Micfild
-
Posts
66 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Micfild
-
-
Hi @Grapjas.
I tested you mod for a few games now and i must say it's a very interesting mod. It took a game or two to get the nuances of ranged combat (with the new ammo system), but nothing too difficult.
So far, what i was able to noticed was:
Javelins have aren't viable for long term skirmishes (although they have high damage, their 3 ammo limitation turns them into a worse spearman very quickly, unless they are under a fortress)
The two weapon system is very helpful against siege engines (since ranged units will use their melee weapons instead of ranged ones)
The persian champion chariot is bugged (has no cost besides population, produces very fast, but doesn't attack or do damage)
Great clashes seem to be laggier than the base game (which isn't unexpected considering that it has to deal with charge and ammo now)
Loved the changes to the priest and the addition of the healing camp. I find it weird, though, that it can't be built on owned territory).
It seems that you removed certain techs from the game (the archery tech in the arsenal that reduces spread, hoplite tradition and woots/toledo steel)
===========
That's it for now. If i find anything else, i'll let you know. Overall, nice mod!
-
3
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, alre said:
nope. that doesn't work with changes to the engine, like this one. c++ needs to be complied, mods need to be not.
Makes sense. My bad. I thought that just replacing the .h file would do the trick like javascript.
-
3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
While unit acceleration is controversial in this forum, i think it is a highly flexible change, and could be tweaked to most people's liking.
I agree. I really like the concept and think it would be a great addition to the game, so i'm glad people are trying to implement it. Of course, as with all new mechanics, it will take a while to tweak the values to get it just right.
4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:speed = walkspeed/2 is a good start, but i think maybe even 2/3 would be enough
Yeah, i suggested walkspeed/2 to be a little conservative, but to be quite honest, i have no idea what the ideal value would be. Any suggestion would be just mere guessing.
4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:I do not have the SVN either
One intereting thing i found is that we can donwload the individual files from the diff and build a mod with it. Unfortunaly i don't know of any way to donwload the entire file structure other than manualy downloading each individual file (which can be quite a bit of work since this diff has a lot of files in it), but it may prove to be a way we can test and play with it without needing the SVN.
-
Hi @Grapjas. I'm very curious about your mod and some of the mechanics it implements (like charging and ammo), since i'll only be able to play it at the weekend i went to check on some of the templates just for fun. I found out that the template_unit_infantry archer seems to have the sword stats of it's horse counterpart, instead of the stats of the sword infantry (i.e. it has range 6 and 6.5 hack damage). This looks like a minor typo to me, so i decided to report here.
Can't wait to test this mod, seems like fun!
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
Maybe also allowing units to turn small angles(like 5 degrees) without needing to stop to turn would be nice.
They don't stop for such small angles. The current <InstantTurnAngle> for units in general (not ships or siege) seem to be 1,5 (i think radians) so about 86 degrees. Which means that any angle below that they should behave the same as A25 (if i'm getting this right).
-
1
-
1
-
-
Hi!
I was reading the diff and i have a question and a few observations.
Question:
What is the main goal of introducing acceleration? (is it to bring unit movement closer to reality or to smooth out movement in sharp angles or something else?)
Observations:
They way acceleration seems to work in the code is:
A variable in defined in the templates called <InstantTurnAngle>. For any turn angles smaller than this variable, movement is the same as in A25. For values bigger than this angle (sharp angles), the unit is completely stopped (speed = 0) and then accelerates towards the new direction (while turning). It seems that this because of this sudden stop (which can happend quite a lot in the battlefield) movement seems jank and slow.
So, in order to balance out the mechanic it seems that the variables at our disposal are:
WalkSpeed
RunSpeed
InstantTurnAngle
Acceleration
And this Speed = 0 when The angle is bigger than InstantTurnAngle.
================================================
I don't have the SVN, so i can't test this out myself, but maybe that speed = 0 thing is the culprit for the current behaviour and setting it to something like Speed = WalkSpeed/2 might be a good compromise. Again can't be sure.
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
It really wouldn't be any easier, since it's the same code.
Sry, i think i didn't express myself correctly. What i thought was, since the minimap has to be updated regularly to represent the changes that are occuring in the map (new units, exhausted resources, etc) it seems to be harder to introduce icons in it. What i was thinking was, instead of expanding the existing minimap, we could take a picture of that moment and display it, enlarged and with icons. We wouldn't be actually enlarging the minimap itself, so it shouldn't change any of the existing code. The "enlarged" version wouldn't update itself.
It's like this:
Press Button to enlarge --> save state of the minimap --> enlarge the saved state --> replace dots with icons
Press Button to exit "enlarge" --> discard the saved state.
Again, i don't know how feasible this is, but i thought that by separating the two it would make it harder to break any existing code.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
would be nice an expanded strategy map
Yeah, i've been thinking about that too. If it becomes too much of a hassle to put icons in the minimap, we could have an enlarged version that could be access thorugh some key (like Tab) and that would be like a snapshot of the minimap, (without units but with icons for resourses and CC. Similar to the Tab key in Age of Mythology.
In the regular Minimap these are just dots, but when you expand the minimap they become icons.
I don't know. I just thought it might be easier to implement than changing the minimap itself, given some of the posts i've read.
-
14 hours ago, Radiotraining said:
It still follows the main game concept of territory restriction, but it allows to build some economic buildings (storehouses, farmfields ecc..) outside the territory, so you can grab already some strategic resources in the map
I like this idea a lot.
-
1
-
-
This reminds me of a map called Anatolia, in Age of Mythology. A fine addition to the game.
5 hours ago, alre said:the whole point of mainland map is that there is no sea. that's why it's called mainland.
I mean, the water could mean rivers or lakes (still mainland themed). It's just that water is not the main feature of the map and can be ignored. It does allow Athens to build marines though.
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 18/10/2021 at 3:53 PM, alre said:
My point is that, being relatively slow, battalions would just never succeed in engaging any enemy, except for other battalions
Maybe. I agree that infantry battalions would be slow and therefore not very good at pursuing the enemy. But if we consider battalions to be stronger (in some way) to just a bunch of disorganized units, then we can use those battalions to secure specific locations or areas of interest in the map (either resource rich areas or choke points). Also, a battalion of horses should still be pretty fast regardless.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Freagarach said:
So if you could force your enemy to use formations, your problem is solved
Not really, if they put pikemen and archers in the same formation, you'll end up attacking the pikemen anyway.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Hi everyone! Usually create a post to propose changes or argue about some of the games mechanics. This time i'm just really curious so no proposed changes or arguments, i just wanted to ask:
Why do traders have an 80 metal cost?
Is it for balancing reasons? Do metal represents the money traders use? Or something else?
Why are unit models updated on promotion instead of armory upgrades?
These are just some of the questions i have right now. I might have some more in the future, so that why i put a fairly broad title on this post.
Thanks.
-
1 hour ago, Freagarach said:
I need an icon to indicate that an item in the production queue is paused.
What about making the green progress bar blink, or turning it red or both. It's not an icon, but it might convey the message just as well.
-
1
-
-
Of all the proposed changes, i'm still testing metal distribution, crush damage and palisades, since i'm still not satisfied with the changes i made. As for the population costs, they seem to be fine in a game of 300 max pop, so i'm attaching a mod with just this change in case anyone wants to try.
-
1
-
-
Thank you very much @Freagarach, @bb_ and @Stan`!
All three solutions (changing the cost.js schema from integer to decimal, using "add" instead of "mul" and using "mul_round") worked independently.
Of these 3 "mul_round" seemed to be better, since i don't need to mess around with the schemas and it's easier to scale than "add".
-
On 03/10/2021 at 1:46 AM, Freagarach said:
Validation error: structures/palisades_medium
It's the same for all of them. Before posting, i tried to revert the changes i made to palisade_long and it went after palisade_medium (it seems to be going in order).
But if it helps, here is palisade_medium.
-
Hello!
I've been having some trouble while trying to mod the resource cost of palisades. To make modding easier, i went to the base .xml file for palisades and setup a base wood cost and building time. Then, on the many pieces that inherit that .xml i changed their cost to a multiple of the base value using (op="mul">).
But when i run the game, it give me an error (interestinglog.html), so i was wondering if it is not possible to use that operation in regard to resource costs or if i'm doing something wrong? (i'll attach both some sample .xmls if you want to check).
Thanks.
palisades_long.xml template_structure_defensive_palisade.xml
-
2 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Ideas like that of placing buildings together to make bonuses.
I really like this idea. It incentivizes clever building placement.
Granaries could give bonuses to farm gather rates, while CC's wouldn't, making you chose between safety or economic bonus. CC's could give some sort of bonus to markets (most likely a trade bonus, but could also be on barter prices). Just spitballing here, but i really do like this concept.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
Crush, Hack, and Pierce attack types do not have to conform to reality.
Fair, but just because they don't have to, doesn't mean they can't get closer to reality, specially if it imposes less restrictions on unit diversity.
2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:Swordsmen for instance dealing hack damage in the case of the legionnaire makes little sense as the gladius functioned primarily as a stabbing weapon.
If that is the case, then nothing wrong with making the legionnaire have a mixed damage type (hack and pierce) like the spearman has. I not only adds historical accuracy but also adds diversity.
2 hours ago, hyperion said:Indeed, instead a sword could do sword damage, an axe axe damage, and arrow arrow damage ...
Hmm, it might make the game a bit more complex and add a new challenge to coding but why not have then a 2 pronged approach. Units would have a damage type (hack, pierce, crush or mixed) based on the weapon capabilities, and it could also have a damage source (spear, arrow, sword, etc). This way, attack modifiers would be linked to the source (weapon), not the damage type.
I personally prefer the 3 damage type solution currently in use. I think it's more easy to understand and work with.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Palisades are cheap so you can spam them.
I do agreed, which is why i also suggested a price increase from 14 --> 30 wood. Stone walls cost 48 stone and are quite sturdy in comparison. Granted, stone is harder to come by than wood, so maybe 30 wood is still too cheap.
-
5 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
Let champion cavalry take up 2 pop instead, 3 is a bit too much
I put champion cav at 3 pop for 2 reasons. One is that I put regular cav at 2 pop, and since champions are much more stronger than regular cav (both in damage and armor) it made sense that it's pop cost (i.e. maintenance cost) would also be higher. The second one is to reduce the availability of champion cavalry overall., seeing that they are just as fast as regular cavalry (meaning they can take and leave fights very easily), but have a lot more HP, Armor and Capture attack (increasing their survival and threat power).
If 3 is too much though, what about 2.5?
5 hours ago, Yekaterina said:I don't think palisade walls should be improved. They should be nerfed.
Why? Are they that good? I thought they just melted to sword units (specially sword cav).
-
49 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
Though maybe 1.5 humans being 1 humans needs renaming of the term 'population.'
Fair enough. Although, just to clarify, it's not that you're building 1.5 humans, but that you're building 1 human that has a "maintenance" cost of 1.5 (it consumes more resources). But as you said, the term "population" isn't the best to describe this value.
-
Hello everyone! I've been reading a few forum threads recently, discussing a myriad of issues and balancing suggestions for 0AD, that is, OP cav swordsman, OP mercs, Metal abundance, Elephants being very good at taking down walls, to name a few.
To that point, i would like to make 4 small suggestions in an attempt to deal with those problems. I'm aware that some of these suggestion might have flaws, but even if they just help inspire people to come with other solutions, i'm happy.
I'll divide this post in 2 parts. The first one will only contain my suggestions, while the second one will contain my reasoning. Have fun!
===================================//=================================
PART 1: SUGGESTIONS
Population Cost:
Taking women as a baseline 1 pop cost:
Women and Healers: -> 1 pop
Citizen-Soldiers and Mercenary infantry: 1.5 pop
Champion infantry: 2 pop
Citizen-Soldier Cavalry -> 2 pop
Mercenary Cavalry -> 2 pop
Champion Cavalry -> 3 pop
Boltshooters -> 2pop
Catapults and Rams -> 3pop
Siege Elephants -> 5 pop
Metal Distribuition:
Maintain number of Metal mines, but reduce the Resource Amount from 5000 --> 2500-3000.
Crush Damage:
- Decrease crush armor on organic units:
From 15 --> around 5 and add crush armor increase to both Armor and Shield Upgrades (like 0.5 increase instead of 1, so the neither will be crush preferential)
Exemple: Hack Armor 1: -> +1 Hack armor +0.5 Crush Armor
Pierce Armor 1: -> +1 Pierce armor + 0.5 Crush Armor
- Increase Crush armor of some buildings (those that have high Hack armor):
From 3 -->15 (79% damage reduction)
- Give Siege units (Rams and Catapults) a bonus vs Buildings to offset the new armor values.
Palisade Walls:
Increase Hack Resistance: 5-->15 (79% damage reduction)
Increase Wood Cost: 14 --> 30 (to compensate for the higher resistance)
PART 2: REASONING
Population Cost:
The main idea is: the stronger a unit is, the higher it's maintenance cost (armor gets rusty, swords get blunt, spears can break, etc). The better the equipment, the higher the maintence.
This way, soldiers and mercenary units have a higher maintenance cost than the women unit (who are just gatherers) and that is reflected in a higher pop cost. Same for horses, champions, siege units and Elephants.
From a balance standpoint this should also remove a bit of power from cavalry rushes without removing it as an option, (since the player will have to build more houses in order afford the same amount of units he did previously).
Metal Distribution:
This is meant to force players to expand more in search of metal, since it's a very important reasource for late game units. It will also reduce a bit of the abundance of metal without reducing the number of metal mines, giving more expansion options. Might even encourage people to start trade routes earlier.
Crush Damage:
I haven't seen anyone complaining about Crush damage specificaly, but i think there is room for improvement.
Currently crush is treated as "anti-building" Type of attack. This way buildings have low crush armor, while humans have high crush armor. The problem with this approach is that it limits what you can do with crush.
In my opinion, there is no real reason why humans would be so resistant to crush damage in the first place. Clubs, slings, maces, can crush bones, burst organs, crack skulls and so on, even with armor (if you hit'em enough times). As for buildings, again, there is no real reason why a building would be weak to maces, slings or clubs. So it having low crush damage makes little sense to me. Buildings are indeed weak to siege weapons (catapuls and rams) and therefore those units should have a damage bonus vs buldings, instead of buildings having low crush armor. This ways we can make units use crush damage more liberaly without fear of breaking the game.
This also helps against Elephants being able to take down stone walls and forts with ease. Elephants are strong, but they are not siege weapons. They can stomp units (crush), skeewer them with their tusks (pierce) or whack them with their trunk(crush), but they have limited usufulness against stone walls.
Palisade Walls:
Palisade walls are defensive structures, made out of sturdy wood and are hard to take down, specially with swords (chances are they will blunt before the wall is taken down). So for the sake of realism, i'm suggesting a significant increase in the Hack resistance of wooden walls.
In order do make it difficult to spam them in the early game, an increase in their price can help with that. If there is a need to make them more fragile, my sugestion is to lower the hit point of the wall instead, or slightly decrease the Hack resistance, but not by much.
==============================///====================================
Well, those are my suggestions. What do you think?
-
1
-
2
-
Age of Empires IV
in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion
Posted
Funny. It's a new mechanic in AoE, but that is how it works in AoM.