Fabius
-
Posts
403 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Fabius
-
-
So I have an idea to put forward. And I did a little research prior to ensure this would be historically reasonable, which it seems to be.
So the idea is for a Roman unique tech that references the spoils of the Punic Wars and allows them to train a very limited number of war elephants, roughly 5 I am thinking, maybe more if you deem it fit.
My brief research brought up their use in the Grecian conquests and the use of captured Carthaginian elephants after the Punic wars, so I think this is reasonable overall
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
So, yes, this is nice. Heavy Warships can come with catapults already turreted. In my suggestion, these would be smaller than normal catapults to fit on "bireme" sized Quinqeremes. Garrisoning troops onboard can still add to arrow count if we want.
One could use smaller catapult stats as well, with how much damage catapults are now throwing out there is a lot of leeway to work with.
-
On 28/04/2022 at 7:18 AM, Freagarach said:
Legacy, when rams were still able to attack units.
Yeah, sounds interesting. Not really compound upgrade, but just merge, like two High Templars in Star Craft (I) combine to an Archon. Interesting thought exercise it is.
Ah cool. Yes I remember rams being able to fight units rather well lol.
Merge upgrade sounds interesting
-
On 28/04/2022 at 6:48 AM, Freagarach said:
Catapults can be turreted on walls, one just needs to give the catapult the "Turretable" component.
As of the turret mechanic issues, there is the issue that turreting a unit on another unit makes that you'll need to task the turret to attack something specific if you don't want it to have its own will. The supporting unit likely has no attack of its own so there is some order descrepancy. ;(
Awesome. I would love to see catapult turrets as an option in the near future.
-
31 minutes ago, Dizaka said:
Looks like a p1 ram. Would be cooler if Mace had a p1 siege shop that produces that ;P.
There is already a fair bit going in P1, we need some more things in P2. Also P1 rams may be a bridge to far in my opinion. The only way I would accept that is if we got P2 catapults.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
A turtlers' dream lul.
I don't think that defensive structures need any overall buff, but I do think that an infantry player should have some ways to restrict cavalry movement. Palisades work as long as you are not facing any melee cav which can kill it in 5-10 seconds. Stone walls would be nice as they are stat-wise, but they are too hard to place since they can't be put over trees and can't be in neutral territory like palisades.
The Roman dream
-
2 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
Ideally it would be upon wall completion. But I suppose we actually dont have to delete the trees, it just might look a bit weird.
Walls provide a great way to stop attacks that would outmaneuver your army and attack your economy. Extra hp for walls would just slow down gameplay too much.
This would make sense if you only ever played infantry vs infantry. Since rams/eles are required to break walls, it means cavalry need to be there to protect them also which limits their mobility and makes defending with infantry easier even if there is a breach. I like the idea of walls being useful but I am very afraid of an a24 type situation where it is impossible to move anywhere.
I don't remember A24 being that immobile, I just remember annoying archer blocks and having to use consular guard as that was the only thing capable of blunting them effectively.
I will also point out that catapults have far higher crush damage now, which I will say I am looking forward to as I believe they are now strong enough to kill a ram in one hit if upgraded.
So perhaps it is best left until A27 since I think that the new potential for active defense may negate any need for a wall upgrade
-
3 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
No you are right. From a logical standpoint, it is fine. However in terms of gameplay it stands out in a rather awkward way. This is what I meant originally.
On another note, what if my 100 ptol pikemen with the pike hero's HP bonus all turn into rams? At the same time these 100 pikes are better off as pikes than as 25 rams. Then how do you balance it? only 2 units required? In that case 50 rams would be wild XD. Im honestly not so sure about it in general to be honest.
Its a trade off, and you would not turn all your pikes into rams anyhow, that would be a grave error in judgment
-
1
-
1
-
-
Ideally it would be good to see some kind of wall buff for A26 already rather than A27.
-
1
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:
I think it could be logically defended. I can see how a workshop is needed to assemble something with moving parts and aligned measurements; for picking up a tree trunk not so much.
Definitely agree.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, AIEND said:
The problem with stone walls is that they need to be built in territory, which means you need to wrap your town in a full circle to be safe, but it's stupid, because on the one hand it limits the development of the town, and at the same time there is a lot of narrow terrain on the map , only a narrow section of wall is needed to block the road.
A sensible player would work with that and try to channel the opponent into crossfire and other disadvantageous situations. If you want to encourage players to think beyond P3 = Ram= victory then you need to give them more options and better ones.
1 minute ago, AIEND said:I want towers to be uncapable or hard to capture, so at least the enemy has to carry a battering ram to destroy these obstacles.
That is reasonable
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Tower buffs should be very carefully tested so that it is not too OP to tower rush. Currently towers are fine IMO. We do not want overall strong defenses. What this looks like in multiplayer is A24, where the entire map gets built up if the game is not ended by rushes. It is extremely terrible gameplay.
Think about it: If defenses increase the likelihood of your victory too much in a given battle, then 0ad becomes a battle of defenses where both sides just stare at each other in a game of chicken.
Currently, fighting under an enemy tower, fort, or temple makes things a little harder but the battle is certainly winnable provided you have better micro, better unit composition/upgrades, or more units.
A fair point, but towers are only ever as useful as whats in front of them. I never build towers in game anymore as they serve no purpose beyond being a vaguely annoying distraction to the opponent and me if they get captured, whats more they cost resources that are better used elsewhere.
That being said I would prefer stronger walls over towers at this stage, after all there is a garrison bonus on walls, and I would like to have incentive to investing stone into passive fortifications.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I think the biggest deterrent to making walls is how hard it is to make them sealed.
What if walls deleted trees that would obstruct them so that you could build them across forests?
I see many players building stone walls up to forests and these can simply be walked around by raiding units.
I think another thing that makes cavalry so OP is the infeasibility of walls and palisades in multiplayer.
Gaps in walls while problematic aren't a big issue when you can quite literally go through walls with little effort.
I am against deleting trees because this can be abused by Rome to delete an opponents forests. Also forests are good impediments to rams and elephants which is why forests in front of walls are good.
Yes and that is largely because walls lack meaningful impact to the battlefield.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Yeah no need for arson, but I think it would be good to increase wall HP (say + 20 percent or so) so that gates are more valuable targets and so that stone walls have a little more value in the late game.
I would suggest 25% or even 30% as a start, if that is found to be to much we can drop it down.
22 minutes ago, AIEND said:If we need better defense, we need to strengthen the tower.
We need better passive and active defenses overall
-
5 minutes ago, AIEND said:
It would be more interesting if we added arson, the stone walls are basically not afraid of fire, but the city gate is another matter.
At this stage we need better defenses not more ways to destroy stuff. Gates will die easily enough to siege, the point is to give the defender more control over his position than he currently has by giving him better tools. The workman is only ever as good as his tools or so they say.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Fabius said:
So I have been thinking, and I am going to suggest raising the health of stone walls. Right now they are useless except to deter raiding. However I also think gates should be kept at a weak level. This way you leave the obvious weaknesses of walls open while also allowing defending players to better control the flow of an assault on their town. I do not think the stone cost should be altered or the build time.
To clarify on the gate weakness I mean that the weakness of gates be further emphasized than they currently are.
-
2
-
-
So I have been thinking, and I am going to suggest raising the health of stone walls. Right now they are useless except to deter raiding. However I also think gates should be kept at a weak level. This way you leave the obvious weaknesses of walls open while also allowing defending players to better control the flow of an assault on their town. I do not think the stone cost should be altered or the build time.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Stan` said:
No I meant for all foot units to turn them into rams. You could also turn that handheld ram into a bigger ram
Ah I see, so essentially a button that merges a couple units into a ram? Or a single unit into a ram? And then a button with that unit to turn it into a better ram?
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Stan` said:
You could have an upgrade cost for units a bit higher and not require multiple ones. I don't think you can do a shared upgrade that way.
So basically just a stat upgrade? For rams?
-
23 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:
This.
Just a wild idea: order a couple of guys (2 or 4 inf) to batter (like a special formation); for the price of 100 wood and with a setup time you get a handheld battering ram. But: the ram takes damage while dealing damage; it should be good to take down a sentry tower and then be useless. The ~formation could be released at any time, it would be destroyed when the units are killed.
I like wild ideas I do
How hard would it be to code, what about art and how practical would it be game play wise?
-
25 minutes ago, Fabius said:
I know he has code for field catapult construction, I seen it in DE and I would love to see it as a roman legionary bonus.
In fact I would love to see the Onager as part of the main game in some capacity for Rome. alongside Centurions
-
4 minutes ago, alre said:
there is another option: soldiers building rams on the field. wow has the code for it if I remember well.
I know he has code for field catapult construction, I seen it in DE and I would love to see it as a roman legionary bonus.
-
10 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
If other civs can only make it from barracks while mace can from siege workshop this will help mace because they would have another p2 building option, one that is cheaper than a barracks and would not take up training time from other units. It would also mean they can make p3 rams with less delay than other civs.
I think this option gives mace strategic ambiguity. If a player sees Enemy mace siege works in p2 they need to get ready for either p2 rams or p3 rams 1-2 mins later. This is a challenge to be sure.
Alrighty, that makes sense
-
2
-
-
29 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
I think this would be fine, with some considerations.
IMO, the ram should cost at least 175 wood, 75 metal despite the ram maybe not having any metal on-board. In addition it should take the usual pop space.
The unit should be for players who are confident they can take down a player in a phase 2 fight and are willing to spend extra metal in p2 to do it. The issue is if the attack fails then it would be very costly and the target might reach p3 before you. I like this trade-off and it would make people who usually boom through p2 a little more concious of the defenses they might need/want.
It seems the main task is which civs should get this and from where to train it. Also the unit's hp, armor, and damage.
- I think all civs should get it maybe with a few exceptions, but it should be more viable for romans, spartans, and macedonians. Perhaps spartan one has small speed bonus, roman one smaller cost, and macedonian one greater pierce armor.
- 3 pop space
- 1/2 crush attack as full ram
-
comes from barracks for most civs, but mace get them from siege workshop they get to build in p2 ( @Dizaka)
- same default speed as regular ram
- 175 wood 75 metal
- current ram has 50 pierce armor, this would go down to 15 (or 20 for mace)
- also, no garrisoning
I am thinking this will add to gameplay and create a greater diversity in attack times and strategies. It will also make walls a bit more appealing in some situations.
@alre I see your point about clubmen, it would be sad if they were useless. IMO we should reduce the crush armor of heavily armored units so clubs and axes can be effective against those classes of units. the idea was that these crushing weapons can cave in the armor. That way clubmen would better for taking out fringe buildings like houses towers, as well as battling other units, and p2 rams would be better for a fully fledged battle.
Nicely laid out
I am curious as to why units have such high crush armour, Is it to prevent one shotting by elephants? Catapults?
All civs can already build siege workshops, also making it come from barracks but for Macedonia requires a workshop will weaken it for Macedonia as nearly all players will already have a barracks by default, better that everyone can build a workshop second age if they have this mini ram available.
Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 27.
in General Discussion
Posted
Interesting idea, but that would basically just be fire cav, also I think they did it for just one battle which failed spectacularly and after that tried other things. Roman Elephants can be justified far more than chariots from my perspective.