real_tabasco_sauce

As far as I know, there is no projectile acceleration. I think there is gravity but that doesn't really effect gameplay.

https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...repeat_times?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false now we just wait on @wraitii :C. I hope nothing bad happened.

overkill is a problem regardless of fire rate. It depends on the number of units attacking 1 enemy, so increasing the damage per projectile just means overkill will be present when fewer numbers attack 1 unit. Actually, overkill turns out to be the biggest problem for archers. Because the engagement distance is longer, the closest unit to the archers is the same one for more units. (compared to say slingers or skirmishers). A while ago I tested this and found that by giving ranged units building AI, archers beat equal numbers of any other ranged unit.

acceleration is there btw. I agree though, accuracy and prepare time belong in "detailed tooltips."

I mean. its not necessarily something you would calculate while playing. You just get a feel for the fire rates of different units. I think fire rate, accuracy, prepare time, and acceleration are all valuable differentiators and I think this is something that shouldn’t be uniform.

I think repeat times are certainly a differentiating factor, even if they only make a small difference to gameplay.

Well for buildings, their fire rate could be reduced a lot and an arrow damage increase would make up for dps, essentially no net difference to gameplay. As for unit repeat times, I think we should keep the change fairly minimal for the reasons mentioned by @Philip the Swaggerless. Something on the order of: skirmishers 1.25 sec to 1.5 sec would probably be noticeable. I could raise everything (maybe except crossbows, pikes) by .25 and then adjust damage accordingly. There may or may not be a need to do this. I think we would have to try it out to really know. If we took that approach, I would be tempted to also slightly slow projectiles down, so that moving targets are not as easily hit.

yeah I guess hitting/missing shots would wind up being more impactful. Not sure if thats a good thing or bad.

Would players of the community mod be interested in a branch to lengthen attack repeat times? Buildings and ranged units could in theory all have slower repeat times which decreases the number of range queries and other calculations needed per second. We could then assess the improvement on performance in TGs. I would design it to minimize any effects on balance. I guess I would first test it on my own to see if there is an improvement before making a merge request.

yes, I would rather discuss balancing CC arrows after this "coming" community mod release. I do think, however, that you could still defend pretty well with only 15 arrows compared to 23. I say "coming" because i'm not sure when @wraitii will be back.

k I'll make it a separate branch to use later if need be. Sentry tower fix can stay.

Yeah, but how often will you have more than 15 soldiers to defend in early game? 15 arrows is enough to deter cav. My main concern is that they have almost as many arrows as forts, which seems like sub-optimal balancing. I could add the changes to a separate branch, so that they could be added if cc dropping does prove to be a problem.

ok I have forks now for moving the army camp to p2 for rome and for giving pikes damage, reducing armor some. If you would like to view them, they are on my fork previously linked. I have a question for you all: Should I add a change to arrow count to the CC_territory cost merge request? (***we already voted on this, hence why I ask you all). currently, CC's max arrows are 1 less than a fortress (23 vs 24). With the change making them cheaper, I think their max arrows should significantly reduced. *this does not in theory effect early defense from rushes because you are usually only able to garrison a few soldiers in the CC for arrows at that time anyway. I propose to lower the max arrows to 15. (and the same for colonies). This should help with concerns of "CC dropping." I will add a fix to sentry towers (<max arrows> should be 4 and not 3, currently the 3rd soldier does not add an additional arrow)

just an edited screenshot, but I think this is closer to what @wowgetoffyourcellphone and @Lion.Kanzen suggest. probably less contrast in the thatching lol. It shouldn't look shiny like this.

the increased contrast here is good. But, yes, a little more brown will be good to further distinguish them from the gauls.

territory radius is kept as is for now. I think it should stay the same. If we want to do something like that, it should be to either reduce the amount in each mine to 3000 OR add some more randomization to the position of the "starting" stone and metal. I am more partial to the second option. However, it is best to try one thing at a time.

in case it should be written another way: 5 pierce armor means unit receives: (attack damage) x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 = 59% of (attack damage) (aka 41 percent less damage).

I was 1 year old when this topic was written. Guys this is the biggest necropost i've seen. It's like writing your name over cave art.

@Feldfeld I think @wraitii is busy or taking a break. @Stan` do you have commit access? I'm not sure what it takes to approve the merge requests and later add to mod.io, but I think a 26.3 branch would need to be made to house those changes.

the branch I linked was about the difficulty spear cav have when chasing other cavalry, its just 15% more acceleration.

ok, well all this debate shows that we should not rush to change the status quo here, but rather agree on a more nuanced solution. Honestly, first we should agree on some problem XD. In the meantime, what are your thoughts on these two: I think these are more agreed-upon problems. Many players are saying crossbows are strong. spearcav: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...spearcav_accel?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false Crossbows: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...crossbow_nerf?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false

U really just copied my entire post, said "untrue" and then explained your experience of chicken rushes. So you would also say chicken rushes are good gameplay? @chrstgtr @BreakfastBurrito_007 agree?

So you have no problem with all-in "chicken rush" gameplay? I guess it is fine in 1v1s which I understand is where your exerience lies. I guess you would expect something like this and prepare some infantry/cav or maybe other preparation already like @Feldfeld said. So OP. However, in a TG, doing a chicken rush is usually a toxic way to put someone out of the game. It's nearly impossible to recover from if you set up for a "greedy" boom. Even when you instead try to make infantry, these units are at best equal in number to cav which is not enough to defeat them. Maybe a better approach to this would be to half the number of chickens instead. But still the cav dominance remains (early game, mid game, late game). Skilled players use cavalry's mobility to win while anyone can use their inherent advantages over inf to simply supplant skirmishers in the late game. This is seen all the time, and I think its not ideal gameplay. The patch as written would maintain the mobility advantage of cav while limiting the plain advantage over infantry. If you would rather we keep it how it is, I'll just forget about the branch. if you would like something changed about it, suggest.

it's crazy that you say I ignore that. I literally said food economy is not a limiting resource at 30 seconds. Ie 50 wood = 50 wood. I agree however, that train time is a difference.

no chicken rush is 11 cav at 1:30 or so I wonder if It would be good to half the number of chickens at game start for random maps?