real_tabasco_sauce

@borg- do you refer to the weapon switching persian immortals here? I think this is the best way to balance the weapon switching unit (hack armor of the champ archer, pierce armor of the champ spearman) It may be necessary to go further and subtract another 1 for hack and pierce. If you are referring to the normal citizen soldier spearmen, I think they should remain as is. The basic spearman stats should be constant across all civs (except for perks like the spartan team bonus). Certainly auras should be avoided with this many units.

I would say there are two reasons not to have this unit: One is that it is pretty unrealistic. two is that it doesnt fit with the other crossbow units well. Different range than champ cav crossbow, than champ crossbow (mace), and very different to the existing han CS crossbow.

Ok, I would say if something gets removed from these, it should be sword infantry. With the only ranged units being archers, crossbows, and archer cav, i think this is comparable to many civs. Since they already have swordcav, antiram should be no problem.

yes, but what do you think about these units being in chariots. ^ i didn't see your above comment. So then champion infantry spearman, champion infantry crossbowman, chamption spear cavalry, and champion chariot archer? What should the chariot carry?

anyone disagree with this?

So @AIEND is this more or less what you describe? p1, CC units: Crossbow, Spear, sword cavalry p2: archer, Ji, sword infantry, Spear cavalry, archer cavalry p3: (Champs) champion spearman, champion spear cavalry, champion crossbow chariot? (I think the last one is the best replacement for what is currently champion archer chariot and champion crossbow cav) I would honestly say that this seems pretty well streamlined. If including archer cav is seen as an impediment to the future inclusion of Xiongnu, then in that case, they could become a mercenary or auxillary unit for Han. Lastly, I think crossbow training should only apply to citizen soldiers.

any more opinion on this from other people? It does seem weird to me for the ministry to have these level 1 and 2 upgrades but no upgrades for ministers. I do think these could stay in the ministry building, however.

@maroder, one last balance change that I think is important is to reduce the farming upgrades to 20% from 25%. All the other civs are 20 percent.

seeing as the crossbow on a horse (idk how the heck u would load it lol) seems like a very specialized concept, I think the champion makes more sense. I think it is wise to plan for the addition of the Xiongnus. (one option here is this: should the han archer cav be kept, it could become a Xiongnu mercenary unit when that civ is added) So maybe keep the champ crossbow, considering there is also a hero cav crossbowman. If there are still too many champs available, I would say to just put the crossbowman on the chariot.

my thoughts are that the speed difference could make up for this slight difference in dps.

yeah I think this is the best approach for now. This, and increasing the wood cost back to 50. I could see a repeating crossbow change, but to be honest, this would do essentially the same thing. @maroderwhat do you think of the citizen soldier cavalry crossbows? I would say these should be removed instead of the cav archers. If people really want champ cavalry crossbows, I would say they should be put in a chariot, replacing the existing chariot unit.

@maroder thank you very much for putting these patches together. 1. I would say removing the laozi gate is the best solution, thank you. 2. As for the ministry upgrades, they might be better balanced now, but it seems weird (perhaps redundant, some would say boring) to have level 1 and 2. What if level 2 versions were removed, with the level 1 techs receiving middle-ground values and/or different phase requirements? Since this building trains ministers, I think there should be some upgrades to the minister unit available. For example, I think some p3 upgrade that increases minister stats (aura range perhaps) would be possible. ^ if more time could be invested, maybe there could be 3 mutually exclusive upgrades (almost like a one time specialization trait), with one for aura range, one for economic traits and maybe one that increases their militaristic traits. 3. I think the upgrade itself should be changed: having stacking upgrades is very powerful balance-wise. I like the hero's aura much more than the blanket buff for all CS units. How about @wowgetoffyourcellphone's suggestion: ^or at least something to that effect. Another possibility would be something along the lines of the "immortals" tech from persians. 4. unit roster I think crossbows should stay in p2, but be balanced around slingers stats. I am happy with the halberdier replacing the spearman. The above improvements to infantry xbows (slinger damage per second, 50 hp, 50 food 50 wood cost) should accompany the removal of the crossbow training tech, or at least balancing it (not effecting champions -are they not already trained?-). Good to remove the champ archer. I think if one of these champs is to be kept, it should be the champ crossbow cavalry (with appropriate range and accuracy nerfs). I think if one other roster change is to be made, CS cavalry crossbows should be removed. 5. heroes: I would say keep the -50% training experience. This is very strong, but with the above change to "art of war", it should be balanced. In addition, this unit should be made a foot soldier so that CS cav cannot as easily reap the benefits of the aura. IMO the xbow hero should be nerfed as follows: cavalry unit: 60 pierce, 55 meters (just like range of champion cav x bows) OR infantry unit: 60 pierce 60 meters (just like range of inf crossbows).

I could see a semi regular population of those who want to play the more recent balance adjustments. Also, should we have another merc cav situation, the mod could serve as a hotfix for those that want to play with the particular unit balanced out.

yes but it is hard for these changes to get approval, even with some agreement. It seems to me the hardest part of this role is getting people to test the balance changes one makes, while people then provide feedback without testing. The beauty of this balance mod is that it should overcome the difficulty of ordinary players to test individual mods (download and install). also, it will be nice to test changes alongside other balance changes. Many thanks @wraitii!

I guess it is true that in the long term, metal can be a scarce resource, but this is actually a misconception in the early to mid game: Metal resources are often very safe (under CC), and availability at this time really depends on how many workers you task on metal. The distribution of metal actually favors the proposed mercenary model (fast train, equal cost to CS -> metal) because it establishes them as a quickly available fairly powerful unit. In this model, you can still do a fast rush using a lot of metal, but you will be hard pressed to sustain it all game. Conversely, if you lose an important fight late in the game, you could quickly assemble a mercenary army for defense (including anti-ram). I don't think this will be massive nerf to be honest, more like giving the mercs more interesting use cases: since 5000 metal gets you 33 merc cav (more than enough for devastating raids), and as carthage you would probably only need 1 embassy to get these mercs quickly because of the train time. TBH I give it the green light, but then again what's my opinion's worth what do ppl think of this? Considering there are already many trade team bonuses, this could be neat.

Ex. my javelin cav ---> <---enemy spear cav oops, my jav cav must now turn 180 degrees, while the spear cav do not need to accelerate at all. In a25, actively chasing enemy cavalry doesn't usually get you very many kills anyway (often the retreating cav find reinforcments, allies, or buildings, etc) Instead it is when you catch them off guard, or take a shortcut to get in front. So... I don't expect this difference you point out to effect gameplay all that much, although with more gameplay testing I am sure we will get a better idea.

I like the rice paddies, and I think they are a neat way to differentiate the Han. I was just saying that the upgrades are too strong amidst a number of other economic bonuses. Were the upgrades intended to be 25% as part of differentiation?

It's not a massive difference to be honest. Like I said earlier, there are also instances where acceleration improves the spearcav's effectiveness.

this is true, but acceleration makes a different engagement type much more impactful for spearcav vs skirmcav: In the case that javelin cavalry are intercepted by spearcav (need to change directions to run away), they have a much harder time escaping. With the larger counter to cavalry, I don't expect spearcav to be losing to javelin cav.

This alone is a slight advantage for the han eco, since they do require farmers 4 and 5. (not that other civs "require" 5, but they have invested 100 wood for 5 spots, while han invest 60 wood for 3 spots.) I maintain that 25% -> 20% is an important balance step.

right, and apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick here, but even if each field had 1 worker, (or if each field had 10 workers) wouldn't 20 percent faster worker rate be the same? The upgrade modifies the worker's gather rate no?

Thank you! I guess they weren't. I think they should be 20% just like the other civs.

@Stan` was the grain gather rate upgrade changed back to 20% in those changes you mentioned here?

yes, instant would allow for instant anti ram, maybe a couple other cheesy strategies. I vote for not quite instant, but close to it. like 2 - 6 seconds, maybe 3 sec for inf and 6 sec for cav is good. In this case, they should also keep the batch train bonus. In general though, I think this is how mercenaries should play. I remember we had discussion of this before a25, but nothing became of it. how do we feel about 100 and 150 metal? This is the metal equivalent of their food/wood costs. I think it is perfectly fine because the fact they train at rank 2 and very quickly should be enough to justify the cost being metal. Also, I disagree with reza_math points 2 and 3. 4 could go either way. It would be nice for mace to get a more helpful antiram, but there certainly are more pressing balance issues. maybe this, but Carthage get a -10/15 percent mercenary cost team bonus? If not, civ bonus.

In play testing, the persian axe cav could destroy buildings as well, if not better than currently, but they are weak to fully garrisoned buildings. In other words, the axe cav player must be very careful not to lose them if they would like do destroy defended buildings.