real_tabasco_sauce

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/22/diffs this addresses melee champ concerns as well as ranged champs and ranged CS cav.

Also If anyone has an Agis idea, I’d be happy to hear it.

@Philip the Swaggerless nice idea, I don’t really see any major conflict with Phillip II, since the Phillip II’s aura only effects champions.

k all done: merge requests:https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests branches comparison: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...cav_speed?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/22/diffs These 2 shouldn't make a very big difference overall, but I expect them to help bring down cavalry's survivability. Feel free to comment on other merge requests I have submitted. I did one lowering crush armor, one for allowing the roman army camp in p2, and one for adjusting pikemen damage/armor. also, there is a slight crossbow nerf.

what about this? the cav speed nerf (is -1 m/s too much?) and this might be enough for the near term.

I think they should be differentiated units, rather than just superior versions of infantry. What do you think of the health nerf I provided? Would you agree ranged cav are also too tanky? I would say the health branch + nerfed jav cav damage + slight speed decrease is ideal. you can change that in options->session->battalions

you should always be confident that your units can move as expected, this is why a lot of AOE2 players dislike AOE3 and 4. In AOE3 if a unit gets hit, the whole formation (which the user is forced to use) goes into slow motion. I think we can solve this without having to add a new mechanic.

I believe it can be possible with the status effect feature (same feature as poison). @Freagarach @Stan` personally, I am not a fan. This was in AOE3 and I hated it. it doesn't seem as bad in AOE4, but still I would rather my units' motion be predictable and not dependent on gameplay factors.

right but it doesnt fix them being tankier, having more armor, and dealing more damage. I'd still say the HP branch is necessary, as well as a jav cav damage nerf: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...cavalry_health?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false

I would like to do a melee damage increase (also some armor adjustment) later on for meatshield meta purposes, but this isn't an appropriate change for the problem at hand. what could be done is increase the pierce damage of spearmen such that they damage ranged cav more (with 3 hack 1 pierce armor). spearmen also seem to be generally worse than swords, so I think this would be welcome.

One other option could be to lower the hack armor of ranged cavalry.

@chrstgtrI see what you are saying, and honestly, I agree, but I would like to maintain the mobility of cavalry as its primary advantage over infantry (instead of just being better in every aspect). If our only nerf is speed, and we leave damage at 18 for skirm cav, I think you will see even more players just simply using them as a replacement for skirmishers, which makes for poor gameplay. To avoid this, they should do the same damage as infantry.

hmm, just curious: why would you prefer a cavalry speed nerf over an infantry speed buff?

yes, so better to focus on individual components of the problem. ie Seems like everyone agrees to nerf skirm cav from 18 to 16 no?

ok i see, thanks for the feedback. From what I gather from you all: Archer and skirm cav damage should be nerfed to inf levels, but not the other cavalry. sounds good to me. Also seems like the infantry speed increase isn't favorable. the health nerf I have reduces champ melee cav heath as well ranged cav (both CS and champ) a little. ranged cav: 80 hp for CS, 180 for champ melee cav: 160 hp for CS (unchanged), 280 for champ For spearmen, their prepare time is currently 500ms for a repeat time of 1000ms. I could reduce prepare time some, 350ms maybe, perhaps I could reduce pikemen to 600ms. On acceleration, I could give melee infantry a bonus in acceleration, from 35 m/s^2 to 42 m/s^2. how does this sound? also, any thoughts on the following discrepancy?

ok, recall the discussion on cavalry nerf. There are three separate and independent nerfs considered: nerf cav damage, nerf cav HP, and increase infantry speed. As written so far, increasing infantry speed would be +0.5 m/s speed for the basic "unit" class. (skirmishers get a little more than 0.5 faster, pikemen get a little less than 0.5 faster). This is intended to close the mobility gap slightly. I am pretty confident in my HP branch which is: ranged cav: 80 hp for CS, 180 for champ melee cav: 160 hp for CS (unchanged), 280 for champ I have debated the best approach for a damage nerf, and I think the best approach is really to equalize the DPS for cavalry and their infantry counterparts. For ranged units, I would bring skirm cav and archer cav damage down to equal infantry values, and for melee units, I would raise infantry damage to equal their respective cavalry values. This is nice and dandy for everything except for 2 exceptions: pikemen (have no cav equivalent), so I already made a separate branch for pikemen which could be added independently: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...pikemen?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false Spearmen/Spearcav (see below) spearmen/spearcav: currently all cav have more damage than infantry except for 1 unit: spearcav: spearcav: 4h 3p per 1.25 sec = 3.2 hack, 2.4 pierce DPS spearmen: 3h 2.5p per 1.00 sec = 3.0 hack, 2.5 pierce DPS What I propose for these units is to use the margin of increase seen for inf swords (6.5/5.5) to increase spearmen DPS 3.0 hack, 2.5 pierce DPS * (6.5/5.5) ~= 3.5 hack, 3 pierce per 1.00 sec for spearmen keeping the same 1.25 sec repeat time for spearcav, their new hack and pierce values should be: 3.5 hack, 3 pierce per 1.00 sec *1.25 sec ~= 4.4 hack, 3.75 pierce for spear cavalry Of the three nerfs, which sounds like a welcome change? I could see all three working out fine, but maybe just 1 or 2 of them are agreeable to you all.

@ValihrAnt was able to strategically expand more easily here. It seemed very important to the win. I see CCs and colonies a little more in TGs. Even while CCs may not be added much more frequently, it makes the map feel larger, with territories not squished up next to each other. I guess it didn't really change the meta, just added flexibility.

I am thinking I could use something as simple as a campfire to symbolize scouting. Isn't there already a campfire someone made? I can't find it. @wowgetoffyourcellphone are you familiar with this one? Or maybe I am just crazy? @Lion.Kanzen any idea where this is? With that last piece, I could finalize the tooltips and descriptions and add them as a merge request to the community mod.

So I tried the repeat times change to see if there was an improvement on performance (200 archers vs 200 archers). It did not seem too impactful to be honest. (no detectable change in fps) However, this isn't really a simulation of 4v4 conditions, so maybe it could still help. Would you rather I keep the merge request for the repeat times up? Or should I take it down?

I would agree with this even in the absence of the healer/temple techs change tbh.

right, it's just the change has been live for 2 days and this complaint is not based on evidence from gameplay, instead just on assumptions. It will take some time for players to change their habits and try something new.

1. how are healers a throwaway unit? the idea is to keep them alive so that you may heal your army. 2. Metal is not a "rare" resource. If you mine it, you get it. 3. The overall cost is much cheaper. 4. Metal has a higher gather rate than farming in the late game.

There should be two costs for this unit, just 100 food makes the unit too conducive to spam. Remember that the previous cost was 250 food.

ok I went ahead and added some merge requests so you can all give thoughts. Here is the link: https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests

Oh, yes I can make a merge request for this. Thanks.