LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
On 09/04/2021 at 2:19 PM, Player of 0AD said:
"Mighty" is an understatement, they are OP. How can they be "pretty easy to kill" and how don't they do much damage?
My guess would be that Yekaterinas comment was ironical. Seems like you fell for it ;P
-
8 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
Make their helot units cheaper yet weaker.
Helot should be mainly workers and having cheaper workers can have serious balance effects in a citizen soldier concept. I would like the idea, but we need a good clue how to keep balance in mind.
When reading on wikipedia about Sparta, I also found the something about the Spartan Hamosts and their garision. Maybe we can give the Spartans something unique in city phase to reflect the Spartan Dominance and rule after the Peloponnesian war.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sam91 said:
What games have been the inspiration for its development ? does anyone know?
Here is the story of us:
https://play0ad.com/about/the-story-of-0-a-d/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN6VR92V70M
Beware of trolls(very strong AoM unit) though.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, seeh said:
what about a system for rating where could gamer always could get more (like experience)? and it constantly becomes less over the time (to a middle value. little like normal training in real world). winner gets experience (calculate this like old good elo rating), looser not. think about the effects that this could have. all ratings get closer together but the best player will still stay the best. daring a rated game is no longer risky. point are only lost over time (see e.g. aging process or experiences with success or something).
The problem with that as far as I can judge is that it measures how much you play as much as what your win ratio is.
-
23 hours ago, borg- said:
Bonus 2 - Current bonus.
Bonus 3 - Civic centers give +10 pop cap bonuses, bringing back something similar to the bonus we had in a23, giving the chance for an early rush.
I think we need to be very careful with stacking eco bonuses. If your opponent has an eco bonus then it feels like a small mistake on your side means that your eco is so far behind that you will never recover. Also the Brits start with a dog making those early mistakes very much possible. On top of that Brits get faster Javelins to accelerate their advantage. On the other hand I am a fan of britons having a woad paint health generation tech for some units
23 hours ago, borg- said:Bonus 4 - Can train two men and a trunk in phase 2, similar to a ram, but faster and with less health and pierce resistance. Some phase 3 technologies excluded for that unit. Arsenal and ram removed.
I am not a fan of this. I would elaborate on this if you gave me the specifics of the unit.
23 hours ago, borg- said:Bonus 1 - Can train sword cavalry in phase 1.
I think that more cav. oriented civs should get a second cavalry unit in p1. This is encourage aggressive play and helps to to counter turtling with ranged units. I would be thinking about giving mellee cavs to Iberians and Persians in p1, giving carthaginians the abilitie to build a (single) embassy in p1 with mercenary cav and giving Seleucids a cavarly archer in p1.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, maroder said:
I tried removing dropsite from CC for a while in DE, but I found myself annoyed that I couldn't use it as such.
If this is the problem, we could easily counteract it by making that CC can store wood/minerals but no food(or lets just make it wheat whereas meat and berries can). If you can store wood in the CC, you can build a farmstead and farms and you will still be able to get going.
Also I highly doubt if towns will start to look as idyllic in the right picture. The only way to really know is to let people play on such a mod as I can not judge how other people would make a layout for their base. However I do suspect there will be a lot more housewalling to keep your eco safe and map generation would become more decisive. I think it will hurt gameplay more than it helps.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, maroder said:
It leads to a standard build order that involves 8 fields around the CC, because that is the most defended area in the beginning of the game. But afaik it is historically not accurate that the heart of big cities was filled with fields.
Historically, I guess if there was fertile farmland somewhere, then some people would settle it. build a little cosy house in the neighbourhood.
In the game, players build farms at positions that are well defendable(in current meta around CCs). We build farms inside a fortified area. The defensive capabilities help our farmers, wheres houses and other buildings don´t need to be placed in areas that are well defendable.
When using this type of logic, it is understandable that it will never look like in real live. Building farms in defensive positions seems logical whereas CCs don´t give reason to build other buildings(to form a city layout) close to them. This is aided by the fact that some players build their buildings(esp. barracks) at the edge of their territory to get some extra territory.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
Make chariots like the Konniks in Age of Empires 2. When the unit dies, an infantry unit spawns in its place.
The animations by Wow look neat, but I fail to see an obvious guerilla connection behind that concept. On the other hand, a chariot with a garrisoned (melee) infantry would give the concept some speed and it would allow the chariot to drop off the (melee) infantry which are normally fairly slow. For the chariot it means that the (melee) infantry can function to shield the chariot against spearmen/pikemen which provides good synergy.
-
2
-
-
The health generation complements the skirmishing style very well. My suggestion for the chariot would be a chariot unit starting with a loaded infantry and if the infantry loses lots of health, it runs back to the corresponding chariot and garrisons.
To make micro doable we could give loaded chariots a different icon, so you can select the ones containing the injured to send them to safety.
-
Just another Sunday in open source land!
-
1
-
1
-
-
If I had to do a suggestion for an army camp, I would suggest a building that gives a +15% attack aura in a 120 meter range(enough to build it near fortifications and have an advantage on taking them). However an army camp would slowly dismantle and lose the aura unless you sacrifice large supplies, making it a building with temporary use only.
Also army camps should be destroyed upon capture, which should provide considerable loot and be fairly easy if there is no supporting army. If you delete your own army camp, you could get some resources back.
-
1
-
-
I think the dev team has things quite right. I think only small stat changes are in place. From what I´ve seen in AoE2, small changes can have a drastic impact on the preferred strategy in RTS games. I am more the type of boom player and I think booming is advantageous against turtling opponents.
However I can understand that the meta currently might not be the best it could be. I think it would be solved with a few small stat changes. If melee cavalry and infantry swordsmen(for infantry swordsmen maybe also +10% speed) would get +1 pierce armor and towers would take +50% longer to build and upgrade, I think the meta would be fine.
-
1
-
-
Looks awesome. However the legs of the men look awkward on closer inspection.
In reality I think it would be more common to shoot from a turret.
-
Carthaginians do as far as I know not have a lot to distinguish themselves competitively in 1v1. Style-wise, they only distinguish themselves with nonviable mercenaries. They do have their apartments which seem cool, but are locked to p2. When you reach p2, the minor advantage that apartments seem to offer doesn´t make a lot of impact(especially not with A24 p2 timings). Therefore I would like to do this suggestion:
Instead of apartments being locked to p2, I would like to see apartments being unlocked as soon as you have 5 p1 buildings. So for most builds that would mean 3 houses, a farmstead and a storehouse. It would give a small eco advantage, but only after you reached 50 pop. So it is a nice bonus but nothing over the top. The Carthaginian player still needs probably the 3 houses at the start, which means players still get a nice mix of houses and apartments(because mono-culture is boring). In later stages, Carthaginian players will still build houses if they lack stone or need pop quickly when the are housed. Also apartments in this suggestion no longer count as a requirement for p3.
I would like to hear your ideas on this.
-
1
-
-
If I had to do a suggestion, I would go for a faction that represents the Greeks in southern Italy. Syracuse was one of the largest cities in the Mediterranean and was active against both Athene(defeating Athenes fleet and contributing to the end of Athenian hegemony) and they also fought both Carthage and Rome. They are another Greek faction(limits diversity), but that makes fit in with the others.
I also recently found a vid about the Kushan empire which might also be interesting.
-
1
-
-
My view is that if your units get slaughtered, the player should get a visual notification.
No spooky actions at a distance!
-
1
-
-
I have to remark that 2 barracks having each 1 unit in the que will cost you 800 resources(100 per unit and 300 per barrack). One barrack with 10 units in the que produces units slower and costs 1300 resources. If you have 2 barracks with 1 unit in the que you can also produce faster. I think going for large ques is not the best way to use your resources.
-
1
-
-
What I also like about the idea is that we can play around with the times which it takes to turn enemy in neutral and neutral in owned. That would give more options for balancing it out.
-
1
-
-
I voted that it is not abuse. I think that we have to see it in perspective. It is so hard to reclaim your own territory if someone sneakily captures your own CC, temple or tower. So I think it is only fair if you are able to delete it.
-
3
-
-
On 28/03/2021 at 3:57 PM, Nescio said:
As for ranged troops, I created a blank map and ran a few tests, here's the outcome:
20 infantry archers vs 20 infantry javelineers → archers won, 10 surviving archers 20 infantry archers vs 20 infantry slingers → archers lost, 2 surviving slingers 20 infantry archers vs 20 infantry pikemen → archers lost, 11 surviving pikemen 20 infantry archers vs 20 infantry spearmen → archers lost, 12 surviving spearmen 20 infantry archers vs 20 infantry swordsmen → archers lost, 13 surviving swordsmen
At first I would like to thank Nescio for the data and I will not discuss the validity of the tests. However I disagree with his interpretation. An open field battle with no micro is the best possible situation for the melee (infantry) units and this is the best you can they can achieve. The archers only killed 7 swordsmen, but we have to keep in mind that the remaining 13 probably weren´t full health afterwards.
I would like to focus my argument on what others have said.
On 27/03/2021 at 10:49 AM, Angen said:For my opinion even 2x more ranged units should not be issue for melee infantry to take on if ranged units just stay still on the open unprotected.
Lets say that 20 swordsmen need a time of X to kill 20 archers in the tested battlefield situation. If I see the numbers, then an army of 40 ranged units would have double the firepower and in a time of X, they will cause double the damage. So before at time X the arches will have caused (over) double the damage and the swordsmen will kill at most 20 units(since they get their numbers reduced faster). After time X, there will be at least 20 archers remaining and at most 6 swordsmen. No questions about how that is gonna end. In practice it will be much worse for the swordsmen, but I will not delve into that.
What is a far better number for comparison is not how much the archers kill, but rather how much archers you need to evenly match the swordsmen in open battle(best situation for the swordsmen). My estimate would be that (in the best situation) the swordsmen will be a evenly matched to 30 archers. I would encourage people to find what this exact number is.
In true gameplay, the archers are the faster and the ranged unit, which means that swordsmen need to come to the battle and battle only occurs if the archer player thinks he has at least a decent position. So in practical situation you cannot expect to get the optimal number of (estimated to be around) 30 kills with your 20 swordsmen.
On 27/03/2021 at 2:11 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:And the foot archers should be alone to cause a couple of kills, except if it(the archer) is a champion unit or elite.
The current stats is that an archer is both ranged and has a higher DPS than the spearman. So in a army of 20 archers and 20 spearmen, the archers will do the most damage, even if the melee fighting has begun.
I think the tests revealed that in the ideal situation, swordsmen can do work, but I think in practice that situation is rare. You might easily run into a situation were swordsmen don´t work out, especially if your opponent is well fortified. I do not support Angens statement that swordsmen should be winning against double numbers of archers(or ranged infantry in general) in the open field. What I do support is the idea that if an opponent has solely archers, say a 40 archer vs. 20 swordsmen in open field situation, the swordsman should be able to inflict huge casualties like killing at least 75% and that something which I currently don´t expect to happen in 95% of A24 situations.
What I said in this post should probably hold for most ranged infantry in some form or another.
-
On 27/03/2021 at 2:52 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Also, what do we want combat to look like? Personally, I'd like army compositions to look a little more like real ancient armies. Something like 65% melee infantry, 20% ranged/support infantry, and 15% cavalry. I wouldn't want to enforce this, only encourage with stats and unit roles.
The reason I think for the current meta is that the rock-paper-scissors doesn´t work out/is absent (referring to age of empires 2, there are many of those systems in the game).
So if our opponent goes solely for ranged units in p1, there should be a counter to punish that decision. Such counter is currently absent and thus players can go for ranged units without punishment.
What I would suggest is that there would be a counter to going solely for ranged units in p1. An example would be (buffed) mellee cavalry in p1 that will be able to punish players going solely for ranged units. The question I would like to ask if all of us agree that there should be a counter.
-
Regarding competitive play I can say that you need every click to be as useful as possible and you should minimize idle time. Setting up ambushes and waiting form an enemy to show up does not seem worthwhile to me at higher levels.
-
On 25/03/2021 at 8:24 PM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
There could be the option of introducing technologies that make their infantry better at destroying and/or capturing structures.
I agree to this. The Gauls have unpopular naked fanatics(could go the same for other p2 champions/mercenaries). I think if we could tweak them to be good at capturing CCs/towers(In the sense that 20 of them could capture a garrisoned CC if the opponent is in p2 or p1, for a p3 opponent it should be more difficult& for example CCs/buildings should be hard to capture if there is a tower close by), they would get their place in the game and the territory problem would be somewhat solved. It would create a gameplay like: You can capture buildings, but at a cost of training expensive and specialized champions. Mainly this point comes down to reworking the capturing process and getting a fair ballance(which requires a more elaborate post). The main point is: Should 20 fanatics be enough to take a CC is the opponent can´t protect it and hasn´t reached p3?
Since we have techs like archery and hoplite tradition, we could also add sling tradition for celts/iberians. I would suggest the cost to be (400s,400M) and its effect is to double to crush damage of slingers and reduce their training time by 10%. That would mean for gameplay that 44 slingers give you as much crush damage output as 1 elephant, but the technology comes at reasonable cost. Also reducing hack resistance of CC to 20 could help for destroying CCs(As apart from elephants no-one uses hack damage vs CCs anyway).
Further comment1: I don´t think the gauls are weak. The lower building time&small houses gives them a nice boom which can be exploited. The main problem is that the Britons same bonus and a better tech tree IMHO.
Further comment2:I don´t see how the man with a log unit is going to work out gameplaywise. Please elaborate on what the unit would look like(listing its stats such as armor values&pop count, possible upgrades, how it can be trained and if it has other roles or is just the anti-building thingy). I would like to give a critic reply, but without giving the specifics of the unit, any comments would be speculation.
-
In this forum, we would like to keep historical relevance in mind. In order to do so, I would like to post my sources. I feel like adding a source directly to a comment, could introduce a discussion about the source and though that is reasonable, it is not always on point. Furthermore, I do not want to post a source about historical relevance at the end of every comment, since that might give the impression that I am a mr. know-it-all and that the sources are a must read. I would like to keep an open discussion and I would prevent rages like ¨did you read my source¨. I encourage people to come with their own sources, which is better than only advocating others to read only mine.
I would like to post my sources here and the topic they rely to, so you can see on which sources I base my information and we can discuss the credibility/interpretation of them. If you want to discuss my sources, please do it in this thread (if you agree to doing so) to keep things separated.
Feel free to delete this thread if you think it does not belong on the forum.
Celtic/Briton slingers: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/reinvention/archive/volume7issue2/swan
What are your thoughts on Cavalry Gather Rates?
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by LetswaveaBook
maybe the problem is that the chicks like to be near the cc instead of the cavalry having high gather rates.