LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
961 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
1 hour ago, smiley said:
Also, Holy Roman Empire has nothing to do with Romans.
That is largely true.
1 hour ago, smiley said:They just called themselves that to sound cool.
That is not entirely the truth. The pope bestowed the title of Roman emperor on Charlemagne because he wanted to see a powerful state in the west that could harbor Christianity. Charlemagnes empire broke into pieces and later Otto 1 ruled over both Germany and Italy and received the title of Roman emperor. During history, Italy was sometimes part of this empire and sometimes it broke off. However tradition prescribed that the emperor had to be crowned by the roman pope.
Also the empire was German and if it is the same as in the Dutch language, being called Roman does (always) not link to being associated with the city of Rome, but can also refer being associated with the Roman (Catholic) faith. I can't really speak for German (which has words ), but I know that in Dutch there are two words, rooms and Romeins (Note that the latter is always written with a capital, it's not an error ;P), and the first refers to being from the roman faith and the latter refers to the city. In Dutch we describe the holy Roman empire as rooms and I think this is a suggestion to think as Roman referring to the Roman faith. I did some internet search and German uses the word römisch and also romanisch (which seems to has fallen somewhat out of use) and I can not say if they have similar views.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Ceres said:
Or is this far away from your thoughts?
I was thinking about two hotkeys, lets say they are on A and S. You have a number of units garrisoned. You can see how much HP the one has that is ungarrisoned first. If you want to ungarrison is, you press A. If you want to toggle to the next you press S.
12 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:I don't actually care too much about the specifics now, as I feel anything showing more details than currently will be an improvement.
That was also the way I viewed it and maybe a ungarrison healthy only hotkey is as good or better.
-
2
-
-
What I was thinking about: Show how much HP the unit has that you ungarrison first. So you could decide if you want to ungarrison it.
Then if you do not want to ungarrison it, there should be something like ungarrison-and-regarrison hotkey. If a unit is regarrisoned, there is another unit that would be ungarrisoned first afterwards. Then you can decide if you want to ungarrison that unit or if you want to toggle to the next one.
1 hour ago, Ceres said:Maybe the CC icon could get a toggle to ungarrison only healed units or not. (the amount of HP% for "healed" can already be set in the game settings)
A hotkey that only ungarrisoned healthy units would also be nice.
-
One thing which makes ideal play more difficult is that there is limited control over garrisoned units. If we garrison cavalry in the CC, we might want to ungarrison the ones that are fully recovered. Currently, if you have 10 cavalry garrisoned in the CC and want to send only a particular unit with full HP out, you run in 2 problems.
1. You don't know the HP of the unit that you ungarrison, so you can't judge if you need to send it out.
2. You can't change the unit that you send out.
I tested how ungarrisoning works and it is a first in, first out principle. The only thing you can do is ungarrisoning all your units and then click on each individual unit and put them back in. I know there is a wounded hotkey, but I would like to manage my units from within the CC/barracks.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, MoLAoS said:
I'm from Misery. Erm, Missouri sorry.
Is that in texas?
-
2
-
6
-
-
2 hours ago, Ceres said:
If I may chime in: It seems that loot is a "hot" topic.
Maybe it's possible (and worth?) keeping look but allowing users to toggle it on/off on the map etc. selection screen before the game starts? I don't know whether this helps to find out if and how much loot contributes to a snowballing effect, but in the end, you could let players decide what they like more. Again, I don't know if this is technically easy to accomplish and whether it would add any value, but maybe this is something to consider instead of thinking binary, only. 
It would be fairly easy (but time consuming) to make a mod that sets all loot of building/units to 0. Another solution might be looking at some hero's with loot bonusses and use that to multiply all loot by 0
-
11 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:
In Germany everyone who doesn't say 'Hooray!' to NATO is considered to be an extremist and/or idiot.
In the Netherlands, this is not the case and you can soundly dislike NATO. However unlike Germany, we do have an unpleasant history with Srebrenica. I can imagine that the French aren't big fans after the things thrown their way after not joining in Iraq.
3 hours ago, Thales said:I've been reading second hand accounts that European leaders are less than pleased with Biden's leadership. I would be interested in knowing what the perception is from Europe.
Biden is a seasoned politician. In Europe we are not affected so much by Trumps(or some republicans) views of him being stupid or senile. Clearly things did not go sweet. However in the Netherlands, we mainly are looking at our own incapability of evacuating our civilian personnel, which is something the French did a lot better.
Probably in Europe it seems fair to hold the opinion that if you do not spend that 2% budget on military, you can't get an optimal military or relation with NATO. Also in the Netherlands it is accepted that the Dutch followed NATO to Afghanistan without a proper plan.
-
Also it needs to be said that if towers fire multiple arrows, they don't focus them on a single target. Which means that instead of killing 2 out of 3, all might escape and be healed from their injuries.
-
A game with plenty of rushes where these top 20 player face off against each other. Dakeryas played Seleucids and had access to the praised combination of pikemen and skirmishers, wheres vinme was able to put Carthaginian mercenaries to good use.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Not in the games current state. You could if loot was higher. That’s why I said it would be nice if there was a civ that had high loot, so they wouldn’t be slower as much by rushing. To offset this benefit they would need to be weak in p3 (ie weak siege, fewer upgrades to have weaker units, or something like that). That would create a true raiding civ that is meant to fight early and often
I think loot does not really make that much of a difference. I just rushed with 3 cavalry and killed 5 women early, for an amazing 50 food early.
The main thing it did is probably cause significant idle time and set my opponent back. The loot is not a consideration, even not if it was tripled.
Also extra loot is nice if you get good engagements, but it does not really help to get those good engagements in the first place. A faction good for rushing will probably be one that helps to get those good engagements and the loot can be disregarded.
-
20 hours ago, ChronA said:
0 AD's Anti-Snowball Features:
- Abundant resources that permit a player to survive falling behind on expansions
- Very strong static defenses
- Very durable buildings that can garrison and protect large numbers of units of arbitrary type
- Limited anti-building counters
- Soft-counter based balancing
- Lack of major unit and faction differences
I think most of these in 1v1s are more like pro snowballing features.
-Wood is plentiful on the map, but having only 1 CC for the entire game might stress you.
-The static defenses are difficult to overcome, but on the other hand, they do not really endanger most opponents. A unit garrisoned in static defense has only 5 damage per second, which is mediocre at best. On top of that, they don't focus their arrows on a single target, which means that instead of taking out a few units, the army has a chance to escape without casualties.
-garrisoning units does not stop an attack. It keeps some units save, but most often there are kills to be found.
-Again, I think buildings are difficult to take out, but neither do these buildings harm the opponent to much.
-Soft-counter is really pro-snowballing IMHO. It means you still need a decent force before it can be effective. It is not like good use of a few units results in taking out a larger force, as in games such as age of empires 2(mangonels, siege onagers) and Red Alert 3(war dogs).
20 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:I can't say for the other players but it is my feeling that melee/ranged balance is quite good at the moment.
I think it could be better.
-
2
-
Considering this topic was aimed at beginner players I would say that the best factions for beginners are those who start with javilineers. I would recommend factions that have multiple siege options. I think there are some disadvantages about starting with the pikeman.
So that leaves us with Romans and Seleucids, which are the ones I would recommend for new players. Maybe it is better to leave two options, so these players can decide what strategy suits them best.
-
I saw a cool strategy that could totally change standard build orders.
-
2 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
Also they take up too much space, which is not good for small maps.
That is not a disadvange. You could use those houses as walls, so cavalry does not raid you to death in A25. Also the extra build time is not that much and if you are (about to be) housed, small houses solve your problem easier.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Jofursloft said:
I think that in this alpha civilizations are well balanced so I find difficult to do a ranking. I think every civilization has his pros and cons depending on the map and the situation you are playing. Anyway, this is my personal tier based on civs I would pick in 1v1 matches (talking about team games its impossible to do a ranking in my opinion):
I think there is indeed a bunch of them that are close and I wouldn't say that I can give an accurate ranking.
One thing I do know, is that Ptolemies are at the top.
1 Very good eco.
2. Pikemen and Slingers are not bad starting units.
3. Camel archers can be useful, though they are not as OP as in A24.
4. Nice special building such as the Colony and Library
5. 3 Excelent heros which are on top of that available from the CC. They are available early as Ptolemies can advance quicker due to their better eco. I think there are factions who do not have a single hero as useful as any of the Ptolemies.
6. Full siege and elephants.
7. Mercenaries, which are useful in this alpha.
-
5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
This indicates that cav, I particular melee cav, are too strong this alpha—not that palisades are too weak.
I don't think spear cav is OP, it is just sword cav, who have 55% more DPS than spear cav and on top of that they deal full hack damage.
@Jofursloft Also I think the palisade fell, but it did a decent job of buying time. If there would be no pallisade, you would have lost 15 women in the situation.
-
Hi, I wanted to provide an answer for the question if javelin cavalry can defend camel archers.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Micfild said:
BatchTime = BaseTime * (#Units ^ Mod)
I knew batch training made it more efficiently, but never knew the formula. Whenever I tried to do some analysis on batch training, I just looked in game for what it would look like. So great that you have found the formula.
@Jofursloft Batch training is more efficient if you have the resources for it, but you are conveniently ignoring the costs. For a civilization with barracks of 200 wood and 100 stone and a build time of 150 seconds, I use in my following calculations a cost a 300 resources. Now that means if you look 1 barrack training units 1 by 1, you need are faced with the costs of the barracks and the units that are in the queue (100 resources per unit), which I represent here by a total cost of 400 resources. If we look at 1 barrack batch training 2 units, then we are faced with a cost of 300+2*100.
So a more fair comparison would be comparing 3 barracks with training 1 by 1 (cost=1200) vs. 2 barracks with a batch size of 3 (cost=1200). In this case the 3 barracks training 1 by 1 perform better. If you want 2 barracks to produce as many as 3, you need to have queued in each barrack 7 units. So I think having more barracks has some merit for booming.
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Yeah, the territory pushing dynamic just so you can place a storehouse next to a clump of trees feels pretty odd. I saw Vali do it in one of his videos, using a string of houses at the edge of his territory to get a storehouse to some trees. Strange gameplay dynamic.
Now I understand why you need to get Alexander the great. He makes it easier to gets such a string of houses.
-
What is more peculiar to me is that we build markets and blacksmiths at the edge of our territory to make it bigger.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 21/08/2021 at 7:33 AM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
No matter what a player does, their units will always return to attacking the nearby pikemen after 1-2 seconds.
We are all discussing what needs to be done here, but personally I would like to take a step back.
I am no noob, but I can't see what really changed between alphas. Can you extensively clarify? I think in both alphs,a ranged units preferred the closest target when seeking out a target on your own, which is most often a meleeunit. However you can click an opposing unit and then it will attack it until it dies. Once it dies, you can click another unit.
I know unit stacking is an issue, but do pikemen really stack more than spearmen? I must admit that for a large part of A24 I did not use the "attack move" command. Did something change about that?
-
1 hour ago, Dizaka said:
I think, due to metal availability, champions are OP. Games shouldn't be about rushing first to p3 and max upgrading to "carry the team."
solution: don't play team games and all is resolved. Also to abstain from speculation, you could try to create maps with less metal and see if that suits your taste.
1 hour ago, Dizaka said:15-20 Gaul/Roman Cav Champs should not be the units deciding games. If two pockets do this (Gaul/Rome pockets) it's game over. Currently, champ cav is really unkillable.
I would say Seleucid/Persian spear champs are as powerful as the the Gaul ones. However for the roman cavalry I agree. The sword champion cavalry is OP and was the only champ cav used frequently in a24. I do agree that these deserve a nerf.
By the way, do you have any input on how Cartaginian cavalry works out?
-
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:
Doing something like what you describe above would bring back some of the civ differentiation/unique civ play that was lost in a24 and would also introduce some unit differentiation that people have (rightly) complained about without needing to totally restart balancing
However one thing that is an issue, is that champions aren't used regularly. There is few reasons to train champions in 1v1s. So I think first we should make champions more viable.
What I would like to see is moving buildings like Gallic assembly of princes, Athenian council hall, and Spartan mess hall to p2 and allow them to train champions in p2. Since the number of these buildings could be limited, it also allows for some but limited champion training.
Also I would like 1 type of champion per faction being selected as the favoured champions, which can be trained in the fortress and does not require any technologies to unlock them.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Often, the thinking of what units to produce is hardly more complicated than "melee+ranged".
I agree that this is undesirable.
On the other hand, I do not want to introduce a " mostly fantasy" unit like the Mauryan Visha Kanya champions. In many fantasy games we see more weapon diversity, but I have failed to see any references of axes being used as main weapons in the Hellenistic period, apart from the axe cavalry and the Cantabrians. I have seen some mentions of axes being used by "barbarian tribes", but I did not find anything that points out if that was as a main or side arm. So maybe there is from a historical point of view no reason to add more axemen.
If there are people that would say that for certain factions it makes historically sense to add axemen, then I would welcome some statements.
more citizen infantry variety
in General Discussion
Posted
I think if we can justify is, it would be nice to introduce melee infantry that is not a spearman, swordsman or pikemen.
I ran into a story of an axe being used and it tells that it is not super rare or pure fantasy, but it does not tell much else either. The Athenian Cynaegirus had as the story goes his hand chopped off by an axe when trying to board a Persian ship. I could see axes being used by pirates or crew members of ships (similar as the vikings did), but that would need more verification.
Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynaegirus