real_tabasco_sauce

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.

it is. yes. It is also OP so there should be a limit on construction like iber monument.

to be honest I think gameplay is a higher priority. In any case, this is a topic about balance, not history.

really? I didn't know.

I would say immediately: farm upgrades back to 20 percent instead of 25. only 1 laozi gate permitted. I bet these will be unanimously agreed upon. I expect further nerfs will be required on top of these two.

Hello Everyone, Rather than dig up the old topic for balancing han, I started a new one centered around RC1, which @Stan` has graciously provided us Since the Han is a new civ added, we will need to carefully ensure everything is well balanced. To start, here are concerns of mine: Stacking unique economic technologies: 1. Farming upgrades are +25%instead of 20% (p1) 5. Rice paddies are cheaper, smaller than farms (more can be protected) 3. higher rice gather rate for women (.6 vs .5) 4. ministers (slight eco bonus) 5. imperial ministry upgrades (cheaper buildings, non-forge techs) (p1,p2) 6. crossbows cheaper wood cost these will make han a top tier eco civ, possibly competing with ptols. Stackable military stats: hero: -50% promotion experience fort upgrade: -25% promotion experience This could be OP: nearly instant rank 3 units. Champions: 5 different champs, 3 champ cav. Some civs only have 2 (britons) and 1 (spartans). Very strong defenses: great tower, super CC, stronger walls, can build multiple laozi gates for pretty cheap. This is probably stronger defense than iberians. It seems they have the eco of the ptols, top tier heroes, probably the best military, and on top of it all: 220 pop. Everything that makes the other civs good, the han seem to have all in one package.

yes, the distance is doubly valuable it seems.

I think there should at least be a little, because it seems cheap to put all 15 in a completely safe area. Also, what would be the point of building them in neutral terrain if they are better off safe at home?

They are vulnerable for good reason: because the dps of melee cavalry absolutely ruins ranged infantry. The damage they deal is counter enough: honestly, they could be weaker still to pierce attacks and still decimate ranged infantry. What you quoted is fine and should not be changed in my opinion.

perhaps a range requirement like towers have? For example, you cannot build one too close to the other. This way, you cant put all 30 next to each other walled up. It makes some sense from a realistic perspective too i guess.

I think if merc cavs are still a problem going forward, something along these lines should be considered. They shouldn't train instantly, but very quickly, like maybe 4 sec for inf and 8 for cav. Costs would also need to be fine tuned. I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I think "starting" metal/stone locations should be reconsidered. How about this: They both spawn at some angle relative to the CC, but with a fixed radius of 50 meters. Some measure would be needed to ensure they do not overlap i guess. About the values: If first metal mine is only 1000, those who don't have any extra available will be unable to get essential upgrades, so I think that is too severe. I do agree there might be a little too much metal available currently. Perhaps just replace some of the 5000 metal mines with single 1000 metal mines? how does that sound?

In practice, It is countered mainly by ranged units, because ranged units kill them much faster than swordcav for example. In other words, they cannot tank damage. If spearcav trap them, then they are done for (with a26 spearcav). I have to finish my final exam today, but maybe I could host a couple games tonight using the mod (I am in GMT - 7). If you have the mod, you can at least look at the replay I included.

yes, I understand. To be honest, I don't think axe cav p1 is accepted by the majority, but I can't say for sure. The reason I asked about considering the two patches separately is because nobody has accepted or given any other feedback on mine. I assumed people would want to see your patch before mine gets accepted.

Have you tested my mod? (or the patch?) I feel like moving axe cav as is to p1 is plainly inferior to my solution, but I am fine with testing axecav in p1.

Do other's agree my patch (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4674) should be considered separately? I think it makes sense: D4674 is already complete and functional, just needing to be accepted. It also seems to be moderately popular: as of right now, 50% of voters supported the patch, and 43% of voters supported a more simple buff (to the axe cav parent class).

Currently the main practical use for these units is to destroy buildings, basically like highly mobile clubmen. In team games, one could easily mass 20+ fairly quickly and destroy enemy houses, barracks, and even the CC. It would be overpowered beyond belief, and balancing them from that point (trainable in p1, even worse from CC) would make them a gimmick: balancing them at the p1 level means they would be an OP troll unit for the first 5-10 mins and then completely useless (except for anti ram) in the late game. The patch I proposed gives them a more interesting, versatile, impactful, and balanced role. @borg-Most people seem to like your other propositions for persians, can you let axe cav stay in p2? edit: sorry for redundancy, I didn't see @chrstgtr's post.

I think it is best to keep them separate, as one is unit balancing/differentiation and one is more civ differentiation. One thing is for sure: we cannot allow axe cav in p1, buff or no buff. I like allowing spear and javelin cav in p1, maybe archer cav too, but definitely not axe cav.

maybe not design error: it makes sense that ranged units firing "at will" would shoot the closest unit (most threatening), but there should other ways to control ranged units, like attack ground, so that the player has another option.