Add more unit types to each faction

[Yekaterina]

Hi all,

I would like to suggest adding more unit types to each civilisation, as currently we have specialised civs that are good at one thing and weak at others but there isn't anything that it well rounded. Some variation in map generation would suddenly give one civ a huge favour, for example low wood map favours civs with mercenaries and low mines map favours wood-dependent civs like Celts and Mauryas.

Every civ should have a bit of everything so that they are still balanced off Mainland, inspite of different terrains and resources.

 

My current rank of civilisations:

Excellent: Macedonian, Seleucid,

Good but with flaws: Persians, Britons, Gauls, Mauryas, Iberian

Satisfactory:  Athenians, Kushites, Carthage, Spartans

Difficult to use: Romans, Ptolemies, Han (bugged)

 

This list means Macedonians and Seleucids are not really missing anything. My only suggestion is perhaps give Seleucids a slinger unit and perhaps another citizen cavalry type for Macedonians (archer cavalry would be especially good)

 

Persians are missing good infantry melee units; they need more champion infantry that can be produced easily from the barracks. I would recommend giving them an infantry sword champion or infantry pike champion. They also need catapults. In the meantime, I think having both the chariots and heavy archer cavalry is redundant.

Britons, Gauls, Iberians are missing archers and catapults. Iberians are somewhat playable without catapults because of the fire cavalry. They need an infantry archer; English Longbowmen did exist.

Mauryas are missing infantry skirmishers and catapults. I would recommend giving them infantry skirmisher and catapults.

Athenians are quite well rounded; all they need is a champion cavalry unit. I placed them low on the list because they are uncomfortable to play with due to the early slingers and the need to build barracks with stone.

Kushites and Carthage are fine if you factor in the range of mercenaries, but it would be better if both had a citizen infantry skirmisher or slinger unit.

Spartans and Romans lack a long ranged unit. They need an archer units. Both factions had archers in history. Spartans are also missing champion cavalry. Most Roman players resort to hiding behind towers, forts and camps instead of engaging in battles like the other factions.

Ptolemies have a great selection of units but I just find them impossible to play with.

Han is simply bugged, but aside from that, they need a skirmisher unit, albeit infantry or cavalry.

[Yekaterina]

Furthermore I believe that every civ should be able to play more different strategies and field different military types, while being able to resist anything from another civ.

[Lion.Kanzen]

all the factions that had catapults currently have them, the rest don't.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 hours ago, Helicity said:

They need an infantry archer; English Longbowmen did exist.

You're talking about a unit from the middle ages. Around (1250-1450 AD)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 hours ago, Helicity said:

.

Spartans and Romans lack a long ranged unit. They need an archer units. Both factions had archers in history. Spartans are also missing champion cavalry. Most Roman players resort to hiding behind towers, forts and camps instead of engaging in battles like the other factions.

Ptolemies have a great selection of units but I just find them impossible to play with.

Han is simply bugged, but aside from that, they need a skirmisher unit, albeit infantry or cavalry.

Romans had Cretan archers.

 

Han: They didn't use skirmishers.

[Fabius]

25 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Romans had Cretan archers.

A Cretan merc archer would be apppealing 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

from gameplay experience, civilizations are fine to have different selections of units. I consider it an important part of civilization balance and differentiation from which strategies may be developed.

I think the ranking of those civs depends largely on the player you ask, with higher skilled players probably agreeing somewhat on the top 3 to 5 civs. That is, in the community mod. If you ignore the community mod, its pretty clear that ptol dominate.

9 hours ago, Helicity said:

anything that it well rounded.

The Seleucids are very well rounded.

I can say for sure that most players would very much dislike all civs getting all the core units.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Not even in Age of Empires I and II did you have all the units.

 

0 A.D Is more assymmetrical than AoE II should be like AoE III in that regard.

[Lion.Kanzen]

What can be done is to add incendiary units as suicide units that burn everything in their path and burn the defenses, units that are weak but easy to destroy but do a lot of damage and chaos.

 

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxLbb1Pq3KMycyYITsFbKq29Dj8ZqUx2nm

Min 3:40

burning things is part of siege.

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

On 11/04/2023 at 3:52 AM, Helicity said:

Excellent: Macedonian, Seleucid,

Good but with flaws: Persians, Britons, Gauls, Mauryas, Iberian

Satisfactory:  Athenians, Kushites, Carthage, Spartans

Difficult to use: Romans, Ptolemies, Han (bugged)

I have seen different players in the 1500+ range discuss every one of these civs as being top performers. If anything, I see mace and seles less frequently than the other civs you described. Civ balance right now is actually quite good, even considering that plenty of civs are lacking particular units.

[Yekaterina]

28 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Civ balance right now is actually quite good

yes balance is good in late game, but in early game it's really quite bad. I'm not saying a particular civ is OP or weaker than others, but there is a huge lack of options in phase one and it's quite predictable what happens. There is only one ranged and one melee. This is boring. If we get access to a very long ranged (archer), a medium (skirmisher) and a melee, then that would allow different unit compositions and different types of infantry rushes.

[Yekaterina]

What I want to say is, if you chose Mauryas, you would be limited to either mass archers + melee or mass cavalry. It would be better if the Maurya player also had a chance to use infantry skirmishers in their army. For Roman players, it would be great if they are allowed to play archer tactics as well. The uniqueness of each civ is still preserved: different visuals, slightly different selection of units, different heroes and champions.

Also civilisations that don't have catapults really struggle against turtle players (especially Roman players with swords in forts and towers), hence I think all players should be given catapults to prevent turtles from frustrating everyone.

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 minutes ago, Helicity said:

Also civilisations that don't have catapults really struggle against turtle players (especially Roman players with swords in forts and towers), hence I think all players should be given catapults to prevent turtles from frustrating everyone

The answer is to develop other units. I understand the imbalance, but you have to think about how to find units that do damage and destroy buildings.

 

5 minutes ago, Helicity said:

different visuals, slightly different selection of units, different heroes and champions.

0 A.D is not AoE II here if asymmetry is taken into account. We do not look for units with different appearance.

 

My idea is that certain maps are balanced by capturing mercenary camps. 

We have already decided to go in that direction of making it asymmetrical instead of all civilizations being the same with different skins that would make it boring.

[Sagarakti]

12 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

The answer is to develop other units. I understand the imbalance, but you have to think about how to find units that do damage and destroy buildings.

It would be nice if the developers would add decorative archers and horse archers to the Celts and Romans, with low attack rating, low attack power and overpriced. In the description, one could write like this - "Ineffective warrior of the Gauls / Romans."

The same could be done with siege weapons: national design, high price, low attack speed, weak attack and low health - a purely decorative unit.