Jump to content

Fabius

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    357

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Fabius

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. Fabius
    Then simply add in the relevant information, adding at least an overview of the specific changes would be helpful anyway
  5. Fabius
    I see, fair point I like this plan
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. Fabius
    Where can I find a list of all the current implemented changes in the community mod?
  12. 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.
  13. Fabius
    Totally agree there
  14. 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.
  15. Fabius
    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
  16. Fabius
    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.)
  17. Fabius
    I took inspiration from Han ministers as a means to viably incorporate centurions into the current Roman faction in an interesting manner. Centurions did admin as well as fight wars. I see no issue with taking mechanics from other factions and putting a different spin on them to represent something in a different faction. You have only so many elements to work with. In fact as a further specification the attack bonus can be tuned to melee infantry and not ranged, now you encourage usage of melee units for damage and not just as meatshields.
  18. Fabius
    As I mentioned previously the concept I had in mind for the centurion was utilization of certain aspects of the Han government minister, as listed prior the possible bonuses could be a speed boost, a building boost, and an attack boost. All things that one would expect centurions to be overseeing. I am certain others might have bonuses to put forward that I have overlooked. But as it stands that is the core of the matter.
  19. Fabius
    As it stands we have all the required resources on hand, all that is left is to achieve a positive consensus and then process it for testing and implementation
  20. Fabius
    Its not a case of adding more units to Rome. its giving Rome unique things that differentiate them from the other civs.
  21. Fabius
    @real_tabasco_sauce
  22. Fabius
    @Stan` This was what I was referring too.
  23. Fabius
    All good As I mentioned Wowgetofyourcellphone has several centurion actor skins and I believe he made one specifically for the Republic era, so it would be easy to match the current armour aesthetic.
  24. Fabius
    I disagree that centurions would be out of the timeline. legionaries came into being with Marius in 107 BC which is 39 years after the third Punic war ended in 146 BC. Centurions existed prior to that reform with the triple line maniple legion in then current usage by the Roman Republic, which was used throughout the Punic wars.
  25. Fabius
    Wowgetofyourcellphone has a very nice centurion model, in fact he has a couple I believe. So mayhaps you could use his. I would prefer centurions came from a building other than the fortress, a barracks or civic center seems most reasonable. That only leaves the stats and bonuses to be hammered out. P2 fortress I feel would be a step to far, you need siege to break fortresses, all that will do is nullify P2 aggression entirely unless you start adding P2 siege as well.
×
×
  • Create New...