real_tabasco_sauce

+

Yeah I think the young spartan -> spartiate -> champion spartan progression with upgrades, different stats and costs is too complicated while not bringing very interesting gameplay to the table. I agree with @BreakfastBurrito_007 that more simple changes are best for differentiating sparta. We don't need to add unprecedented mechanics in the name of differentiation (AOE 4 style). Here is a list of changes (some of which are already mentioned) that would be straightfoward, yet bring significant gameplay changes: infantry movement speed upgrade and/or hero aura differentiate spartiate champs training aura, upgrade to spartiate champion (sort of like silver sheilds) or single tech pair like @wowgetoffyourcellphone suggested. Some straightforward eco bonus or addition Ex. I liked the "helot worker" idea, with different gather rate stats. No upgrades, just another eco unit other than woman. Some change in available buildings p1 (p2 perhaps) syssition or bring stoa to the spartans. Perhaps the stoa could train helot workers among a couple civic upgrades.

What about https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4713 ? These are pretty major changes to the Han units. also: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4704 and https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4722 These latter two are minor balance changes I guess.

yes, I understand why. That would likely be very OP. I just think inconsistencies like that should be avoided if possible. However, maybe there should also be an explanation tooltip or maybe a loading screen explanation. ie: "early colony" must be close to Seleucid territory. Perhaps to better control the fragmented territories, since apparently the different successors fought a lot early on. (quick wiki search)

yes, I think how you use this building could be interesting: for more res, for more women training, perhaps a head start into merc production, or some combination of the above. Although, building it means metal must be required for economic upgrades. I like the idea a lot except for one catch: There is inconsistency when you only allow it to be built in your territory (p1) and anywhere in p2. This seems like an inconsistency that should be justified, adjusted or otherwise resolved.

Ok Everyone, I concede that some people dislike the speedy axe cav unit I proposed. With the differentiation of persia patch approved, this unit would probably make the civ OP anyway. However, the "Lite" buff I proposed still seems appropriate: (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4683) gives the unit comparable DPS to swordcav, but with double the attack repeat time and less armor compared to swordcav. The unit obviously still has its crush/mobile siege capabilities, which is the trade-off for less armor. It would seem strange to commit all these differentiating changes to persia without properly addressing axe cav.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone @chrstgtr while we are at it do you have ideas for a seleucid civilization bonus (not team bonus). A rather boring one I came up with for seles was instant farmstead tech research time. Another general idea for a civ bonus is increased women line of sight. Another civ bonus: free palisades and outposts, but slower to build.

I think this is pretty ideal for the civ. They already have a strong economic civ bonus.

IDK it just seems like a lot of unnecessary tedium.

but wouldn't they too be safely garrisoned? Even if the building goes down, you could move them. It seems strange to have a whole separate unit involved in the training process when the end result is pretty similar.

but how is this different from training spartiates for 100 food with 2 mins train time? why not "cut out the middle man" so to speak (the male citizen).

also, what to call this unit? There seem to be a lot of "royal guards" it is rather generic IMO. spartiate champion maybe is another idea.

what about just giving sparta an additional, more costly house available in p1 or 2, providing 20 pop, and also allowing 1 spartiate to be trained? Perhaps it could be 2 or 3. The point is, tying early production to the special houses (someone said estates) makes it kind of a "soft" limit. I would argue that champion spearmen should still be trained by the current training building in p3 without a limit. Balance wise, the biggest challenge for sparta is mobility, so some movement speed upgrade for melee units, or some movement speed hero would be perfect for the civ.

perhaps just melee inf in general?

in another discussion, it was suggested to increase garrison space to 16 on the largest wall segments. Part of their apparent weakness is that only 8 can sit on a wall, usually against many more units. I think their existing armor bonus is enough.

Thoughts on a 10% range buff for units garrisoned in walls?

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.

I think giving spartans the stoa could be a good place to start, on top of @borg-'s original ideas.

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.

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.

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)

haha I meant it could be all 4 sides clipped. That would in fact be worse XD.

"man every word is a curse word these days"

it could be worse

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: