Jump to content

real_tabasco_sauce

Community Members
  • Posts

    1.787
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by real_tabasco_sauce

  1. After the currently voted Scythians & Xiongnu, in theory another "combo" of two American civs would be nice. It doesn't seem these people did much fighting tho. Zapotecs and maya are good contenders, I don't think we have to only consider civs at their "peak", this is an unnecessary limitation imo. Just because one typically thinks of the maya in later time periods doesn't mean they didn't exist in any significance at 0 A.D. Teotihuacan was apparently founded before 0 a.d. and grew a lot through 250AD, which seems to be a period of urbanization. IDK if this fight is outside the timeframe, but these two cultural centers seem to be as much city-states as greek ones we have in game: https://www.science.org/content/article/astounding-new-finds-suggest-ancient-empire-may-be-hiding-plain-sight However, it is science reporting which tends to be flawed.
  2. What an edge case XD. good observation. I would say it is more likely to be the colonization tech since I rarely use it, but it is hard to say since I also can't say I have used exactly the required amount to build a colony before. My bet is it has to do with rounding and/or datatype conversion.
  3. Yeah, I really haven't heard any complaints on the things that were added, so I think everything should be added. I would say there are a few areas that need polish as you mentioned: tooltips, spelling, etc.
  4. How should the community mod features be handled? A patch for each merged item?
  5. champ cav tend to be very strong and frequent team games. Think Celtic chariots, consular bodyguards, seleucid and persian champion spearcav. Infantry champions are trained but not to the same effect. I think firstly there should be some nerf to champion cavalry (melee in particular, consular bodyguards for sure). This is mentioned in the community mod discussion. I think a decrease in cost could be worthwhile because they should be playable in high(ish) numbers. The train time could be reduced along with the research time for unlocking champions (currently 60 seconds)
  6. Honestly, I think this or something simplified could be great. There would certainly be need for balancing adjustments and stuff. I think territory might still be useful for capturing, but it could be greatly reduced compared to other civs. Not sure if the AI would handle a smaller territory any better than none tho.
  7. as someone living in the western hemisphere, this is insulting.
  8. I wonder if some special, more flexible territory requirements can be used for these as well. Not sure if territory should be a universal constant or not.
  9. fields have a footprint of 28 and a obstruction of 22, while rice paddies have a footprint of 22 and an obstruction of 20. Because of this, I have seen complains that the Han rice paddies are difficult to place, and this is true because their effective size is only slightly smaller than farms (22 versus 20). I suggest lowering the obstruction value for rice paddies to 18.
  10. This is true @Fabius, however the two units are rarely achievable together. Even when you can get both units in a fight, the different mobility of the consular bodyguards and the centurions makes them fairly incompatible. The centurions have a small aura radius, so you would have to keep the consular bodyguards nearby. Also, all the roman heroes are mounted and you would surely rather have them with your consulars than with your smaller CS army (assuming you have some CS at home on resources), so in that case it would be harder to acquire a centurion. So, thankfully, the design doesn't particularly lend itself to use with consulars. One thing that could be very strong currently, and I have not seen anyone try this, would be to combine CS swordsmen with champion swordsmen to try and get centurions. The melee champions then would be absolutely a force to be reckoned with, probably the strongest in the game. @chrstgtr feel free to try it
  11. I am making a list of simple community mod shortcomings that would need to be addressed if/when it is implemented in a27. Roman Civilization Overview (perhaps specific technologies) should mention ability of rank 3 melee infantry to become centurions, should also be listed on Spearmen and Swordsmen tooltip for romans. Carthage team bonus should say "infantry mercenaries..." instead of "Mercenaries -50% train time" if you have anything else to add, mention it.
  12. Maybe to add to the description: at game start, Berries are visible as far as the starting exploration circle is. Quickly (maybe immediately) after game start, berries which lie outside starting units' line of site disappear. When units can see the berries, they reappear and remain explored.
  13. Fire ships can be trained from captured docks crossbow training can be researched from the stables and mentions crossbow cavalry train time reduction.
  14. In the random map Frontier, you can choose team placement: Could this be done for mainland and some other random maps? I think it would be great!
  15. I was actually thinking something more asymmetric would be ideal. On the order of 10 % less survivable and 25% to 30% increase in attack. The attack is really more important. You are right that the crush units become less effective in comparison, but if you remember, I already have a crush rebalance branch that would be ideal for this. yeah this is a concern for sure. To be honest, I would rather building arrows be targeted rather than random, but this is a different topic. You are right, we would have to increase melee cavalry damage to follow suit. In this case, I am fine with higher melee cav damage. Spear cavalry need it anyway, and I agree some armor/hp changes might be necessary as well. However, remember that these cav will be in close quarters with much more damaging melee infantry, especially spearmen and pikemen that have a cav counter.
  16. exactly. I would probably do this for melee inf in the community mod, and see where things are at for cavalry.
  17. glass cannon is certainly the wrong word. Currently melee's strength (even swordsmen to be honest) is primarily how tanky they are. This inevitably gives rise to the meatshield meta and the sniping required to beat it. In short, the current stats melee infantry have make them unimpactful on the battlefield, when compared to ranged units. This is because they contribute little damage to fights. The goal is resolving the issue of the meat shield meta. I propose to do this by most importantly increasing melee damage to be closer to ranged classes' damage per second. The decrease in armor is to avoid all melee quickly becoming OP, and it would be a small decrease 4 hack 4 pierce instead of 5 perhaps.
  18. @chrstgtr I think you are overthinking it. Melee units serve as a "meat shield" because they are all tanky with 5 hack and 5 pierce armor. The idea is decrease armor a little, increase damage. It isn't really about ranged vs melee balance. Melee units nicely beat range units currently, and they would also after this change, but in a different way (damage vs survivability). The reason I discuss ranged units is because this change would give melee units more impact on the battlefield compared to ranged units. only after many more have been killed. its not about melee vs ranged, it's about melee in general. The idea is shift melee's strength away from tankiness and towards higher damage. The net "effectiveness" as you say, should be roughly zero. A little bit, but arguably sniping is more important for killing the enemy dps units (always ranged units) behind the meat shield. Since I know the enemy slingers for example are dealing 95% of the damage of their army, I will be sure to snipe them past the pikemen even using skirmishers. Once the slingers are gone, the pikemen can't do anything.
  19. This, as it turns out, has more to do with their armor than their damage (and the fact that so few players get hack armor). Usually when ranged units start to get hit by melee there is plenty of time to just start running away. The idea here would be to increase damage substantially, and decrease armor to like either 4 or 3 hack and pierce (for swords/spears). For one reason, one wouldn't want melee units to be much more susceptible to hack versus pierce, as this would basically make swords much better than they already are. The primary reason is that we don't want 5 to 10 swordsmen to be able to beat almost 40 skirmishers for example. They should be highly damaging to ranged units but still killable. The whole idea of reducing armor a little is to alleviate the meat shield meta. If my ranged units can find decent damage now versus enemy melee units (which are also more valuable to kill due to their higher damage), maybe I will let them target melee instead of always sniping.
  20. The discussion may have involved this idea, I am not sure. Basically, a small armor nerf would be applied to all melee units, with a more substantial increase in their damage. This will designed as a net buff to infantry units, while decreasing their survivability somewhat. The idea is that melee units should be less of a meat shield and more impactful in the outcome of fights. For instance, If my 40 spearmen are upgraded compared to my enemies spearmen, my spearmen should beat their spearmen more quickly and move on to attack the enemy ranged units. Currently however, the survival of my spearmen versus the enemy's spearmen is determined by the health/armor of my melee units and the damage of the enemy ranged units. The damage the melee units do to each other is not very important. Take a look against melee units: (5 hack and 5 pierce are equal, so pierce and hack damage may be combined) pikemen: 2.5 dps spearmen: 5.5 dps swords: 7.33 dps archers: 6.7 dps slingers: 9.2 dps (ignoring crush) crossbowmen: 9.3 dps skirmishers: 12.8 dps ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This change would mean melee units kill ranged units somewhat faster, although they will also die to ranged units faster as well. (maybe players will find themselves needing hack armor from the forge) Importantly, however, it makes melee units and their relative strength to enemy melee units more impactful in the outcome of battles.
  21. yeah champ melee cav certainly could use an hp reduction. The consular bodyguards get even more armor than champion spearcav when compared to their citizen soldier counterparts, so some armor adjustment might also be necessary to be honest. One thing that should be mentioned about spearcav is they do less damage than infantry spearmen (much less for champ spearcav and about the same for citizen soldiers). It's as if their attack repeat time was increased from 1.0 sec to 1.25 sec without the appropriate damage adjustment. I think 0.26.4 is the last iteration of the community mod before the a27 feature freeze, but these are certainly items I will work on for the community mod during a27, assuming one will be maintained. I am planning on: Melee champ cav nerf (armor + hp), maybe a tiny bit more for consular bodyguards. Spearcav damage buff (to correct the aformentioned inconsistency) Broad melee damage increase, armor decrease (help resolve meatshield meta) Han ministers 1 pop, higher percentage effectiveness. warship classes: light warship(could become a scout ship via upgrade), medium warship, heavy/siege warship, transport ship, and special ship (fireship + future additions to this class). separate need to garrison boats from boat effectiveness. might even try to give boats unit AI instead building AI so that they are controlled like units rather than siege towers. Revised unit specific upgrades.
  22. I notice there is a hotkey to delete without confirmation. This does not work for me no matter what the hotkey is, and I always have to confirm everything I want to delete. Does anybody else have this issue? Steps to reproduce: use macos build (maybe), try to delete without confirmation.
  23. I think this could be good, might make the ministers more accessible. Also, there is no need for ministers to cost 2 pop, the cost is prohibitive enough to spam.
×
×
  • Create New...