Fabius
-
Posts
341 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Fabius
-
-
11 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
ok I have forks now for moving the army camp to p2 for rome and for giving pikes damage, reducing armor some. If you would like to view them, they are on my fork previously linked.
I have a question for you all:
Should I add a change to arrow count to the CC_territory cost merge request? (***we already voted on this, hence why I ask you all).
currently, CC's max arrows are 1 less than a fortress (23 vs 24). With the change making them cheaper, I think their max arrows should significantly reduced. *this does not in theory effect early defense from rushes because you are usually only able to garrison a few soldiers in the CC for arrows at that time anyway.
I propose to lower the max arrows to 15. (and the same for colonies). This should help with concerns of "CC dropping."
I will add a fix to sentry towers (<max arrows> should be 4 and not 3, currently the 3rd soldier does not add an additional arrow)
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.
-
On 04/11/2022 at 10:33 AM, Dakara said:
For Rome, i suggest keep their identity with no spear infantery at P1 but up the spear unit, rang 3 like skiritai for same cost as skiritai. Rome is pretty good infantery, we need feel it.
Than add phase 3 auxiliaries unit (mercenary) : Archer infanterie and cavalerie archer and cavalerie sword (germans or gauls) and later special unit (like master dog or something, master bird for scout)
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.
-
On 04/11/2022 at 7:07 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:
our Romans are based on the middle republic.They don't use Germans and Gauls until much later.What they can have are Balearic slingers, Cretan archers, and Numidian cavalry.
Numidians though would be another skirmisher cavalry and Rome already has one. Balearics and Cretans would be nice.
-
1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:
Do you mean the army camp? The castrum is the barrack. I would be in favor of the former but not the later.
Oh, yes I am referring to the army camp not the barracks
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
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 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
I recommend you try using cav, swords and siege. Rome has good cav with a good hero. Their sword cav champ with hero is one of the strongest combos In game. Not all civs have swords so rome melee can slice through a lot of enemies. Siege is great. There are more options than just spam range CS
Ok, I will take your advice on that point thankyou
-
30 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
On a related note, I think this can also be a problem. I think an easy fix here is to make all possible current units actually available. So I would make champs, especially inf, more accessible. My first step would be to eliminate the unlocking requirement in barracks
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.
-
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.
-
Just now, Lion.Kanzen said:
is not enough in all cases. for example in the case of the Ram siege. It is not something that has a favorable opinion, but it is not related to the patch. I just think rams should work differently.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
no chicken rush is 11 cav at 1:30 or so
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
-
17 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Look if you remove the third option then the option that I would use most of the time would be a resounding no due to lack information.
Then simply add in the relevant information, adding at least an overview of the specific changes would be helpful anyway
-
1 minute ago, chrstgtr said:
The root cause is that a lot of patches have multiple components. People select the 3rd option when they are split on a proposal. An easy fix would be to break proposals down into their constituent parts (i.e., one proposal to nerf ptol her and one proposal for athens hero instead of combining both into one) and then making the poll binary.
I see, fair point
3 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:Right now, we have more than enough support for several proposals to implement them. I think we should do that and see how it impacts the game/how people like them. If those proposals are good, we should actually make tickets to implement them for a27. Then we can figure out what next changes to do.
I like this plan
-
4 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
I do not agree.
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.
-
24 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
If voting is even between yes and no, then I think it makes sense to err on the side of adding content. What do you think?
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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
-
On 28/10/2022 at 1:31 AM, chrstgtr said:
My main problem with cav is that they don't die even when they should (i.e. running straight through inf and fighting spears head on). I think that is a direct result of their speed (ability to escape fights and to get to fights quickly) and their health (they might get hit once when running through a pocket of men but then keep running so the damage doesn't do enough to kill them). As a result, I don't mind that cav do extra dmg.
Making inf, specifically spears faster, would be a step in the right direction. (I think spears and swords should be faster anyways bc of their lack of range).
I would rather change health than armor because that ensures an even change across all units as opposed to just hack or pierce units. Otherwise, a -1 nerf to both hack and pierce might result in one type of attack becoming relatively stronger. Also promotions make extra HP a snowball problem.
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.
-
Where can I find a list of all the current implemented changes in the community mod?
-
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.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I'd like to see an alpha where melee infantry are op for once.
Totally agree there
-
1
-
-
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.
-
I like having Roman swords in P1, its fluffy and also a mild eco bonus since you can tap into your starting metal and save on wood for other things like houses.
That aside, there are some nice changes in A26, and for the first time since A23 I can actually start a game and feel like I can have some fun and also win. This entirely due to the reworking of fanatics, finally having something viable in P2 that can be used against the boomers is very satisfying and overall Gaul feels a very refined civilization now.
P2 champions for Athens is nice, but the metal requirements hold them back. I have yet to try out Persian immortals but I like the concept.
And Ardennes is still as awesome as I remember in A23
-
1
-
-
So I had an idea for making area damage viable on catapults without having the levels we had in A23.
Simply put, reduce the damage by around 50 - 75% of the current total,
add some splash damage to that new total,
and then add a big bonus multiplier against buildings.
And if anyone is concerned regarding the possibility of high indirect splash damage to troops around a building, simply put it down to chunks of falling masonry landing on their heads.
(this was first done on ships where the damage was a dropped and a multiplier against ships added.)
Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
Then civic centres/colonies should be P3 as well, they do the same thing except better.