real_tabasco_sauce

perfect thank you!

@borg- I'm sorry, but I think very very few people agree with you here. Something that is a CC killer (houses, barracks etc) and then isn't good the rest of the game just doesn't sound fun to use and especially not to play against. Please give my mod a try, maybe they sound OP on paper, but this is what it takes to really diversify units. I also don't want them to be a swordcav replica, so I made a unit that is very different in a number of ways to swordcav.

@borg- people want to test your patch and my patch (i think 7 people have tested mine). It will be easier to do them together if we really want more testing. I don't think you have tried the buffed hyrcanian cav; wouldn't it be easier just to add them to your mod? To be honest, I would say what we have done so far is pretty polished and could be committed before the next RC.

My patch does all of these things. You must not have seen that the repeat rate is now 1.5 seconds.

xbow issues: infantry CS have 45 range cav CS 50 have range cav champ have 55 range the cav champs are way stronger than mace xbows and they are also on a horse, the infantry are really weak, and the same is true for the CS cavalry crossbows. In general, the vision for a crossbow unit is very inconsistent not only across the Han but also across civs. The range stats for xbows should be unified for sure (if any difference is to be had, the cavalry Xbows should be less accrurate). However, If the infantry CS should have a different role (ie. skirm or sling range, higher dps by perhaps repeat time/damage buff), then maybe they should get a new name. If they don't get a new name, then maybe this could simply become the distinction between champ and CS crossbows. This distinction would have to be clarified in game i imagine. To be honest: i think we shouldn't have "trash" units, but thats my opinion.

@borg- to make things easier for people to test, perhaps we could combine the mods. All you will have to do is download the raw diff files from phabricator: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4674

@wowgetoffyourcellphone thoughts on the walkspeed aura?

@borg-, how about when this ice house decision finalized, both our patches go forward as Persian differentiation? then we can test in the next RC maybe?

idk about allowing cav to build, its a slippery slope. I think you should invest a CS unit or something to go far away if you have to

We should try and schedule a round of team games on the release candidate: a few things to check for: Are mercs still OP, or now balanced? Perhaps, but we have to check. What do we think of acceleration. Compare performance to a25 maybe. and then Han balance, but this is already being worked on.

Yes this is my worry, but to be fair, I would say persians are just competetive in the late game at the moment, and weak in early/middle game. Is there a way for the aura to only apply to wild animals? ^I think this would make it a little more valuable in the early game.

What if they could serve as a meat only dropsite as well, and the aura serves for meat, maybe increase the food per animal by 1.25. An alternative to the aura would be that the icehouse gets .25 food for every 1 meat dropped off (losing less nutrients to rot perhaps). This would probably be more elegant than an aura, and then I guess you could just add the range limiter from towers. However, we have to consider what impact this has on corrals. I guess it would still be reasonable, just a little stronger for pers than other civs.

How do we feel about having both CS and champion crossbow cav? It seems weird to have so many crossbow units, also with very different stats: for comparison: mace crossbow 40 pierce, 60 range, 9.6 walkspeed (champ inf costs). Han Xbows: CS infantry crossbow: 20 pierce, 45 range 9.6 walkspeed (40 wood cost, i guess the idea is the cost makes up for the units lower stats) CS cavalry crossbow: 20 pierce, 50 range 14.4 walkspeed (40 wood cost too) Champ cavalry crossbow: 40 pierce, 55 range, 14.4 walkspeed (champ cav cost) Hero crossbow: 80 pierce, 65 range, 14.4 walkspeed why should the range change so much between different crossbow types? I imagine the champ cavalry crossbows will be very strong, thankfully they can at least be caught using faster cavalry. Because of the champ unit being so special, I think the CS crossbowman cav should be removed. what do you think of this @chrstgtr? I think that hero could become the single most annoying unit in the game lol. cav should be all 50 or 55 range, champ inf should be 60. im ok with CS infantry crossbows having less range, but they should have 50 hp and slinger damage per second (with 50 food 50 wood cost). ^ ie no "trash" units, just normal citizen soldiers.

Oh one last thing: han pikeman have 3 hack 4 pierce compared to regular pikes with 2 hack 3 pierce damage. They also get 2 fewer levels of hack and pierce armor than regular pikes. It is not obvious from their name that they should have this difference, and also not clear why this difference exists. Maybe I missed something early on. If they are supposed to be different than pikeman, why not just call them halberdiers?

@borg- everything seems to work as expected! Nice work! I like the icehouses, but what about a 30 meter build restriction. 5 of these is 10 food per second (with the upgrade) which is like 12 or 13 women on farms in p3. I think they shouldn't be built so close so that food income is easier to challenge. It looks to me like what you have made so far would work well with my hyrcanian cav change.

i guess it was hard for me to tell, since the units and unit rotations were so slow already.

I like these suggestions. Perhaps the new aura for the gate could be movement speed? Any gate can be a symbol of logistics, so maybe the gate can be indicative of roads and organized infrastructure. Maybe thats too boring, but for the cost I think it's appropriate. Also, because han ranged inf are all slow (archers crossbows), this will be a helpful building to have, for quick retreating or harassing border. In addition, it has a slight eco bonus. Should they still get a building limit?

I think you are right about the ranged units. That being said, do not underestimate archers. Sometimes players much more skilled than I can make them work quite well, despite them being pretty weak. Make no mistake: when i started this topic I wanted a discussion on what might be OP. I think all civs should have strengths and weaknesses, but it was just apparent to me that Han had too many different strengths. I think the ranged units limitation (no skirms/slings) is fine as is and justifies the unique crossbow upgrade. I don't want them nerfed into the ground, but rather that we are sure the nerfs we make are the best choices.

my concern is that they are stronger and cheaper than temples, with a 75 meter range.

yes I think staying on the middle ground is good: the basic CS units are very similar, but civs have additional unique buildings, units, upgrades, and bonuses. Hopefully, we can do this for a couple more civs later as well.

I understand, and we all thank you for your knowledge, but please discuss this in another discussion because this is about balance.

I'd say we need to stay in the middle ground. AOE4 seems to go for too much asymmetry and it hurts gameplay. I think the Han dynasty civ is a step in the right direction: the heros are interesting, the CC upgrade is interesting, rice paddies interesting, and ministers interesting. I would say we are also taking a step in the right direction here with pers including @borg-'s changes, and hopefully (if it gets accepted) my hyrcanian cav patch.

yes but a balance option is removing it. Please can we talk about balance here? @Lion.Kanzen why don't you ever use it?

yes, but it has already been added. Either we remove it (waste of art development time) or balance it. I refuse to make this a discussion on history. We discuss balancing the civ here.

yes I think it might be better off a little faster. Maybe just 25 percent faster acceleration.