Jump to content

Fabius

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    343

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Fabius

  1. Fabius
    The only one on that list that doesn't have a sling option is Sparta. Macedonians have them as mercs, the rest have them as citizens.
  2. Fabius
    if you actually make building arrows damage melee units decently then I am fine with it, but if you going to remove even their vague use against unsupported range hordes, then I am not in favour at all. Defensive buildings are very lacking in utility these days. You get far better mileage out of walls and ranged siege.
  3. Fabius
    Then civic centres/colonies should be P3 as well, they do the same thing except better.
  4. Fabius
    Civic center dropping is way harder than it sounds, I know from bitter experience with trying to build frontier fortresses, if your opponent sees you almost certainly he will rush you and you will likely not get that fortress up and/or lose a lot of troops, especially ranged units.
  5. Fabius
    I don't think you can justify metal cost on veteran Triari as Gauls can make champion spearmen without metal, but more importantly that leaves Rome without any melee unit that doesn't cost metal, also army camps already make rank 2 spearmen. Phase 3 auxiliaries is an interesting idea, I like that it gives the feeling of Rome as a late game power, but since we are trying to dial back the dependency on phase 3 I am not certain that it is helpful to add more features to phase 3. One could add a special auxiliary barracks or something to Rome, and then just to make things interesting you could make it a choice like the Seleucid Traditional and reformed army, only instead its a choice of archers or slingers. Could just skip the unique building and simply have that as a tech choice in the barracks though as a single option doesn't merit a new building.
  6. Fabius
    Numidians though would be another skirmisher cavalry and Rome already has one. Balearics and Cretans would be nice.
  7. Fabius
    Oh, yes I am referring to the army camp not the barracks
  8. Fabius
    Speaking of under used features, what about shifting the Roman castrum to second phase? Perhaps returning more of its siege making capabilities too, the complaint that it was getting used as a cheaper siege workshop is now invalid since everyone has a siege workshop now.
  9. Fabius
    The javelin and sword interchange for legionaries in that Rome at War mod for AOE II is quite a nice thematic feature, can we not borrow the idea and apply to Extraordinari seeing as Immortals now have the spear to bow interchange?
  10. Fabius
    Ok, I will take your advice on that point thankyou
  11. Fabius
    Frankly the whole unlocking thing is just a nuisance. Also certain civs, specifically Rome and Sparta, could use a second longer ranged unit so players have at least some options to consider when making armies, skirmishers are not great for fire fights. I understand the consideration of individual strengths and weaknesses, but every other civilization in the game has two or more different ranged options. For Rome every game is the same, spam the one ranged option you have and your choice of melee infantry. Its quite monotonous and under performs against civs who can field a more diverse army with the longer ranged options, slingers especially still seem to dominate. For Sparta its slightly different as you have superior melee unit options, so the lack of range doesn't hurt as much since you can hammer your way through enemy battle lines. Still a slinger like Athens would be nice, but not as necessary given the strong melee focus already present.
  12. Fabius
    I have never seen this meta of early cavalry spam, maybe I just don't play enough, but the vast majority of games I have played end as slugging matches between infantry blocks. And this is at low level for the record (1300) So I would rather see changes to the infantry roster.
  13. Fabius
    Well to be fair rams are already a core unit and annoying to deal with at the best of times. So it is understandable that people don't want them "buffed" for instance stick a few in front of your army and watch them win because everything tries to kill them on account of the combat ai always trying to hit the closest thing. That is the biggest irony of rams, they supposed to be a siege unit, but they work just as well as a "Taunt" unit that punishes whoever does not immediately deal with them, and you still get indirectly punished for dealing with them by the troop block that goes with them. So on either account you will lose anyhow.
  14. Fabius
    That seems tied to a map with a lot of early hunting, and given walking times I feel like that time was be seriously hard to reach even under ideal circumstances
  15. Fabius
    Then simply add in the relevant information, adding at least an overview of the specific changes would be helpful anyway
  16. Fabius
    I see, fair point I like this plan
  17. Fabius
    Alright, how then is a no opinion stance going to help. you just asked whether we count "no opinion" as a "yes" or "no" , if that is the case you have no third option, simply an implied yes or an implied no.
  18. Fabius
    I would say drop the third option of "no opinion" as its not at all helpful for decision making. A straight yes or no is all that is necessary.
  19. Fabius
    Overall I like this setup and the voting on whether to include things or not. It seems to have gotten things done quickly, which is good.
  20. Fabius
    After further play testing. Ranged troops can no longer go on walls, was this feature intentionally disabled for A26? And if so, why? Why must Rome always rely on skirmishers, why can we not have an archer as well? Almost all civs have two or more ranged infantry options. The only other exception is Sparta and they at least have superb melee infantry to compensate. Catapults have utility against rams again
  21. Fabius
    I am in agreement that a speed buff to melee infantry would be very nice. I mentioned elsewhere regarding naked fanatics that their speed makes them the best melee infantry currently. You can work around the snowball effect of health buffs by simply having the multiplication use the base starting health rather than the current running total.
  22. Fabius
    Where can I find a list of all the current implemented changes in the community mod?
  23. Fabius
    The thing with Gallic fanatics is they are fast, faster than even skirmishers, the importance of this cannot be stated enough in a ranged dominated meta. As was pointed out melee infantry is crippled by moving to get into close proximity of an opponent to do damage while under fire. all melee infantry are universally slower than ranged infantry and they get snared by opposing melee infantry and other obstacles. Which ultimately makes them unappealing as anything other than meat shields. Not to mention the heavy costs involved with getting decent melee infantry in the form of champions that can actually do damage. Fanatics however have the speed to get into melee and also to retreat if needed. They are cheap in terms of not costing metal and are pretty durable to boot. Overall a fun unit and a breath of fresh air. I wish other civs had interesting units that filled the cheap heavy infantry slot, especially for Rome.
  24. Fabius
    Totally agree there
  25. Fabius
    Why not simply let roman swordsmen switch and throw javelins or use slings as a secondary weapon? Instead of forever trying to make them late Romans rather than early Romans.
×
×
  • Create New...