PyrrhicVictoryGuy
-
Posts
406 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by PyrrhicVictoryGuy
-
-
I think this should be and additional upgrade for the p1 tower, either you upgrade to the p2 tower we already have or you upgrade it to the " Mirror Tower", it would have to be more expensive than the normal p2 tower upgrade but enables it to affect siege machines but not regular units. I think a choice like this, between denying area to units vs denying area to siege would be interesting.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Achemedes death ray concept
Pretty cool!! How did you do it? Is it an aura type thing?
-
In all honesty dogs weren't used regulary in warfare, like the roman flaming pig it is mostly a "fantasy" unit.
# GiveGreeksAMollossianHound
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:
These changes would go from stat ajustments to full on roster changes, which I would be opposed to, mind you.
But these are but fantasies, only in the real of mods would we ever see such radical changes.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Ok, let's do it!
These changes would go from stat ajustments to full on roster changes, which I would be opposed to, mind you.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
We need to make it more viable for foot units to be able to hunt. For that, a simple dagger just won't do; the game needs weapon switching (which would just generally be a good feature for multiple reasons).
But then those same civs would need other parameters of their roster revisited as well...
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
You are making a false dichotomy there. Civilisations without access to cavalry could still theoretically be powerful, but the game railroads currently. To address your other points.
So there seem to be a few misconceptions with this idea of cavalry hunting. If you read most Greek and Latin classics, the animal of choice for a hunt is typically a dog, not a horse, and most hunting seems to have been done on foot. If you don’t believe me, doing a brief search for ancient Greek and Roman art represents hunting on foot primarily, not horseback. I can’t necessarily speak for non-Greco-Roman hunting, but I would not be surprised if it was similar.
Also the point about Sparta being in a different area doesn’t exactly work. Yes, their colonies had different institutions, but broadly speaking the social changes that led to the exclusive use of hoplites came after the Messenian Wars, after their colonial ventures. Cavalry use implies a disparity of wealth, which the Spartan constitution worked to prevent that. One of the strongest proponents for a strong Spartan cavalry force Agesilaus II was able to raise an effectual troop, but with his death it more or less disbanded. Examples of powers such as Macedonia that were able to field competent cavalry were primarily able to do so due to a powerful aristocracy. Sparta required egalitarian laws amongst its citizenry to unite them against the disenfranchised helots; since the game represents helots, we can assume that the constitution also is in part implied, meaning that heavy use of cavalry in that context would still be ahistorical.
In summation, forcing civilisations to have cavalry in the early game because hunting is a critical part of the economy makes little to no sense when looking at how hunting was done.
I would definitely welcome this sort of change.
Heavy resistance to meta changes is to be expected.
-
4 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
You are right, it is by no means underpowered, and when combined with the hero can sometimes be fun. I guess one thing to consider is, a24 TGs were so clogged with defenses and buildings and crowds of archers that it was hard to move anywhere, so it got boring to use those archercav.
Does anyone agree with me that seles could use some kind of CS melee cav? or does it sacrifice too much uniqueness to make one civ more flexible?
No hellenistic state should be deficient in the cavalry department
-
Well I think it wouldn't change the multiplayer scene that much.
-
2 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
tbh from balancing point of view sele cav is already pretty strong as you can charge the cataphracts at the front then use archer chariots at the back for damage output.
Just hire merc cav or use spears!
But does a player even have the amount of metal required for such a venture?
-
Just now, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
@Yekaterina Thank you so much for the in-depth explanation.
Champions only cost a little more metal and everyone already has a wood and food eco so it is likely if the can afford mercenaries, that they can also afford champs.
I have been advocating for this as well but for all mercs. Maybe for some mercs metal cost diverted to stone, wood, or food. This would also make the ptol hero a little less "enabling" of mercenaries with its -35% metal cost being less influential. I still think it should be -25%.
Well I also made a point about this in my Syracuse discution. Having a stone requirement for factions that historically used the chleruchy system makes sense and makes the abundant resource that is stone a comodity, not only for spamming defensive buildings.
-
2 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
I am not comparing camel archers with infantry archers. What I am trying to say is that spending the same amount of metal on camels is not as cost effective in large direct confrontations as other types of units. Of course camels are still great for harassment, but their role is very clearly defined now and players cannot abuse camels by overspamming them.
I mean you did compare them and the result was pretty satisfatory. What happened was that I misunderstood your intent, for a minute I tought that you wanted camels to beat archers.
-
19 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
I ran 3 experiments, in all 3 Ptolemaic units were put in a fight against 80 Carthaginian basic infantry archers.
Battle 1: 60 basic camels
Battle 2: 60 champion pikemen
Battle 3: 48 champion cavalry
The Ptolemies spent 4800 metal in each battle, but the outcomes were very different. Yes, the champions cost wood and food as well but if you had set up your eco properly these food and wood requirements should be quite easy to be satisfied. Metal is always the rare resource that forces players to do risky expansions and lose games.
The outcomes show that camels are not worth it, at least against archers.
Why should a camel archer army that is much more mobile, therefore being able to attack wherever and whenever the player needs should beat foot archers and be just a straight up better version? No their role as a mobile harassment force is the correct one, yes we should limit their rush ability a bit but never I and I do mean never make them better than a the foot acher again. The game already has a ranged unit meta as it is.
-
I meant in addition to the normal rank have another rank for their most played faction
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, maroder said:
I like the idea to convert mercenaries for money. see here for a concept mod:
I also like capturing of eles. imo they could have a much more interesting dynamic.
Disagree. You can change the usefulness of mercs to accommodate such a mechanic (and not to forget that there already have been huge changes to the mercs for a25).
For the eles: yeah that is a concern, but there are surely ways to make it not too op.
Reports from testers indicate mercs are not useful enough in A25. Nor will they ever be if citizen soldiers train time drecreases further as mercs can only be cost-effective when both sides have rougly the same ammount of troops and there are few on each side. As for the elephants, their stats could be worse than the normal champion elelphant sure.
-
Yeah like we could see who is highest rated ptol player for example.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Make it so camels cost less metal perhaps like 40 metal and replace the other 40 metal for additional food.
-
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:
1. Allow Carthaginians to capture gaia elephants and then upgrade them into war elephants at the cost of some metal and time. I believe they actually did this.
2. Allow enemy mercenaries and auxiliaries to be captured. Traditionally mercenaries were never loyal and would defect to whoever gives them higher pay, and riot when there is no war.
Bad ideas. Makes mercs even more of a liability and gives elephant civs free elephants.
27 minutes ago, Lopess said:I always missed a more interesting dynamic when capturing an enemy CC, such as unlocking a local troop.
For example, when capturing a cc from a Greek civilization, it is possible to train a number of Greek Hoplilite mercenaries.
I always missed a more interesting dynamic when capturing an enemy CC, such as unlocking a local troop.
For example, when capturing a cc from a Greek civilization, it is possible to train a number of Greek Hoplilite mercenaries.
Irrelevant as mercs are useless and you almost never capture an enemy CC.
33 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:we could also introduce a new type of offensive priest that converts units.
Depends on the civ.
-
8 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
We also know that Ptolemies
1. Had horses which were more conventional and thus easier to field.
2. Had bows but rarely used them on mounts since that was a highly specialised skill.
3. And had appendixes.
Camels by and large were irregular in warfare use and were primarily used by desert people such as the Nabateans where the advantages of the camel's water capacity made it the mount of choice. If we take Pyrric's general point, camel cavalry was hardly a famous type of troop that the Ptolemies used.
At the end of the day all the arguments for and against these sorts of solutions are basically just armchair professor hypotheses without actual experience from players attempting to see its limitations.
The classic gameplay vs historical accuracy point is fair to mention when it comes to civilisations starting to feel the same. I would point out that a good deal of proposals from myself and others to differentiate factions have met resistance from the gameplay perspective (i.e. it would be unbalanced and changes to compensate for it are too much work.). The simple fact that complete unit classes are forbidden yet the roles of each class are universal is a position that is practically doomed to fail when it comes to prioritising balance in favour of diversity. Look at Alpha 23: the overpowered civilisations tended to be ones that had slingers. Alpha 24: archers.
Ironically the seemingly same-ish approach of Age of Empires II achieved much more diversity between civilisations by allowing spectrum of availability with classes. I would say that the same would be possible with 0 A.D. and promotions.
All of this said, everyone seems fairly entrenched in their opinions regarding the possibility of camel archers being mercenaries, and the consensus seems broadly negative for any change with the most receptive being cautiously optimistic about it: not what I would call one worth attempting to sway. Regardless of that, I do appreciate that people were willing to engage with the topic and point out some valid objections to this proposal.
Its true, its to late for anyone to change the basic roster so I won't even press this further. Now to conclude my argument, lets say there were more factions like the romans, who lack one or more of the basic units in p1 or p2, then these factions would be weak in the early game so they could be given some advatanges in the late game or you could lets say make a type of unit weaker for one civ or stronger when compared to other civs.
-
12 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Historically, nearly every civilization had those troop types. Nothing more common than a dude with a spear, a dude throwing a rock or javelin, and a guy on horseback doing the same.
Ah now we come to the same old discution gameplay vs historical accuracy. Well I think gameplay comes first and so the game could emphasize units that made each civilization famous. And I do believe this would spice up gameplay a lot.
-
To be honest giving every civ the 3 basic units, spearman, skirmisher/slinger/archer and jav cav hurts the game.
-
3
-
-
Well i got to 1300 by playing macedon and seleucid exclusively and i've got to say macedon just feels like a bootleg seleucid empire.
-
1
-
-
I think we are going towards making every civ the same. I mean army compositions are basically the same over the board already.
-
3
-
-
It's not like we will have an audience so I don't think it will matter.
War dogs overpowered
in Balancing Discussions
Posted
Dogs are what, 100 food? So 10 dogs is 1000 food that can't collect resources but are close to champions in terms of attack, while 10 spearmen are a bit more, 500 food and wood but can collect resources so yeah I think its fair. I mean if a barbarian faction isn't good at early game agression then they what are they good for?