Fabius
-
Posts
341 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Fabius
-
-
1 minute ago, AIEND said:
Onager or Trebuchat usually project a clay pot filled with oil, which is also relatively safe.
True, and would be devastating against a wooden structure.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, alre said:
a catabult (ballista) is basically a big bow that uses torsion instead of flection, you can aim it the same way as a normal sized bow. in its size I mean.
the picture you posted depicts an onager, also called catapult, but not of the tipe you would use on a ship. a bolt shooter would be more useful than that.
A bolt shooter would be a safer option for shooting flaming projectiles.
-
Just now, AIEND said:
In fact, there is a question, what kind of catapult is installed on the warship, I have the impression that this kind of catapult is smaller and is used more.
A good point, though I belive this type was still quite accurate, the Trebuchat which also uses the sling arm was noted for being quite accurate as well. In rough seas though pretty much anything will be inaccurate, it must also be noted that in that age most battles would have been fought in calm weather and near the coast, so accuracy would not really be an issue.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, AIEND said:
The catapult is not an artillery piece, the stone it fires does not have such high kinetic energy, it cannot easily penetrate the deck and hull, and the catapult cannot shoot directly.
Catapults are actually more useful to throw incendiary objects to burn ships than to fire rocks.The ballista can fire stones directly, all the catapults in the game follow this design. So yes they would actually count as artillery. While it may not be really possible to sink a ship with one mounted on a ship it would still do significant damage to a ships superstructure.
-
8 minutes ago, AIEND said:
I don't think tomahawks have an advantage over swords when it comes to destroying sturdy machines (they're not firewood in your backyard) to be worth our attention.
The force exerted by an axe stroke versus that of a sword stroke is significantly different, an axe head will generate much more damage than a sword stroke will. It comes down to the design of each. An axe head is designed to generate high cutting damage in a small area, a sword will generate cutting power over a much broader area but has much less weight concentration.
-
Just now, AIEND said:
If you have used maces and poleaxes, you will find that they are specially designed to attack people and are not as heavy as hammers and axes which are professional tools. It's no better for demolishing buildings or siege machines than a sword.
In reality, maceman and axeman attack siege machines in the same way as other melee infantry - killing their operators.Fair point, I would argue axes should have a stronger bonus since they can comfortably threaten both man and machine at once
-
3 minutes ago, AIEND said:
It only took me half an hour to add a new damage type to the mod, and most of the time, you just need to copy/paste repeatedly between various templates.
The new damage types allow us to be more flexible when designing stats. For example, we can completely use the "smash" type of slinger's damage, and let the maceman's damage be completely "thump" type. Don't worry that this value will be too high to affect buildings and siege weapons.
With all respect there are only really three ways to inflict damage, pierce, hack/slash and bludgeon/crush, if you want to add permutations of those you would need to add resistances for them which means things get complicated quickly. Your best option is to use damage modifiers. Its simple and allows for alterations using the existing foundations without bloating things.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Outis said:
Can we mitigate this by giving siege units a low base damage and a large bonus damage to buildings?
I think mace and axe units being effective against wooden siege units is a good idea actually.
Mace units maybe not, real maces are not the monstrous chunks of metal you see in fantasy, they are actually rather small. An axe yes, this I definitely agree should have bonus damage against siege and wood. The hyrecanian cavalry could greatly benefit from this. So could Kushite axemen.
-
My two cents worth. Biremes should be first phase 1. Triremes phase 2. Quinquiremes phase 3. Quinquiremes should be viewed as battleships, I am uncertain as to the current view, but my thought is they must be ship killers primarily, like they were in the past. Simple fix to this is to increase the accuracy again. I once spent a minute trying to hit a lone woodcutter with one in A24, it was embarrassing. For comparison in A23 one could evaporate entire armies and coastlines with just one fully loaded Quinquireme/juggernaught. Which was fun
Decreasing the size of ships might help with the performance issues. Adding more interesting upgrades like borrowing the fire mechanic from the Iberians.
Honestly, why has nobody thought to use this for area damage on catapults(fire pots)? or for use by ranged infantry against siege units(fire arrows)? This would be such a good way to diversify tactical options.
-
17 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
This could be good, but I think k/d ratio is better off as a standalone statistic. In the value ratio I suggested, the player who only lost 100 units would have a higher value ratio because the 100 units likely cost less.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to win even with a low KD.
I would much prefer if the K/D statistic is left alone and you just add other stats as you feel inclined, it is very satisfying ending a game with a good K/D, even if one has lost. Its also very funny knowing that perfection is achieving a K/D ratio of infinity.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, thephilosopher said:
That seems fair enough. You might be right about that. My thought on it was that the 375/100 player was probably doing the most strategic damage, while the 400/350 player was more of a team meat shield. But there could be situations where the 400 kills player was the better player.
K/D ratio does depend on tactics employed by the player. Someone who gets bogged down in a war of attrition with a player who can trade well is going to have a different K/D to someone who can just run over an opponent without any opposition. It is possible to overwhelm and win by sheer numbers just as much as it is possible to annihilate an opponent with minimal losses in pitched battles.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Do you think it would be a good idea to open a ticket for this enchantment?
yes :O
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
I think it would be nice to introduce some features that represent the culture of certain factions.
An idea would be the Roman bathhouses. The in game effect could be similar to the technology living condition where garrisoned units regain HP.
Thing is we already have temples, so another unique healing station while nice for eye candy will simply be redundant, also not really relevant to the function, a stronger fit is to tie a health bonus to the building because cleanliness means less disease so healthier people. Also they usually had gymnasiums attached. So a health bonus overall seems most appropriate.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
since all civs have rams, what if eles were made a less effective against buildings (not as good as rams, accounting for cost), but gain a small semicircle (or triangle?) of hack splash damage, not enough to 1 hit most units, but enough to do a lot of damage. I think this would further differentiate eles from rams, making them more of a "shock unit." How best to deal the damage to multiple enemies, however, is unclear.
Do that and you'll see much more elephant doom stacks than currently, especially as units tend to overlap and any kind of splash damage changes things considerably. Still its a good idea
-
37 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
The whole world known to themselves? so basically the whole world is territory they control.
The Mediterranean and its surrounding land mass.
-
1 hour ago, hyperion said:
Slow as in low fps in big brawls.
Fair point, but auras shouldn't affect that though since its just an effect attached to a unit.
-
18 minutes ago, hyperion said:
Because the game isn't slow enough already
The game is not slow, 12 minute third phase is hyper fast, there is no reason to do anything in second phase beyond prepping for third phase. Average games last half an hour if you lucky. less than five minutes if you really unlucky and get rushed.
-
1
-
-
Perhaps an often asked question, but why can't Army camps be built in your own territory when the siege walls can be?
Like why the hesitancy to allow that?
-
35 minutes ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:
I didn't mean to be disrespectful although holding the "known world" (excluding india and bactria) is more a logistic feat than a military one. But then again I'm a self admitted philhellene so who am I to judge. I just think than conjuring waves after waves of levies is a roman hack and that overshadows most tactical brilliance on their part
All good
I am uncertain what a philhellene is, I am assuming its someone who loves all things Grecian. I like all things Roman, so yah
Honestly most of the current game play feels like conjuring waves upon waves of levies lol. But I do agree I would prefer things that showcase their tactical brilliance, and not just for Rome either, while that will always my first civ of choice I do want worthy opponents and I do like to try new things as well when I feel the need.
The burning question then is how does one showcase the tactical genius
-
5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
I think a simple aura bonus (something like the old woman eco bonus but for fighting) would be simple (easy to understand so the game doest become overly compacted) and nice (creates new strategies and features). It also wouldn’t require code changes or anything like that.
ton of its options here for sure.
Auras would be a good feature to use more
8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:I've often considered removing heroes and replacing them with officers, generals, and standard bearers, each with different auras. That was before I went all-in on the Hero RPG element in DE. They could still make an appearance if we got hard battalions. Imagine upgrading your battalions with officers and noisemakers (Carnyx for Celts, Aulos for Greeks, Cornus for Romans, etc.), giving benefits.
Roman Eagle standards
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Nah, just make the Triarius trained at Elite rank, making them economically almost useless, but militarily strong, without losing their CS status. The Triarii weren't élite in the sense of being fantastic fighters, they were simply those soldiers in the oldest age-class and a level below the Equites in wealth.
Understood
-
5 hours ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:
Really you are overrating them.
Takes over whole of known world and holds it for half a millennia. I already accepted your earlier point, but I do not think I am overrating to much given their accomplishments.
-
1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
You overrated the Romans.
Ok
-
4 hours ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:
Nope. Why would they?
Training and experience.
Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 27.
in General Discussion
Posted
This bring me back to the idea that utilising the fire mechanic from Iberian cavalry could open up some interesting diversification. Nobody has a monopoly on fire, I think it would be interesting to have a diversification in the incendiary department.