Thalatta

I have to thank you for the whole "woman" thread, I found it hilarious. I was just disappointed that no one posted the Zoolander meme "but why male models?" Every time someone complains about not changing what already works (as if it would be the only possibility that works), "tampering" it with historical accuracy (as if it's not one of the stated priorities of the game), or ignoring those who don’t play competitively (as if they are not a majority vital for the growth of the game), remember, YOU can also just make your own "let's just leave it as it is right now forever and ever" mod :). But of course, I always enjoy these rants over a game whose development is, indeed, a hobby for many who try to combine their ideas to create something special. All the bugs you mention I'm sure will be sorted out in time, no need to dismiss all that is not that.

Yes, it's the same as the Kestrophendone I proposed here: I seem to remember some game (Civilization?) had quotes in italics at the end of some tooltips... maybe for educational purposes it would be nice to have such thing on many instances. I like this one the most because I guess it reduces micro, and there's plenty of precedent for units training units, which gives a more unique character to the civ than the other possibilities.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone just a “differentiating” idea, maybe use that the Sacred Band was formed by homosexual couples? And those relationships were part of its strength. Either by producing them in pairs (but each independent) or, a bit more weird but similar to Rise of Nations, by making each unit actually a couple, with one HP bar.

But we already said that the game is already doing this, with the Han and the Maurya for example, and the Maurya didn’t even last 150 years. I don’t think it’s about being hyper-accurate (the game is far from that :P), but calling the Achaemenids “Persians” is a charged simplification. I think eventually any other inconsistencies will be sorted out, if possible (I have my doubts with the name “Germans” for example, I agree more with authors not preferring this term). The first AoE cemented my interest in ancient history. High school history was shamefully boring, that's why I try to push for accuracy whenever I can, and many really look for this and nitpick on games (and movies) having errors. It's not just that educating and motivating is important and commended, but about being careful not to introduce or repeat misconceptions, which with some things it’s hard to do because one has to fill the voids with something, and it's a game after all, even books can be biased.

Ah, yes, I did check for slingers and archers, but forgot the javelineers, then I was thinking something like the kestros, but now I see that when darters are mentioned, javelineers are not, and their numbers are quite suspicious ("five hundred heavy infantry, three hundred darters and as many archers, while the Geloans sent crews for five ships, four hundred darters and two hundred horses", for example), so it's just a translation matter, and in some cases, like when referring to Apollo as Far-darter, even an archer.

Yeah, maybe I should have continued the discussion there, but it slowly re-emerged here after that link. What you criticise is not what I’ve proposed, since nothing would be “completely different after a single phase-up”. Regarding Coalitions, I proposed a choice tree of more alike tribes, to avoid what you say and to enhance the strategies being chosen from the start (with some flexibility, while keeping the main characteristics of either Britons, Gauls, Germans and Iberians, it’s just choosing details of exactly what to have, among the possibilities each civ would have). Regarding Leagues, the original civs (Athens, Sparta, Macedonia, and hopefully in the future, Thebes) would set the main strategy, and then some advanced Treasury building could give choices of who would join the League, giving the player some quirky thing (like what I said about Corinth) that, again, shouldn’t change the general strategy of the civ actually being played. To make it even easier for the adversary to prepare, there could be a message stating “X joined Y’s Coalition/League”, and while a very few tribes in a Coalition are necessary, more than that or even a small League should be cost prohibitive for competitive MP, I see it more as SP content, and to solve the “which tribe to choose” and “which Hellenes to ignore” problems.

Given the “darter” mention, I searched, and in another part of History of the Peloponnesian War, Tuchydides writes: “Athenian and allied; a large number of darters, Hellenic and barbarian, and slingers and archers and everything else upon a corresponding scale”, which reminds me that this and most games don’t take darters into account :p Regarding your proposal, it makes sense, and there’s another instance I can find to support it: Diodorus Siculus, writing about the Battle of Mantinea (of 362 BC) says “the Thebans had three times as many slingers and javelin-throwers sent them from the regions about Thessaly”, and the Malian Gulf would be the region “about Thessaly” (at the time, it would be considered part of Thessaly a couple of centuries later) closer to the battle. He also writes that “Epameinondas, without resting the entire night, covered the distance at top speed and at daybreak attacked Sparta”, which could maybe justify a speed bonus. I leave you with his epic account of the death of Epaminondas: As for the Lacedemonians, when they saw that Epameinondas in the fury of battle was pressing forward too eagerly, they charged him in a body. As missiles flew thick and fast about him, he dodged some, others he fended off, still others he pulled from his body and used to ward off his attackers. But while struggling heroically for the victory, he received a mortal wound in the chest. As the spear broke and the iron point was left in his body, he fell of a sudden, his strength sapped by the wound. About his body a rivalry ensued in which many were slain on both sides, but at last with difficulty by their superiority in bodily strength, the Thebans wore the Lacedemonians out. (...) Epameinondas, however, was carried back to camp still living, and the physicians were summoned, but when they declared that undoubtedly as soon as the spear-point should be drawn from his chest, death would ensue, with supreme courage he met his end. For first summoning his armour-bearer he asked him if he had saved his shield. On his replying yes and placing it before his eyes, he again asked, which side was victorious. At the boy's answer that the Boeotians were victorious, he said, “It is time to die,” and directed them to withdraw the spear point. His friends press cried out in protest, and one of them said: “You die childless, Epameinondas,” and burst into tears. To this he replied, “No, by Zeus, on the contrary I leave behind two daughters, Leuctra and Mantineia, my victories.” Then when the spear point was withdrawn, without any commotion he breathed his last.

Yes, it's kind of my position, Leagues would be just added to the 4 existing factions (and the "template" one). What I had in my mind is to have some weird extra with every new League choice (which would become more and more expensive), for example, by choosing the Corinthians, one could build the Dioklos somewhere to move ships overland (although it was built maybe a century before the start of the game, but would actually mean one can use their Dioklos):

Given that Thebes would complete the list of hegemonic Hellenic factions at the time of the game (which starts with Athens and Sparta, and ends with Macedon, although there’s Epirus but it was not the same), I was wondering what’s the plan for the future of the Greeks. To take as much as possible into account without introducing more similar factions, what about having Leagues? They would be similar to @Genava55’s idea of Coalitions (for the Germans, which should be extended to Britons, Gauls and Iberians), but the difference is, while all tribes in a Coalition would be treated similarly (I proposed an initial tribe selection to start grounded on something, but that would make no difference on primary buildings, techs, etc), in a League one truly controls said faction (which already are quite fleshed out), and League choices would give (very limited) access to other “minor” Hellenic factions (there could be choices for the “major” ones as well, one could play Athens and have Thebes as part of the League for example). One has to be careful not to bloat a faction though, but the problem to solve is not to have more similar playable factions, while not leaving out certain factions from the game (and maybe the generic Greek template could still be used for stand alone minor factions when needed, which could also form their League).

In case more is needed, another great monument they had is the Lion of Chaeronea (this time commemorating a defeat, against the Macedonians). It was rediscovered in 1818 and put back together in 1902. Not my picture (sadly it was hard for me to visit):

Good that you ask, because it seems it would have looked different. According to Greek Trophy Monuments, by Jutta Stroszeck: "The monument at Leuctra is a circular tower (3,38m in diameter) erected on three steps. The height of the tower could not be established, because there were not enough original stones. It was therefore restored in proportion. It is crowned by a Doric frieze, followed by a frieze of nine large round shields and a circular balustrade. Excavations carried out in the area brought to light some scattered conglomerate blocks, but no foundations in situ. So we have no information on whether or not it stood within a defining space. The interior of the monument is hollow, without any doubt for the reception of the [foundation for the] bronze trophy,' as Orlandos remarked. The bronze tropaion mentioned in the texts and shown on coins of the Boeotian Koinon must therefore have once stood on a pillar-like base in the center of the monument, rising high above the balustrade. The form of this monument is distinctive, the ground plan can be reconstructed as a round tower with a massive central base carrying the tropaion. Few analogies are known in architecture, and yet it does not seem likely that the monument at Leuctra was an invention for that occasion. It rather must have stood in line with an older tradition, the type and layout being developed much earlier. That ancient art was rather conservative with regard to the use of specific architectural types, especially in combination with cult buildings, can be deduced by comparing the main features of the two colossal Roman trophies that are preserved today: both the trophies from La Turbie and Adamklissi have a cylindrical central tower set on top of a quadrangular substructure. Each is crowned by a central pillar carrying the anthropomorphic stone trophy". Here drawings from the book:

Besides the obvious Epaminondas and Sacred Band, I’m happy you have included their “fire-throwing engine”. From the top of my mind, I can suggest the Hamippoi ("those running with horses"), highly mobile light infantry (possibly javelinmen) that ran alongside cavalry and countered enemy cavalry (maybe could have mutual bonus). Xenophon says “Epaminondas on the other hand had made a strong column of his cavalry, also, and had mingled foot soldiers among them”, and says that “Another duty of a cavalry commander is to demonstrate to the city the weakness of cavalry destitute of infantry as compared with cavalry that has infantry attached to it. Further, having got his infantry, a cavalry commander should make use of it. A mounted man being much higher than a man on foot, infantry may be hidden away not only among the cavalry but in the rear as well“. Found this video about them (where at the end he mentions the Macedonians also using them), and since they are more a role for the fit and not a completely different unit, maybe it could relate to unit upgrade with experience: Regarding special structures, the Tropaion of Leuctra (trophy monument for their victory against the Spartans) still stands today a few km away from Thebes (where there's not a lot still standing), although only the top stone shields are original. Here the photo I took of it:

Speaking about asking R28 questions… what happened with the Ship Cladding tech? I can’t find it anymore, nor any discussion on its removal.

This just enhances the historical inaccuracy that siege engines shouldn't be used preferably for destruction, but for capture. Of course, the problem is OP siege, but when people bring it up, then some jump to say that they “don’t understand the game “ and “things are balanced”, which completely misses the point of being inaccurate, thus counterintuitive. I could make melee infantry fly and make a perfectly balanced game.

Something that could improve the AI is if ranged units keep their distance, I just mow them down with slow infantry with the Spartans, and should have a way harder time. Edit: I seem to remember this was the case in the first AoE...

Ah, I missed the script you posted before, and it wasn’t clear to me what you meant by “root degree”, you meant polynomial. Your formula is, for p>T, P=T+(p-T)^1/H, where P are the effective capture points, p the capture points to modify, T “threshold points” (what would be my C) and G is “diminish strength” (what would be my S). So, you have 2 independent parameters and a region condition, and I have 3 independent parameters, and no region condition. The issue is, your formula will still be visually non-linear, because you calculate effective capture points in two different regions, while I calculate only one effective rate, making the observed behavior linear. Another problem your formula has is that your T is not that intuitive as a normal/fast discriminator as my C (that’s why you have to use T=90 when P=3000, while I use C=300 when I want my threshold to be around there). Of course the advantage of your equation is that it’s easier to understand just by looking at it (and maybe easier to implement, depending on how rates can be directly handled).

How's this going? I'd be happy to help, I'm quite into mythology. I like the name. My (I hope small) criticism is that Leonidas and Alexander are too historical, seem out of place, I'd keep it mythological, after all Greek mythology has five ages: Gold, Silver, Bronze, Heroic and Iron, and it seems to me you'll be concentrating on the Heroic Age. There are plenty of heroes and demi-gods to take from. Also, Pan is a god, he's the only Greek god that, according to tradition (or misunderstanding), died, 2000 years ago. Very different from the monsters that actually died all the time. Atlas is not a friend of men, nor a god, but a titan being punished. In the Odyssey (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0136%3Abook%3D1%3Acard%3D44) it says “Atlas of baneful mind”, and of course there’s the Labours of Hercules story where (on some versions) when he arrives to the garden of the Hesperides, he finds Atlas holding up the sky, and asks him for help to get the golden apples in exchange of holding the sky for him for a bit, and when Atlas returns with the apples he betrays Hercules and tells him he doesn’t want to hold the sky anymore, but titans apparently are not so bright since Hercules tells him basically “ok, but hold it for me for a bit so I can adjust my cloak, if I’m going to stay here holding the sky after all”, to which Atlas agreed and Hercules just walked away. In any case, clearly a wicked being holding the sky not out of the goodness of his heart. Regarding his classification as a god, well, maybe that’s closer than anything, since titans would be deities, and “Deities, Men and Monsters” doesn’t have the same ring to it, I guess.

Ok, I see why you want exponential decay, it’s not that you want a fixed minimum capture time (hard cut-off), but a diminishing return, to softly adjust capture times for faster cases. That can also be done with no need to split the capture in linear and exponential parts, you just need a formula that modifies your capture rate to have this exponential behavior, but capture behaves linear all the way. Maybe this is what you meant by “not visible”, it’s just that in your original description that wouldn’t have been possible. This took me a bit because capacitor equations are not that appropriate for this, but what would work is R=r*(1-D/(1+e^((C-r)/S)), where R is your corrected rate, r is the rate as it is right now, D what percentage you want it to decrease for larger rates, C the rate that would indicate what is normal and what is fast, and S how sharp the correction is (more or less, the width around C where it mostly happens, for then to stabilise according to D). Then, for D=0.5, C=300, and S=100 (I’d fix it at C/3), you get these values (with C fixed, D and S can be tweaked to get different things): r=100 -> R=94 r=200 -> R=173 r=300 -> R=225 (the function scales nicely, if C=3000 and S=1000, then r=3000 -> R=2250) r=400 -> R=254 r=500 -> R=280 r=600 -> R=314 (stabilising at 50%, which can also be changed). I know that some people are scared of (simple) equations, but again, no one does the math, one gets an intuition, and what is good about this is that it does what you want, while keeping what one sees linear.

The rate cap I propose should be after accounting for regeneration, if that's possible. The only effect should be to stop captures faster than a certain minimum time (given, of course, by the total capture points divided by this effective rate cap). But in your video it is visible, and it should be, that's the point. It goes from 4000 to 2000 points between 0:13 and 0:25, average of 167 points per sec, and then from 2000 to 400 between that and 0:39, average of 114 points per sec, which is 32% slower, and could be frustrating when one had an early estimation on how much it would take.

Yes, I understood you the first time, I think. What you say is, given a Fortress, you would call normal capture the time an appropriate army would take to capture it, and fast capture the time a huge army would take to capture it... that is, after a certain army size (or quality of troops, or Fortress HP, whatever), you want to cap capture time. That's why in your example you trigger exponential decay after some point because the decay rate is too large. It would work, it’s somewhat equivalent to a capture slots cap, but I think it'd be confusing and frustrating for players to be confronted with a capture slowdown midway the process. That’s why I said, instead of doing that, just cap the rate, and enjoy a linear behavior all along. In your example, “if you are capturing a CC with a total of 500 pts per sec”, just cap that to, say, 300 pts per sec, or whatever that results in a capture time similar to the linear+exponential decay case. Setting a maximum capture rate is a less complicated technicality than combining linear and exponential decay, and it’s a nice and simple way of fixing a minimum capture time. That’s what I meant with a slower linear decay being able to do what you want: nerf fast capturing, leaving alone normal capturing. Good to know!

But what would be the effect of this? What's the difference of having a linear decay followed by an exponential decay, with a slower linear decay that results in the same capture time? There would be a difference only if actual (not total) capture points have an effect on some other stat. If the idea is that it would be noticeable on structures with a lot of capture points, then just give them more capture points (for the linear decay to catch up with the linear+exponential decay), unless I'm missing something. Something else I don’t know how it works is the effect of siege engines on capture points, which they should have to make their use make some sense besides destroying things. Since an army made only of soldiers or only or engines should have a very difficult time taking on a Fortress, I’d say that engines should increase the soldiers’ effect on capture points (not by proximity, but when actually taking part of capture), that way a mixed army would be more efficient.

We would need to evaluate only the best case (all techs, best units, etc) to work back from a minimum capture time. Other reference cases can be used for better calibration, like, if all are archers, how much time should it take, and so on, but just a very few cases should suffice to have some control on capture time, I just don't know the formulas. And can't the number of units capturing a building be just fixed? Same as the number of units working a field.

Exactly. "Isn’t 20 soldiers too few for a fortress?" is not the correct approach, but "which percentage of your max population is 20 soldiers"? Then it's not a small garrison. Just increasing it doesn’t seem right. What is worse, if one increases the pop cap, leaving the garrison caps fixed, all considerations of what is big or small are out the window… unless collisions are used. This always fixes the max amount of units trying to take a building. It also helps in fixing capture points, after a decision is taken on how little time capture should take (it cannot be that it’s not known if 5 seconds will become maybe 5.5 or 6 seconds, things should be calculated the other way around, first deciding an acceptable minimum capture time, and working backwards). And it applies for buildings that don’t have any of the mentioned Fortress or Tower defensive techs. If there’s a formation exploit, then I guess better if that’s solved, instead of collisions removed. If I understand correctly what’s happening from the videos, couldn't formations be temporarily disabled when units are taking on any of those tasks? Whatever needed since collisions does seem a step in the right direction. Collisions seem necessary, but maybe not sufficient, thus: I agree with 1. because of the regeneration problem pointed out, but disagree on how to exactly implement 2. because it doesn't seem very common that a given tech does more than one thing. On the other hand, someone said recently "the two techs for towers for greater range and more default arrows" "are also too expensive to be viable during the period of the game when towers matter", so I'd remove the Arrow Shooters tech and give that range increase to the Stone Tower for free, because, if I understand correctly, with no techs both it and the Sentry Tower have the same range (10 to 60 m, even when it’s taller). If Sentry and Professional Garrisons are not interesting enough, I’d make them do more of what they already do. Regarding increasing capture points +50% to Towers and +100% to Fortresses, I’d either give this for free, or have a mutual tech that gives +50% to both towers and forts, and from the start give forts for free whatever is needed to complete the +100% wanted.

Indeed, collisions solve that and other things. Cheaply massing troops becomes harder, as it should be, because the entry points to a fortification are limited. Still, capture points increasing with garrison could help. Another question to understand everything better: when saying tower range 10 to 60 (+8), what does the +8 mean? A change because of garrisons, or possible techs?

I agree with everything you say up to here, since, for making better use of fortifications (and historical accuracy), they should be inside and make capture more difficult. Can capture points increase with garrison, same as ram speed increases with it?