Fabius
-
Posts
341 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Fabius
-
-
2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
This is actually a great idea. Its not something that could really help them win in p2 like merc-cav, but its something they could use to pressure and gain an advantageous position as the civs head into p3. Roman camps are kind of hard to time correctly and this would give them more options.
Honestly I am hoping they try this for A26 in spite of feature freeze, would be nice to have something properly new for Roman players to play around with.
-
16 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
They don't cost stone, but they do cost 300 wood versus 200 wood.
True, but you will be floating plenty wood anyway, 300 extra wood ain't that much.
-
10 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
yes. It is a turtler's dream lol. Imagine fort, towers, CC, and the army camp arrows all together. It would be a nightmare.
That being said, you can build a camp on your border and then later append territory towards it to keep it under your influence without garrisoning.
Sometimes I would simply delete my civic center and place a few camps then rebuild the civic center back again. Veteran Triari and A23 scorpions where awesome
-
3 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
yes. It is a turtler's dream lol. Imagine fort, towers, CC, and the army camp arrows all together. It would be a nightmare.
That being said, you can build a camp on your border and then later append territory towards it to keep it under your influence without garrisoning.
I am half turtle so yes lol. That being said, everything got dropped down to 11 pierce damage, I am not sure that the reasoning is quite so valid now two alpha's later.
-
1 minute ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Athens is already changed quite a bit:
https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP26754
Should be much more interesting in a26.
Great, that leaves only Rome then, "nod nod wink wink"
-
53 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
This is actually a great idea. Its not something that could really help them win in p2 like merc-cav, but its something they could use to pressure and gain an advantageous position as the civs head into p3. Roman camps are kind of hard to time correctly and this would give them more options.
You make good points about the blacksmith cost too btw, I guess we will think about this more in a26 and see if people want blacksmith changes then.
Great. There is the benefit of using army camps to guard key border areas against attack as well. I still wonder why they can't be built in ones own territory though, is that just for balance?
What about siege walls, would it be to much to move those as well?
-
16 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
why more than 1 market? usually I build 4 blacksmiths unless I am ptol and 2 if I am ptol. If my eco balance is good I often just forget to build a market (bad habit).
To be honest I think 50 stone would be a nice cost addition for blacksmiths which would make it harder to get upgrades while being on a metal only economy (merc cav lol).
Nearly all civs actually have good options in p2 (athens and rome are the main worst ones imo), and I think these are diminished in a25 by how powerful the merc cav are. Even iberians can do a building rush if they are close to an enemy. Iberian monument can often mean that any fight over those forward buildings is winnable by Iberians if they put it in the right spot.
If you add a stone cost to blacksmith players simply build markets as those don't cost stone, its less useful than 3 blacksmiths by far, but since you rushing P3 it doesn't matter.
Since Rome and Athens have the worst P2 options, how can one improve upon those?
A thought I have had for Rome is perhaps moving the Castrum to P2, meaningful access to veteran rank troops, chance at earlier pressure.
Athens I dunno about, my sphere of interest centers in Rome.
Honestly why not make heroes P2 as well, at least we would get more benefit out of some of them, or make it graded so some heroes are P2 and some are P3.
-
Also the logical response is 3 markets and then P3. Or more reasonably a blacksmith and two markets
-
Eg if i wanted to play Rome, what are my options in P2 to defeat my opponent? Do I try and raid him silly with horses?
Gauls at least have fanatics which are rather fun though honestly I think to expensive to really be useful.
Britains have wardogs in P1 which lends some interesting flexibility into P2. Sparta has skiritai which are cool.
And other factions have mercs which as we are all know are quite strong though only Ptolemies, Carthage and Seleucids can pull that off well. That leaves Athens which has nothing, Iberians has nothing, Maurya and Persia also. Kush has macemen but thats it and they rather gimmicky.
-
1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
possible forge balancing changes: 50 additional stone cost (to make furnace I guess), make research times more progressive (40sec for level 1, 50sec for level 2, 60sec for level 3 -> 20, 40, 60 sec)
Reason: not spamming 3 to 4 forges to get p3 faster, make p2 fights more practical, make initial upgrades more accessible with just 1 or 2 forges.
Not really sure how a more expensive blacksmith is going to help. Forcing people to have a slower P2 does not solve the problem that P2 is literally irrelevant unless you plan on goin full merc and killing your opponent. The base issue is there are very few useful options in P2.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Hyrcannian cav stats: base swordcav stats:
dps: 6.9h 0.27 to 0.8 crush depending on the unit dps: 8.6666h
armor: 3 hack, 2 pierce armor: 3 hack, 4 pierce
all else is the same
^it is clear that hyrcannian cav are garbage and currently only fulfill the role of a hilarious troll CC snipe, which usually does not work. They are also good antiram, so thats the only reason players use these.
Instead, further differentiate them from swords and let them stand out as a unique unit. How about these unit stats for hyrcannian cav?
elite rank
cost: 100f 40w 35m
17.7 hack every 1.5 sec, increase crush to 3 (net crush dps will be reduced to 1.5 from 3 due to repeat reduction, so its not a bs CC sniper). I think they should have a little more prepare time than swordcav.
17.7 comes from swordcav dps * 1.364 (skiri buff vs normal swords) * 1.5 sec, the new attack rate.
armor is unified with swordcav 3.0H and 3.0P (from 3 hack 2 pierce) compared to CS swordcav at 3.0H and 4.0 pierce.
Mainly, instead of armor (compared to skiritai), speed goes up to 20 from 18.
HP would be the same as any rank 3 swordcav (276 hp)
In essence, this is a rank 3 swordcav where instead of the armor increase of 2 p and 2h, it gets speed, and where the repeat time is slower (because its an axe)
If you think this sounds OP, consider that they would still have very low armor compared to rank 3 swords which have 5h, 6p.
If people dislike this idea, then at least give them more dps than swordcav to account for their weakness.
Sounds like a reasonable idea
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
A tech which unlocks War Elephants for the Romans would be cool. Train them at the Fortress with a match limit. Maybe 5 or 10? The Romans indeed used War Elephants about a half-dozen times (a couple times against their own in civil wars).
Match limit as in only 5 per match? I was thinking more 5 on the field at any one time rather, much like you have in DE with merc limits.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, AIEND said:
In this case, the Romans should also have chariots that can throw incendiary javelins. In the war between Rome and Epirus, the Romans used chariots to fight the war elephant of Pyrrhus
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.
-
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
-
Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 27.
in General Discussion
Posted
Jumping back to this, what about instead of melee elephants it gives ranged elephants? We don't have a champion elephant archer yet, and a ranged elephant might be more beneficial to Rome than a melee elephant. One would have to create a model from scratch though, we only have Indian elephant archer models currently.