real_tabasco_sauce

Yes if all civs got the archery range, we would need appropriate units for them. It would need an established role which would be the same in all civs, ie gameplay "framework." If it remains a Han unique building, I think it still needs to have a specific role. Is it for massing trash units? or for accessing more powerful ones like tier 3 units? Maybe it can be both: costs: 100 wood, 200 stone. P1: can train both archers and crossbows at tier 1 (normal citizen soldiers) P2: upgrade becomes available called "crossbow regiments" or something: Allows tier 3 crossbows to train with much slower train time, or cost if train time is not enough. archers remain a normal citizen soldier. I don't think both archers AND crossbows should become tier 3. Since CS crossbows are the unique han unit, only they should have this option. Imagine if we allowed spartan skirms to train tier 3.

How many women then? Anyways @Yekaterina, so if i'm understanding this correctly, practice range is now a p1 building, costs 200 wood (50 more than a house), and trains rank 3 units in p2 at no additional cost other than train time? You think this is balanced?? I think for this to be balanced, it must cost more stone. This way at least you cant make like 5 practice ranges, go p2 at 6 mins and immediately win. In addition, it requires late game stone eco, which people are often quick to abandon in favor of metal eco. In other words, I like @wowgetoffyourcellphone's cost of 100 wood, 200 stone which now makes it 3 in favor.

I thought accuracy also? or maybe i'm wrong.

Ok, that makes sense. So then is there a building limit for practice ranges? It seems to me like building several of these would be OP late game, considering the units price. Think of ppl building several stables to spam champ cav, but instead the units are much, much cheaper.

I love it. Another tier 3 unit available like skiri sounds great. I think a couple other civs deserve tier 3 units. However, should the price be adjusted if they are as strong as skiri at tier 3? Also, should both archers and crossbows really be trainable at tier 3? sounds pretty OP.

Will basic balance changes be possible after the first release candidate?

I don't think it's that big a nerf tbh. Im fine with some costs and benefits associated with unique civ characteristics. I would say since it slightly limits the available units trainable at one time, assuming you are booming with women from CC and training out of one training building (barracks). Normally, you could already get a mix of melee/ranged inf while women booming in p1, but I guess with han, you would have to build both structures for this. Only having spears until you begin training archers from the CC would put a han player at risk from rushing.

I like the sound of this alot! The han do sound pretty OP tho.

I would say this is the move. Most of the other civs (ie sparta with 1 ranged unit) don't really have enough unit diversity for that to make sense.

this has to be generated there's no way an actual human wrote this XD.

Oh mb @Yekaterina, I was thinking of one of the unknown land maps with a similar division with water. Lorraine plains does look fun.

IMO there should be a way to cross the river.

Ok but there are existing "raw power" bonuses: Iber, Sparta, Rome, Ptol. All of these provide general buffs which are significant enough to consider when deciding a team's civs. Would you change these? In any case these bonuses still don't work for me: Brits, Carthage, Athenians

My point is that this bonus would also include theaters and make more of an impact. The historical guestification if you want one is "Architects" or something, where the knowledge of construction is shared with the team: Athenian's "allies." I don't see why a historical justification is needed for these things tho. In the case that athenians are already allied with mauryans, they would share knowledge with each other right? Thats kind of the idea with roman civ bonus I guess, and the ptol bonus as they are sharing food right? also, this idea would not be equal for all civs. It would be huge for kush for example as pyramids are unique, and less impactful for mace or britons since they don't have as impactful unique structures. Anything is better than the current team bonus lol. @LetswaveaBook what do you think about my carth team bonus idea. I thought it sounded fun and maintains carth as the merc civ. Considering that merc cav are op, I thought a 5 metal discount was appropriate, which would affect inf a little more than cav. Although i don't know how one could allow a team bonus to influence what units are trainable by buildings.

Athens: Theatres cost -40% < it seems counterintuitive to build a theatre just for a discount on 3-5 techs, also only a few civs have theatres. Also it seems kind of cheap to use it just to get to p3 faster. In other words its uninteresting> <i think making metal buff the team bonus and cheaper eco techs should be the civ bonus> <here is another idea: For Athen's team: UNIQUE CIV buildings are cheaper and build faster (ie pyramids for kush, champ buildings, temple of vesta, Lighthouse, iber monument, etc. not wonders)> Let me know if either of those sounds good to anyone, it might be good to also include a technology discount for unique buildings. Brits: First healer is free, other healers are 20% cheaper. <Ambush tactics: bonus to Melee inf walk speed???????? could be epic.> Cart: Markets are 40% cheaper and first land trader is free. <Mecenaries for hire: Merc discount (5 metal, not percent) and mercs can train from the market and from docks> Iber: skirmishers and slingers cost -10% food. good change Mace: barter bonus is now a civ bonus and gives only 15% better prices. Their new team bonus is siege +10% range and -20% train time. <Range buff could be too cheesy with demitrius, demitrius is really powerful atm for mass siege towers which is cheesy already, imagine mass bolts with all the extra range. I think it should be -25% cost -20% train time.> Persians: stables are 20% cheaper and stable techs are researched in half the time. The bold ideas are ones I just thought of, I thought they are cool but let me know what you think. My guess was if merc cav are nerfed, we could still retain carth as a merc civ with this discount.

Yes i think merc cav need a price nerf. If a inf merc is 60, a cav merc should be at least 90 IMO. A 20 metal difference is negligible is compared to the benefits of cavalry over inf. Think about how succesful infantry mercenaries are compared to merc cav. I would say mercenary inf is in a good state right now, mostly used as anti-ram, or supplementary units for your main army. I think with the price change and the appropriate spearcav and melee inf adjustments, and with acceleration taken into account, merc cav will be nerfed enough. Also, an indibil nerf may be enough to nerf firecav. the train time and cost reduction is nuts. Definitly should limited to only be infantry, or only CS units.

Sounds like a really cool civ, with lots of potential. Thanks for all this research!

I see, that makes sense. Yes, almost like a case study for civ differentiation. If people like the gameplay from the Han civ, I could see at least bringing back the stoa, and adding functionality to theaters (like what @LetswaveaBook mod does). Honestly, every civ could do with at least some unique techs.

This artwork is amazing! Congratulations for all the devs' hard work! All these units look really cool too. Just after looking at the mod in gitHub, I can tell there is a lot of new and interesting content for the Han civ. They seem to have a lot of citizen soldiers and champions already, with unique technologies, buildings, siege units, and support units. I have no problem with all the differentiating aspects so far, and I like how the civ looks so far. Do they really need more units? On the other hand, maybe a limited mercenary lineup as seen with Athenians is appropriate after all. Really, my only concern is it now looks like the Han have received a lot more love than the other civilizations (at least it looks like it after surveying the buildings, technologies, and units available). In any case, it seems like the Han will have several options for playstyles, which is exciting.

what about something like this aswell?:

down the road, I would actually love to see some boat differentiation, maybe into classes: light warship: fast, scouting, weaker trade and fishing obv. heavy warship. some kind of troop transport designated ship with higher garrison and no arrows? demo class, not all civs have this likely maybe a new class of counter-ship boat that is more expensive and available p2? Im sure others have ideas, and I think there was a topic for this. Perhaps alongside updated ship movement (see below), this would be a nice addition in the future. Maybe it would be nice to slightly scale down the ships or maybe their footprint/hitbox, just so they can navigate more easily (although maybe this is more of a pathfinding issue)

@Thales All soldiers add 1 arrow, just like towers.

Yes just make sure you don't select too many 1v1 specialists as sometimes people only play in 1v1s but then fail in TGs.

No isam? Isam is a very good team player!

I agree, I think the current soft counters can be embellished a little, but I don't think we need absolute rock-paper-scissors level counters.