[Remove spread a.k.a randomness]

4 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

How would you code range dropoff? Please teach me!

I think it was meant that ranged units are more likely to miss at large range.

[Gameplay issue: Booming = Turtling]

We were discussing on a similar matter on another thread called ´Balancing Citizen Soliders (long shot)´

21 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

As I see things, we allready have the tools for creating booming/rushing/turtling gameplay

Booming: the unit that does this are women.

Turtling: This can be done by building towers and citizen soldiers.

Rushing: This could be done by cavalry or p2 champions.

I made this comment a then thought a little deeper. Currently the focus is to much on making citizen infantry. They cost proportionally most wood. The other options cost proportionally more food.  So if we want to encourage the other options, I would suggest reduce wood gathering by a little (-10% or so) and increase food gathering(faster farming/cheaper farms/ cavalry carry capacity). Any thoughts on this?

[Balancing Citizen Soldiers (CS) (long shot)]

 

7 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

severely cut down gathering rates of citizen soldiers

I don´t think it needs to be severely. In age of empires the devs gave the Franks civs a bonus that helped their eco by a little and gave them +20% HP to a unit they used only to rush in early game. Such a small change turned a bottom tier civ in the top tier civ. Balance is a super frail thing and even the smallest of changes can make a huge impact on which strategy is preferred.

[Balancing Citizen Soldiers (CS) (long shot)]

As I see things, we allready have the tools for creating booming/rushing/turtling gameplay

Booming: the unit that does this are women.

Turtling: This can be done by building towers and citizen soldiers.

Rushing: This could be done by cavalry or p2 champions.

The thing is that though we have the tools for it, it does not work out like this. That does not mean the citizen soldier concept is flawed, but rather that our citizen soldier concept is ill-balanced.

[Balancing Citizen Soldiers (CS) (long shot)]

1 hour ago, maroder said:

What if the player had with each phase the opportunity to specifically choose one of the three strategies? So a decision to upgrade your CC or research a technology which gives you either an economic, an aggressive or a defensive boost just for this phase.

The problem in RTS is that a better economy is always useful. So you can use the better economy for all of these strategies. That does not make it impossible to get good game design, but it needs to be considered.  I wouldn´t like it if the choice you made in p2 would put you at an irrecoverable disadvantage. It could work this way to prevent so: In p2 you get the choice between 3 techs, one for rushing(more loot, more cav speed, better capturing rate), one for turtling(cheaper/free tower upgrades) and one for booming(eco upgrades cost 50% less metal). Once you reach p3 you get all of them.

1 hour ago, maroder said:

The wide technology tree on the other hand is very interesting and let you do complex decisions, but I actually need to pause the game and read what each tech does and then decide what I want to do.

I don´t think the tech tree is wide compared to age of empires 2. I think the main difference between the games is on one hand the civilizations are more a like (most get all generic available units in castle age), while each civilization diversifies in imperial age(mostly from lacking techs)

[[Brainstorming] the role of units and classes.]

I don't think using anything as a baseball bat to smash arrows out of the air will work. The tale of pike formations using their long pikes to stop arrows is fairly common, I doubt how much it worked in practice. My guess would be that it won't give complete protection and won't be as protective as equipping each soldier with a big shield. For light armored units, big shields were fairly common and they provided good protection against arrows. The so called shield wall formation was also fairly common throughout history and lasted until late medieval periods.

So I think it is justified to repeat my questions without going astray:

1-Why do pikemen have high armor (pikemen did not carry a shield as big as swordsmen did)?

2-Why do swordsmen beat spearmen in melee and why is pikemen in melee defeated by both swordsmen and spearmen?

[we need volunteers ... There are many absent members]

If there is someone who is rated above 1400, I would be open to try a mod with that person and test balance. So if you see me around in the lobby, you can ping me.

It is not that I have a problem with people rated below 1400, but I feel that the result would depend on the difference in player skill instead of the mod features.

[[Brainstorming] the role of units and classes.]

I do like that we are considering unit roles. What my questions are about the game:

1-Why do pikemen have high armor (pikemen did not carry a shield as big as swordsmen did)?

2-Why do swordsmen beat spearmen in melee and why is pikemen in melee defeated by both swordsmen and spearmen?

To be historically accurate, if you have a spear you can carry a big shield and you deserve the defensive bonus, while the pikemen should win in melee against spearmen. So it seems to be in reverse.

[Remove spread a.k.a randomness]

On 13/05/2021 at 1:38 AM, raynor said:

I want to feature that current way projectile work might still be problematic in some cases

I think it is not a problem if someone can micro to get good results. I think it would be an issue if there is no way to counteract. If you would have shot against the opposing infantry archers you would have been fine. So in my view, the system is not flawed but you misplayed.

[Remove spread a.k.a randomness]

On 13/05/2021 at 1:11 AM, Yekaterina said:

To counter unit dancing: let arrows fly at 1000m/s and there is no chance of dodging it.

That would not make the graphics better. People are already complaining that arrows are so hard to see.

I do think competitive balance is very important, but it should not hinder casual players who prefer single player mode. So it means you solve a problem for competitive players while make it for casual players less attractive since they can no longer see arrows properly.

[Arguments for/against alpha 23 ranged infantry speeds]

In my view, in an ideal balance games shouldn't be determined mainly by ranged citizen infantry. Hence I think it is only fair to give them equal value as gatherers.

 

If games are determined mainly by the type of ranged citizen infantry you get, then I view the balance not to be ideal.

[[Brainstorming] The Problem with Archers and in general the range units]

47 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Indeed, ranged troops should be (mostly) relegated to a support role. They can be useful by themselves in niche situations, but in pitched battle they're just support units. The melee infantry should be the primary force, supported by ranged or skirmishing troops, with cavalry used for flanking maneuvers. 

The chief benefit of infantry is a slow rolling brute force. Cavalry's chief benefit is speed. Ranged infantry's chief benefit is, well, range (and the relative safety range provides; this allows them to support the heavy infantry from afar). 

 

37 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

How do we make it work like this?

By reducing ranged damage overall. Currently all ranged units have to much DPS for my taste.

 

The current meta revolves to much about ranged units, so people compare how archers and Javelineers fight against each other, whereas hystorically the fair thing to do is to compare how Archers and Javelineers can support melee infantry. In current meta it is the other way around, how can melee units support/soak damage best? Being pikemen.

[[Brainstorming] The Problem with Archers and in general the range units]

8 hours ago, alre said:

Mmmh yes... sometimes. During all history there have been a lot of civilizations that relied almost exclusively on ranged troups, and they had their fair share of success.

There are some myths that tell about ranged troops prevailing over melee troops in battlefields, but as far as I know, most of them are untrue. For example the mongols, they decided battles in melee, not in range contrary to what people think. It is true that ranged troops were an important tool, but the deciding factor was melee troops beating opposition that was lured out of position. Also in the battle of Agincourt, the French knights were bested in melee. Maybe we should invoke our historians to judge on the matter, but I think your statement is wrong.

8 hours ago, ChronA said:

Regardless, the main question remains: what role is the javelinist for? Right now it can't be anti-melee-infantry, because that is a job archers already do incidentally in their primary role as ranged superiority weapons.

I disagree with this reasoning. When you see that javelinists deal lots of damage at short range it seems logical that its role is killing melee infantry (but requires a meatshield). In sandbox mode, it already performs that role very well. On the other hand, such a description seems like they should be vulnerable without meatshield, which is also currently the case. I think the problem is that archers/slingers are too good at performing the role of skirmishers and therefore you don´t need skirmishers.

8 hours ago, ChronA said:

that is a job archers already do

For me the problem is that archers do a job that they shouldn´t be doing and that is the core point on which I disagree with the statement.

The role of the archer should be doing damage from a large distance. If archers and slingers are nerved, then skirmishers will probably become very useful. I think the javelineers problem is on the fact that slingers and archers are too strong. I think the environment is flawed and the skirmisher itself is not flawed as much.

[[Brainstorming] The Problem with Archers and in general the range units]

I did some sandbox testing to to simulate an open field battle and then a combination of skrimishers and pikemen look really good. I challenge you to give this a try and to find a combination that performs better under these conditions. Pikemen are very good for soaking damage whereas skirmishers deal a lot of damage from behind. Skirmishers have a DPS of 12.8, which is a lot considering that infantry swordsmen have most DPS of all melee units with a value of 6.67. In most medieval/ancient RTS games, you see that ranged units have less DPS than melee units.

36 minutes ago, alre said:

what ranged units used to do in history: they would provoke the enemy into fight.

This is true, but the other side of the story is that the battles were decided in melee and that ranged units weren´t decisive. In 0 ad they are very important since they have a very high DPS and I think that is the core of the problem. I think ranged units should be weaker and mainly a means to provoke fights or force them to retreat.

The preferred role Javelins is doing damage(DPS=12.8) while supporting a melee fight.  I think we should encourage melee units more and then the preferred role of javelins will see more use, since there are more melee fights. If all citizen ranged units lost say 20% of their DPS, the skirmisher still has a good 10.2 points of DPS left and will remain to see use for this supporting role, while archers remain with only a DPS of 5.4 (and on top of that they miss shots, they miss 30% of their shots on 60m range). That way you only would use archers to provoke fights, but for the actual fights archers would not be so great.

One side note is that 20% would be on the more extreme side, but you can see that I think reducing ranged DPS for all citizen soldiers is my suggestion.

[[Brainstorming] The Problem with Archers and in general the range units]

7 minutes ago, alre said:

It is true that bows were overall a superior weapon to slings, that is proven by history in many ways.

One thing I would like to add is that you need less space to fire a bow. In order to fire a bow, you only need to stand sideways and stretch one arm out. You don´t need more space than that.

Now imagine what would happen if you were in a dense formation and you would try to use a sling. Your neighbours won´t like you. Not every warrior was part of a dense formation, but those dense infantry formations where what ultimately won the day.

@Dakara @Yekaterina@ChronA @a 0ad player , can you explain why javelineers need to be buffed if 40 skirmishers beat 30 spear cavalry in loose formation on an open field battle?

[Remove spread a.k.a randomness]

1 hour ago, raynor said:

I am pushing it a bit, I have to admit ;).

Indeed, you are pushing it a bit. Randomness can give both above and below average results. You view randomness as a disadvantage whereas it can also give results better than expected.

 

If you have 70% chance of hitting an enemy (which I estimated to be about the same chance that a camel will hit something from 60 when firing at a group) and your group fires 60 shots. We can calculate probabilities with the binomial distribution. Then you will hit 42 shots on average. There is only 3.6% chance that you hit 35 shots or less. You have 76% chance to land at least 40 shots. The chance to hit with 47 shots or more is about 10%. So the randomness is fairly mild.

Good execution plays a way more important role than randomness.

[what do we do with the defenses of phase 1?]

1 hour ago, Stan` said:

Note this will damage everything around it. (units, buildings etc.)

Would it be easy to make it 1 crush damage and give a 600 multiplier to palisades?

[Remove spread a.k.a randomness]

1 hour ago, raynor said:

As I see things, the more randomness, the less competitive the game is.

While individual arrows have random hit chances, it does not impact a game with many arrows. The law of large numbers says that if many arrows/slingshots are shot, the amount of hits is extremely likely to be close to the average.

[Remove spread a.k.a randomness]

6 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

Making friendly fire (against own units, not ally) a toggleable game option could be interesting as a balance to units though. But thats a different subject i guess.

I like this suggestion for sake of realism. However I wouldn't like if your ranged units target an enemy automatically and then automatically decide to inflict more damage to your own troops than to the opposing troops.

[Remove spread a.k.a randomness]

On the topic of bow range, if you shoot an arrow for a very long distance, I guess it will lose a considerable amount of its energy to air resistance. So that means its effective range might not be that high.

I like the spread feature as a gameplay balance. Spread means that archers can shoot far, but at large distance melee troops are fairly safe from them because archers are more likely to miss. I think it hurts gameplay if substantial damage can be done at long range and therefore I like inaccuracy at long range to be in the game.

[[Brainstorming] The Problem with Archers and in general the range units]

I would like to show this post once more:

Even though archers beat them, it is not like skirmishers are underpowered...

[what do we do with the defenses of phase 1?]

4 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

how easy is it to rush in phase 1?

In 1v1s if your opponent focuses eco upgrades and on building barracks early and does not spend wood for citizen soldiers, that opens very realistically a possibility to rush with infantry.

I agree with @alre, sentry towers in P1 are not the main problem, except that they are build to fast for my liking. With most civilizations, a player needs to decide if they prefer 2 sentries or a barracks (assuming you have the stone to start with). I think the main problem is that they can be upgraded conveniently in p2. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/25133 removes them being part of the phase up requirement. Also I think that sentries should not be able to fire arrows while the upgrade is in process.

Oh, there is an enemy? Let me upgrade the tower right under their noses!

Oh, there is an enemy and I have no tower? Let me quickly build a sentry with 40 seconds of build time and upgrade the tower right under their noses!

[[Brainstorming] Balancing Mercenary The primary suggestions comes from the cost. (Metal cost) - suggestion]

When it comes to elite rank soldiers, I would like to remind you of how strong they can be.

Even without micro, elite javelin cavalry can beat spear cavalry. Elite sword cavalry has a base of 6 pierce armor and 250 HP and good DPS, making it a very good units against ranged units and siege. When the Elite sword cavalry is compared to the champion spear cavalry, the Elite sword cavalry is surprisingly good considering its costs. Furthermore elite swordsmen are comparable to skiritai commandos while the mercenary probably will be cheaper.

I think that is something people should keep in mind.

[Rushing & Early Game]

14 hours ago, Dizaka said:

The suggestion:  For example, what if projectiles behaved like in a23 for P1.  However, in P2 and P3 they behave like they do in a24 to prevent a "hero" from luring all the arrows?

I am not a big fan of doing spooky things. If we implement this, it would not really be obvious to all the players what the difference is. Also I hope it does not lead to weird gameplay.

I did some tests  and I believe 3.0 to be a better spread value than 2.5. Also as chrstgtr said, rotation times do affect the performance. I think the rotation speed should be low enough to prevent dancing, but fast enough to allow javelin cav rushes.

 

[Mod by Yekaterina featuring slinger champions and garrisoned chariots]

11 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

Balancing advisors, do you think these are appropriate for improving the weak civs?

 The most important question is what makes a civ weak in A24? I think the answer seems to be: Lacking all of these features 1. no good heroes 2. no good siege 3. no elephants 4. not having archery tradition, horse archers or pikemen.

I think there is a core element in the meta that is causing them to be considered weak. In the current meta, there is a real benefit of good siege or elephants. I think we should implement changes that affect the meta, instead of considering these civilizations flawed. Personally I feel like these civilizations have something going for them, but I can understand that they are considered weak in the current meta.

Also there is: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/25338