10 CS cavalry to attack the skirmishers from behind, then your cavalry will disappear fairly fast. Most often they do not take out many skirmishers in such situations.
I think it would be fairly easy for a good programmer to cause melee attacks to force the enemy to switch to a melee weapon. So when a ranged unit is hit by a melee unit, it is forced to use its melee weapon for say 2 seconds. Then with the next hit, the counter resets.
The range advantage of the spearmen is also something that does not show itself in the current game. 50 swordsmen can easily surround 50 spearmen once(I really mean once, not before) the battle has begun and the range of the spears currently means little. Also, most damage is done by ranged units, so the main job of the melee infantry is to absorb damage. Pikemen are the best damage absorbers.
Again, when a small number of melee infantry is close to the ranged units, they get defeated easily and cause little casualties. It might seem smart to send half of your melee infantry at the opposing skirmishers, but actually it is not always smart. When the melee infantry are close, then the ranged units are troubled less by their inaccuracy. In practice that means that the ranged units get some easy kills, while the smaller group of melee units hardly get any. That might be exactly contrary to what you would expect.
4 out of 4 of these issues are at least partially caused by the fact that ranged skirmishers(and slingers to some extent) do to much damage compared to melee IMHO.
8 hours ago, alre said:why would a unit have its attack lowered when in a close fight? right now skirmishers deal a higher damage than spearmen.
It does not really make sense that spears were used in melee, yet in melee they deal a lot less damage than a javelin.
NB: This is going off topic, the original intent of the post was to gather any experiences with Macedonian mercenary cavalry.
-
Can someone change the title from "What about swinning?" to "what about swimming?"?
When I clicked the topic, I was really wondering what swinning was
-
2 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:
Getting rid of 1% of the pop could do a lot for the climate.
https://gettotext.com/oxfam-study-claims-the-super-rich-are-the-ecological-vandals/
@Lion.Kanzen what more than this is needed to change you into a marxist?
-
1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
In my view, that feature does not really change a lot in the early game. In AoE2, players would build a house if they had say 18 or 19 out of 20 population. With the AoE4 system you build a house if you have 19 or 20 out of 20 population, so I suspect it actually only delays the situation by 1 population.
-
1
-
-
@ValihrAnt wanted to add colonies to every faction. Maybe we could give Romans instead of a colony something like an allied village, functioning like a colony but being able to train auxiliary units.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
Auxiliary units could be the Roman Mercs maybe?
The Roman republic had more citizens than most other states, simply because they granted loyal allies citizenship. I think the way Auxiliary troops worked was that they were recruited from non-latin citizens or other (non-citizen) allies. If you served for several years in the army, you recieved citizenship. So it seems more fitting to make them citizen soldiers.
20 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:I always thought that the Roman roster is very limited (and boring)
When I think of very limited and boring, Sparta comes to mind. Romans do have their military camps.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Dakara said:
The auxiliary aspect is insufficiently exploited, it can take the path of the mercenaries for simplicity of gameplay
Another possibility would be to give rome auxiliary units, but no structure to train them. So they can only train them once the Romans conquer a barracks/stable/CC from a different faction.
-
5
-
-
2 hours ago, vv221 said:
Training otherwise unavailable units from captured buildings, with some limitations, sounds like a really fun idea. I would love seeing that in game
If you capture a Carthaginian embassy you can train the mercenaries.
-
2
-
-
I was playing a team game once as Seleucids from pocket position and I wanted to rock with chariots. So after some booming I am 200 pop and I start to make the chariots. I needed a population space, so I have deleted some women. As I am spending all resources as soon as the get in, I do not have a lot of wood. There are about 80 infantry and 2 women chopping wood and I need the population space. So I grab the bunch and instead of selecting the women from the group, I deselect them and delete the 80 infantry. Since I am low on wood and these units were my wood gathers, I have no wood income to remake them. I end up doing fertility festival to get my population back up, which actually means that after some time I had more women than I had before I started to delete them.
The worst, in the end noobdude runs trough my base and after the game he brags how well he has played and how good Sparta is. If I did not delete about 80 infantry, he would not even make it to my base.
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:
they heal 3 points per second
That can be upgraded to 4 with the technology living conditions. Pericles will add a global +2 to the heal rate.
Now I probably need to use that competitively with Athens hoplite champions, +6 HP per second.
-
3
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Genava55 said:
Sadly people accept to pay for unfinished games.
It is not all negative. If AoE4 fans had to wait until 2022 for it to finally release that wouldn't make them happy either. So releasing a half finished game allows the players to play it earlier.
-
36 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:
Actually, one way to nerf mercs (assuming we wanted to do that) could be to disable them from gaining experience at all.
We could do that, there is no problem in the engine for that.
-
1
-
-
On 01/11/2021 at 8:23 PM, Dakara said:
What do you think of reducing the max level of units to 2?
Personally I dislike cutting options from the game.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Effect? Radius? Area?
I was thinking about effect.
-
Any further input on the matter? Unless there are major changes, I think it is best to cut the auras of the heroes into half.
I think every faction should have some weaknesses and for Ptolemies I can't really think of one. There are some minor weaknesses(lack of sword CS or champ infantry/cavalry to counter rams), but they are being compensated with their amazing economy that allows them to be the first to get rams/elephants.
-
1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I had no idea there were so many states in the USA.
There is a state not shown on that map. It is in the southeast peninsula and is called florida.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Dizaka said:
Meh, can't watch replay. Some lines need to be deleted to be compatible with vanilla a25 0ad. Don't know which ones.
It requires feldmap.
-
1
-
-
Today I played a 1v1 game with valihr(Spartans) as Macedon. I went for a build similar to the Carthaginian mercenary rush. We concluded in the end that this type of mercenary rush is OP as well, when executed properly. Any thoughts on how Macedons mercenary cavalry is balanced?
My thoughts were to increase cavalry usefulness for A26 and to nerf mercenary cavalry such that almost every faction can do a p2 cavalry rush. The mercenaries would be balanced such that they are just a minor advantage.
I link the game in the attachment.
-
1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Another frustrating situation is when an ally loses to an enemy army with a KD of .05 and now you must fight a full rank 3 army.
hmm... So then it is really annoying to play with an ally.
1 hour ago, Dakara said:What do you think of reducing the max level of units to 2? Or reduce the ramp-up with levels so that level 3 is equivalent to current level 2. level 3 unit is very strong, too much snowball
I think it is to easy to promote from rank 2 to rank 3. Promotion to rank 3 does need as much experience as promotion to rank 2. This makes a difference as rank 2 units have an easier time surviving and collecting the experience.
-
23 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Best: Pikers
Worst: archies
I ran some test and if you have 20 archies and 10 pikers, you will be evenly matched against 20 pikers and 10 archies. If both players would micro, then the player with 20 archies would get the advantage. Seems like these units have identical strength
Pikers are not strong, the ranged units behind them are strong (unless they are infantry archers).
-
We have seen some discussion about sword mercenary cavalry and whether they can be stopped . There was a game against @Jofursloft that I wanted to upload for a while and I finally got myself to do that. He played as Sparta against Carthaginians. Maybe Jofursloft and I could repeat the matchup to see which faction seems to have the advantage, as a single game does not really prove that much. I also uploaded a video featuring Macedonian mercenary cavalry in a 1v1.
-
I don't have the sources for this claim. But I heard that the developer is planning to add more and more features post release. They are not the only developer to release an unfinished game and patch it later. That seems to be very common in the industry. It seems fair that not all people like this modern development cycle.
By the way, age of empires 2 DE also was undesirable on release (balance between civs, path finding, matchmaking in the lobby, resource placement on arabia, desyncs, lobby dodging, spectator features were all lacking). I don't know the entire list of issues, but you can check the dozen or so patches that have been released and the issues meantioned there. Also spirit of the law made on youtube overviews of each path, which had many quality of life changes that the game should have had at release. A few months after release, we saw some players come back to the original on voobly. The current version seems to be favoured over the original. Personally, I think age of empires 2 went downhill ever since the release of the african kingdoms.
So shortly, that is the reason why I am here and not on voobly.
All Civilizations are my favorite.
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
I think the contrary is true.
Britons start with a war dog and have slingers in p1. Gauls on the other hand have no good way to utilize the 300 stone they get at the start. So basically you have a head start with Britons.
The gauls have +10% attack for melee cavalry, which is not super relevant. Also I prefer to have the chariots over the melee champion cavalry. They get a technology for faster farming, but that is not relevant until you have done the second farming upgrade. So while the Gauls have advantages, they get them late. The Britons can field 20 war dogs that do not require population, so you can't say Britons are just worse in the late game. The Gauls have good heroes, but the Britons with Caractacus are good as well.