LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
Tom0ad is live now
-
1
-
-
I continued some testing and I tried to move 12 javelin cavalry past 24 spear cavalry and ran over the length of 12 long spartan wall pieces. I lost 3 javelin cavalry and 3 more were heavily damaged, while the remaining 6 units had very little damage.
I tried the same scenario in A25 and I would be left with only 4 javelin cavalry.
So I tend to think spear cavalry aren't very good at chasing down the slower javelin cavalry in A26.
-
9 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
this is true, but acceleration makes a different engagement type much more impactful for spearcav vs skirmcav:
In the case that javelin cavalry are intercepted by spearcav (need to change directions to run away), they have a much harder time escaping. With the larger counter to cavalry, I don't expect spearcav to be losing to javelin cav.
I think you are right in the fact that a single test does not provide a clear imange on what to expect.
So I ran some tests again. If 1 sword cavalry chases 1 javelin cavalry over the length of 12 long spartan wall pices, then we have the result I meantioned earlier
38 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:In A26, the javelin cavalry receives after the first hit 7 more hits while being chased over a set distance.
The javelin cavalry is left with 63 HP.
If 24 sword cavalry chase 12 javelin cavalry, then along the same distance only, I lost only 1 javelin cavalry and the remaining group had about 900 HP left.
So acceleration has the potential to really troll engagements.
-
In a similar test:
In A25, the javelin cavalry receives after the first hit 12 more hits while being chased over a set distance.
In A26, the javelin cavalry receives after the first hit 7 more hits while being chased over a set distance.
I seems that it is a fair estimate to say that melee cavalry can't chase down javelin cavalry as good as they could in A25 and during the escaping phase, the javelin cavalry receives about 1/3rd less hits in A26.
-
Consider the following situation: a javelin cavalry runs away from a chasing spear cavalry.
In A25, the javelin cavalry moves at constant speed, whereas the spear cavalry stops at some points to attack and then chases again with full speed.
In A25, the javelin cavalry moves at constant speed, whereas the spear cavalry stops at some points to attack and then chases again but it loses some time by needing to accelerate.
So I ran a test in the scenario editor. I had a javelin cavalry and waited until the spear cavalry did the first hit. Then immediately afterwards I ran away for a set amount of distance which I believe to be about 250 meters.
In A25, the javelin cavalry receives after the first hit 6 more hits while being chased over this distance.
In A26, the javelin cavalry receives after the first hit 4 more hits while being chased over this distance.
-
My aim would be to let every feature of any faction feel unique.
Currently, the Kushites have the unique monumental architecture technology and it is a pity that it doesn't offer a lot of usefulness.
Unlike the Persian Architecture unique technology, it only affects civic buildings (CCs, temples and houses). I wanted to create a patch that energizes well with the existing features of the Kushites.
The Kushite faction has 5 different champions and I wanted to stress on that. Two of them are build at temples, which are civic buildings. So therefore I saw it fitting to increase the batch training speed for civic buildings.
https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4310
Also, to double on the champion aspect: I enabled the axe infantry champion in p2 adding to the Kushite identity of a varied p2 army.
https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4704
I hope that these changes can help to making playing as the Kushites a truly unique experience.
-
2
-
-
On 15/06/2022 at 6:14 PM, borg- said:
For that he needs to be fast and efficient against buildings, but the patch makes him more powerful than he is now, greatly increasing his hack and crush dmg, so he would be fast and strong against units too. With the patch he's able to fight cavalry and run away without taking damage, and that's what I mean in creating other problems.
I played a multiplayer game with proposal @real_tabasco_sauce. That patch turn the axe cav into a formidable fighter. However in a mixed army, the axe cavalry is also one of the first units to die. So that tends to balance. I think the unit is not majorly imbalanced.
The speed is indeed a possible issue though.
-
1
-
-
On 12/06/2022 at 2:58 PM, vinme said:
because units overlap with eachother, so 4 may almost look like one.
Everyone praises A25, but I think A25 has some problems and overlapping is a serious one.
-
2
-
-
On 12/06/2022 at 3:59 PM, borg- said:
- Add Icehouse.
Cant garrison
Built in own/neutral territory. Village Phase
Build time: 50sec
Cost: 100 wood
Food trickle 1/2sec. Building limit 30
When I searched on the internet for Persian Ice houses, the idea of adding the to the game felt very good. The most logical bonus would be food related and I like the idea of a food trickle as it encourages to build more than a single one.
It seems natural to compare the cost of the ice house to a farmer. So for 5 farmers we have a cost of
250 food for training 5 women
100 wood for a field + 75 wood for building the housing for 5 women,
75 seconds construction time.
Without farming upgrades, they produce as much as 5 ice houses (as proposed) in the mod. But the cost of the Ice houses is 500 wood and 250 seconds build time. So fields seem preferable to me even if you lack all farming upgrades. Currently the main advantage of the building seems to be that it does not require population space. @borg- I am interested what your ideas are behind these numbers.
1 hour ago, borg- said:I think I'll lower to 15 and increase the equivalent gain.
I think this is a better idea. If the cost and the gain per Ice house are higher, then instead of being spammed, each one brings a more noticeable impact.
My suggestion would be 100 wood+100 stone+50 seconds build time. So at the start of the game, you have a unique way of using your stone. If you have some leftover stone at the start, you can fully utilize it for ice houses, but it means you need to go to stone before getting the 3rd barracks. So that would give the interesting question on how many ice houses you build at the start of the game and how you combine it with your build order.
On 03/06/2022 at 11:04 PM, LetswaveaBook said:Persian architecture tech
Farming gets more efficient as more eco technologies are being researched. The Ice house seems to lag behind more and more for every farming technology that gets researched. I think it would be fitting if the Persian Architecture tech also provided +20% resource tickle for ice houses (as well as a +20% territory boost).
-
2
-
-
-
26 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:
I suggest to create a variation called balanced plainland which has no cliffs at all. Even better, no height differences at all, it should be perfectly plain, thats why it is called plainland.
I suggest a variation with a big hill in the middle on which a neutral fortress sits that can be captured.
So on such a map, you would like to capture the fortress before the opposing team does. However sending a few troops there right from the start means you will suicide these units.
-
1
-
-
I have been modding a little today and I managed to create a variation of mainland where players start with walls.
-
6
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
What do you do after you run out of chicken and there is no extra hunt? The standard four women is much, much faster because it is already has women on berries and already has the berry tech with no wasted units. It is how you are set up for the future. The regular build gets you there faster with no waste and waste and there is no drag moving forward. The regular build also gives you the flexibility to build an extra cav unit at the start and not be any slower because of it. This starting configuration is just going to be slower.
I don't know if it is going to be slower in every situation. If you have extra hunt or berries, then in a 1v1, you recruiting some cavalry for rushing and defending against rushes feels to me as a must. In those cases, the suggested start does not seem disadvantageous to me.
In the situation where there is no extra hunt or berries, i agree that the regular start looks better. But the biggest disadvantage seems to be on nomad starts.
-
Last week I played a game against DocterOrgans and he left the game ealry. Within a minute after I reach p3, he disconnects. At that moment I am ahead as he reaches p3 considerably later. I pause the game and he reconnects. Then we continue the game and after a while he disconnects again when he is at a major disadvantage. He returns shortly after and ask him if I DDOSed him, which I didn't do. He leaves the game again, I wait 10 minutes for him to return. Once I see that he doesn't return, I defeat his units, but that didn't grant points.
I have the idea that he noticed he was behind and therefore left the game and tried to blaim it on his connection. I think it should count as a loss for him. It would be undesirable if people can just disconnect once they fall behind and then blame it on connectivity issues.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Tom0ad is live
-
1
-
-
If you start with 4 infantry, 2 women en 2 cavalry, then you can recruit 3 batches of 4 women and reach 20 population after 73 seconds.
For the regular start, you recruit two batches of 4 women and a batch of 3 and reach 20 population at 68 seconds.
-
3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
For reference, a simple test shows that the proposal will result cause to already being 20 seconds slower at 20 pop (and that one extra cav unit will be a drag on the boom). With the proposal, I suspect no one would ever play Persia in team games because they would be too slow.
@chrstgtr, I have an inconvenient truth for you:
Either there is no such simple test to show the time difference at which the Persian player reaches 20 population, or you are incapable to perform this simple test.
-
@Stan`@borg- It would be nice to add some features to Persians for the first release candidate. So I would like to get some indication on when and what is happening.
I think @real_tabasco_sauce has put forward a bold approach on differentiating the axe cavalry. My suggestion would be that @borg- creates a patch that does not conflict with @real_tabasco_sauce axe cavalry. I think it is fair to accept the proposal of @real_tabasco_sauce as an essential part of a community project is respecting the proposals of other people. I would like to ask borg- what his plans are for his patch on RC1.
Finally: Stan` can you give a deadline for patches to be shaped and accepted for the first release candidate?
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Sevda said:
I find archers very useful, although I wouldn't spam them as my staple ranged output.
I agree with this. They are useful, but not ideal for being the main force of ranged output. The main issue is that 3 out of 4 archer factions don't get a CS slinger or skirmisher and thus are nearly forced to use archers as the main force of ranged output..
-
23 minutes ago, ChronA said:
Plus a speed change would boost their economic value and create chaos for civ balance (again).
There is still chaos. The only thing is that you have beocme accustomed to this type of chaos.
-
Currently the archer is the ranged unit with the least damage and it moves 1.5 m/s slower than the javelineer. This means that the archer can't fight a charging mob of javelineers and their slow speed means they receive a lot of damage on the retreat or get completely annihilated.
Currently the speed for the Ranged units are 11.4, 10.8 and 9.9 m/s. I would consider it an improvement if the weaker unit has a better chance to escape. So I would suggest 11.1 m/s speed for the skirmisher and 10.5 m/s speed for the archer.
-
8 minutes ago, Sevda said:
Might be too OP. 30 of them can hack down a CC very quickly so it leaves very little chance for the enemy.
Before you claim that such a thing is easy to do, I recommend making a mod a trying it out.
-
1
-
-
On 02/06/2022 at 3:19 AM, chrstgtr said:
For this particular feature, no one has expressed interest or support. It's a waste of time for the balancing team to weigh in on every proposal because half of the tickets basically only receive support from the patch's author.
I would consider this attitude on the impolite side of things. If you can't be bothered to give your opinion on a proposal, you might be in the balancing team, but not in an advisor role.
At least you can say that you disagree with the fact and for an advisor it wouldn't be bad to express what you think of a certain feature that is currently in the game, which is in this case axe cavalry. I hope you have an opinion worth sharing on axe cav yourself.
On 02/06/2022 at 3:19 AM, chrstgtr said:With that said, three people besides the patch's creator have substantively commented on the patch. Two of those three, including myself, are part of the balancing team. All three have expressed skepticism about the proposal.
Rather than the negatives, we should look for the positives. If there are negatives, we should look for ways to address for the negatives or argue that how the positives can outweigh the negatives. Also in all the posts on the tread, I see some positive things mentioned about the patch. So I don't agree with your view about the skepticism the patch received.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, berhudar said:
Cavalry health upgrade should be researchable in p1.
Quote- All Persian cavalry are available in the CC, except champions.
- All Persian cavalry, except champions, can be trained in phase 1.
I wouldn't be a fan of moving all good stuff from p2 to p1. I would like it if p2 offered useful and unique advantages instead of being the roadblock on your way to p3 that it currently seems to be.
-
2
-
Alpha 26 Pre-release/Release Candidate Build Testing
in Game Development & Technical Discussion
Posted
I thought in this example the difference in units lost is a factor 2.
I don't want to be sarcastic, but do these situations really exist or is it wishful thinking?