Jump to content

real_tabasco_sauce

Community Members
  • Posts

    427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by real_tabasco_sauce

  1. Thoughts on a 10% range buff for units garrisoned in walls?
  2. so far, women are common to every civ. Removing gather rates from women would be a pretty major departure from the existing structure of civs. I would say the benefit of a common basic structure to civs is that they make the game easier to learn for new players, and "learning" a new civ once you have mastered one isn't so hard. I would say that gameplay can become confusing when civs are very different (this seems to be one common complaint about AOE4) I see now that your idea is not to change the helot skirmisher but instead add a separate helot worker. Apologies for this misunderstanding. Now, should the women really be just construction workers? It's a little awkward. Would it be that bad for the helot workers and women to just coexist as economic units? Perhaps give the helot workers additional cost compared to women, but different gather rates for specific resources? Having two dissimilar economic units could give sparta some useful flexibility and maybe better population efficiency for gathering specific resources, depending on the gather rate specs of the helot workers. For the record of this discussion, I would say balance wise, that the biggest setback for Sparta is the lack of mobility. I imagine this is why @borg- discussed this: I think a "move speed + loot" type hero would be nice. Maybe just move speed. Might need to change the name. A "trade-off" example could be -1 pierce armor +30% speed. A hero like this should remain a foot soldier, though.
  3. I think giving spartans the stoa could be a good place to start, on top of @borg-'s original ideas.
  4. This could be great, and I like that it is not a complete buff, rather having a trade-off, but I worry it could lead to some unfortunate gameplay consequences. Namely players immediately resigning on the condition they lose the hero. Ideally, the game shouldn't be decided by a single fight. Other than that, I would say this is great.
  5. I feel like this strays too far from the common general structure of civs. I'm not sure about everyone else, but I think it is best to avoid a hard limit on units like this.
  6. Here is a design question concerning axe cav, which has not been changed yet: Should this unit be a mobile siege unit, sort of like cavalry clubmen (increase crush damage)? or a more of a multi-purpose raiding unit? (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4674 or https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4683)
  7. haha I meant it could be all 4 sides clipped. That would in fact be worse XD.
  8. I don't mind the discussion of history and things, but I do not see how such changes (auras, weapon switching, different armor) to basic spearmen could be beneficial for gameplay. Since it is a simplistic unit for all civs, sparabaras (spearmen) should remain as is. There is already a weapon switching unit in @borg-'s mod (persian immortal), and we should discuss how best to balance that unit instead. Here is why: switching to the melee immortal before cavalry (archer's biggest weakness) attack is very OP. The unit has no real counter as of the last version of the mod. I suggest this:
  9. @borg- do you refer to the weapon switching persian immortals here? I think this is the best way to balance the weapon switching unit (hack armor of the champ archer, pierce armor of the champ spearman) It may be necessary to go further and subtract another 1 for hack and pierce. If you are referring to the normal citizen soldier spearmen, I think they should remain as is. The basic spearman stats should be constant across all civs (except for perks like the spartan team bonus). Certainly auras should be avoided with this many units.
  10. I would say there are two reasons not to have this unit: One is that it is pretty unrealistic. two is that it doesnt fit with the other crossbow units well. Different range than champ cav crossbow, than champ crossbow (mace), and very different to the existing han CS crossbow.
  11. Ok, I would say if something gets removed from these, it should be sword infantry. With the only ranged units being archers, crossbows, and archer cav, i think this is comparable to many civs. Since they already have swordcav, antiram should be no problem.
  12. yes, but what do you think about these units being in chariots. ^ i didn't see your above comment. So then champion infantry spearman, champion infantry crossbowman, chamption spear cavalry, and champion chariot archer? What should the chariot carry?
  13. So @AIEND is this more or less what you describe? p1, CC units: Crossbow, Spear, sword cavalry p2: archer, Ji, sword infantry, Spear cavalry, archer cavalry p3: (Champs) champion spearman, champion spear cavalry, champion crossbow chariot? (I think the last one is the best replacement for what is currently champion archer chariot and champion crossbow cav) I would honestly say that this seems pretty well streamlined. If including archer cav is seen as an impediment to the future inclusion of Xiongnu, then in that case, they could become a mercenary or auxillary unit for Han. Lastly, I think crossbow training should only apply to citizen soldiers.
  14. any more opinion on this from other people? It does seem weird to me for the ministry to have these level 1 and 2 upgrades but no upgrades for ministers. I do think these could stay in the ministry building, however.
  15. @maroder, one last balance change that I think is important is to reduce the farming upgrades to 20% from 25%. All the other civs are 20 percent.
  16. seeing as the crossbow on a horse (idk how the heck u would load it lol) seems like a very specialized concept, I think the champion makes more sense. I think it is wise to plan for the addition of the Xiongnus. (one option here is this: should the han archer cav be kept, it could become a Xiongnu mercenary unit when that civ is added) So maybe keep the champ crossbow, considering there is also a hero cav crossbowman. If there are still too many champs available, I would say to just put the crossbowman on the chariot.
  17. my thoughts are that the speed difference could make up for this slight difference in dps.
  18. yeah I think this is the best approach for now. This, and increasing the wood cost back to 50. I could see a repeating crossbow change, but to be honest, this would do essentially the same thing. @maroderwhat do you think of the citizen soldier cavalry crossbows? I would say these should be removed instead of the cav archers. If people really want champ cavalry crossbows, I would say they should be put in a chariot, replacing the existing chariot unit.
  19. @maroder thank you very much for putting these patches together. 1. I would say removing the laozi gate is the best solution, thank you. 2. As for the ministry upgrades, they might be better balanced now, but it seems weird (perhaps redundant, some would say boring) to have level 1 and 2. What if level 2 versions were removed, with the level 1 techs receiving middle-ground values and/or different phase requirements? Since this building trains ministers, I think there should be some upgrades to the minister unit available. For example, I think some p3 upgrade that increases minister stats (aura range perhaps) would be possible. ^ if more time could be invested, maybe there could be 3 mutually exclusive upgrades (almost like a one time specialization trait), with one for aura range, one for economic traits and maybe one that increases their militaristic traits. 3. I think the upgrade itself should be changed: having stacking upgrades is very powerful balance-wise. I like the hero's aura much more than the blanket buff for all CS units. How about @wowgetoffyourcellphone's suggestion: ^or at least something to that effect. Another possibility would be something along the lines of the "immortals" tech from persians. 4. unit roster I think crossbows should stay in p2, but be balanced around slingers stats. I am happy with the halberdier replacing the spearman. The above improvements to infantry xbows (slinger damage per second, 50 hp, 50 food 50 wood cost) should accompany the removal of the crossbow training tech, or at least balancing it (not effecting champions -are they not already trained?-). Good to remove the champ archer. I think if one of these champs is to be kept, it should be the champ crossbow cavalry (with appropriate range and accuracy nerfs). I think if one other roster change is to be made, CS cavalry crossbows should be removed. 5. heroes: I would say keep the -50% training experience. This is very strong, but with the above change to "art of war", it should be balanced. In addition, this unit should be made a foot soldier so that CS cav cannot as easily reap the benefits of the aura. IMO the xbow hero should be nerfed as follows: cavalry unit: 60 pierce, 55 meters (just like range of champion cav x bows) OR infantry unit: 60 pierce 60 meters (just like range of inf crossbows).
  20. honestly, requiring meat to be produced in a more sustainable way is a better alternative to a meat tax (lol). Unfortunately, mcdonalds and others have made the american diet cheeseburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Which is bad for health (obese, yet malnourished people and environment (CO2, pollution, diseases)). saying that climate change does't exist because it's cooler than usual right now is hilarious. Obviously no comprehension was found here of a broader, more complicated climatic system with many, many variables to be considered simultaneously. ^The most important of which is time and rates. Im sure you are aware that actions have implications that may be realized days or years after their termination.
  21. I could see a semi regular population of those who want to play the more recent balance adjustments. Also, should we have another merc cav situation, the mod could serve as a hotfix for those that want to play with the particular unit balanced out.
  22. yes but it is hard for these changes to get approval, even with some agreement. It seems to me the hardest part of this role is getting people to test the balance changes one makes, while people then provide feedback without testing. The beauty of this balance mod is that it should overcome the difficulty of ordinary players to test individual mods (download and install). also, it will be nice to test changes alongside other balance changes. Many thanks @wraitii!
×
×
  • Create New...