Game Balance: Battering Rams, the 0 A.D. tanks?...

[Grapjas]

40 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5008

Nice. Though i'd been more in favor of changing hack to pierce damage since tusks either pierce with headbutts or do crush damage while doing swings, and swap the crush and hack values. And on a sidenote, units that wear shields should probably get a little pierce resistance buff, which would also give a different outcome to the champ ele vs champ swords discussion there. But thats alot of variables to balance, i know.

Oh well.

[krt0143]

49 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

So then @krt0143, what would you like done about rams? I have seen a lot of comments but no succinct suggestions.

I've been rambling on and on about it, again and again, last time 5 hours ago (see above), and you still ask?
Or is that just a rhetorical question requiring no answer?

 

49 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I proposed something I thought you would be interested in earlier, but maybe you didn't see it.

What are you talking about? I reviewed your posts from the last 2 days and there is nothing there besides a vague suggestion to "improve" (improve in what exactly?).
On all the rest I've already answered, but apparently you don't read my posts, to judge by your question above.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

Bro I'm so confused 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

13 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

I've been rambling on and on about it, again and again, last time 5 hours ago (see above), and you still ask?
Or is that just a rhetorical question requiring no answer?

Yeah you have been rambling on and on, but without clearly stating what should be done. You seem to do more writing here than reading other's posts.

14 minutes ago, krt0143 said:

What are you talking about? I reviewed your posts from the last 2 days and there is nothing there besides a vague suggestion to "improve" (improve in what exactly?).
On all the rest I've already answered, but apparently you don't read my posts, to judge by your question above.

On 24/09/2023 at 10:10 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I could see benefit in spreading out the hack/pierce armor a little. This would be something like +1 hack armor -1 pierce armor.

I do read your posts, and it takes a while. Just try to be succinct like I am in the above. A good writer can say a lot with few words.

[Joe-Lay]

3 hours ago, krt0143 said:

Imagine people without TV or books, for whom the biggest animal existing is a horse, suddenly seeing an elephant! Must be a traumatic event...

!

From one of the meme disussions in off-topic.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Joe-Lay
Unnecessary content that was off-topic

[krt0143]

39 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Yeah you have been rambling on and on, but without clearly stating what should be done.

How "clearly" do you want it? I'm making suggestions, not giving instructions.

And it's definitely not "should be done".
It's, if you don't mind, just my very own take on the problem, which I'm just quoting as potential inspiration for anyone interested.

 

39 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Just try to be succinct like I am in the above.

Yes, often borderline cryptic.

Internet is a limited bandwidth medium where misunderstandings are easy and frequent, so, trying to make sure people understand you is IMHO worth some effort.
I admit it doesn't look as good as throwaway remarks and spiffy one-liners...

 

39 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I could see benefit in spreading out the hack/pierce armor a little. This would be something like +1 hack armor -1 pierce armor.

Ah, this. I have no opinion on this so far, it needs more testing to see if it does indeed change something in any significant way.
I made a small specifically built (controlled environment) scenario for this, but didn't have the time to playtest it extensively enough. So far my first impression is "not enough", the British spearmen are still largely useless, but that is probably partly because in my own mod (I'm now used to), I've tweaked spearmen attack values (first age melee units somehow seemed incapable of killing a chicken), so I'm now used to more "decisive" battles. Going back to the endless poking before something dies is jarring.

(Obviously I test your ram setting without my mod, which already extensively modifies rams and fortifications.)

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, krt0143 said:

So far my first impression is "not enough", the British spearmen are still largely useless

Well spearmen should be roughly the same, as they do a mix of hack and pierce damage. But with this change, ranged units kill rams 10% faster than they do currently. You could make it -3 or -5 pierce armor if you wish. Feel free to increase or decrease the armor to suit your preference, but the idea I had was to make more units decent at destroying rams, not just hack and crush damage.

[krt0143]

15 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

But with this change, ranged units kill rams 10% faster than they do currently.

I don't like that idea too much, purely on a realism level: After all, in reality roofed rams were vulnerable to everything except ranged (arrows, stones, etc.)...

In my own mod I solved the problem (kind of) by making rams slower, which gives you more time to react to them, but mostly simply by making fortifications a lot more resistant to hack & slash (The idea being that it is ridiculous that attackers can destroy a massive stone structure with swords and spears. That bugs me to no end, in all games doing that, but that's me.)
Anyway, after those changes rams became much more to my liking: They are now less easy to employ, but now the only way to get past a tower/fortress. Using them becomes a challenging enterprise, not a mere formality.

But that's my own tastes. I admit others would be bored to death having to whittle down fortresses instead of just steamrolling them. 

Thanks for your suggestion, but I think I'll stay with my solution.

Edited September 28, 2023 by krt0143
correction

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I'm glad you found a solution to your problem. Have fun!

[LienRag]

On 17/09/2023 at 2:26 PM, krt0143 said:

If we want to be realistic, the one and only use of rams is battering down gates

That would be a huge improvement to the game...

[Genava55]

On 17/09/2023 at 4:26 PM, krt0143 said:

If we want to be realistic, the one and only use of rams is battering down gates (or civilian buildings, but what's the point in that?).

That's not correct.

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 20/09/2023 at 7:30 AM, borg- said:

The big economic problem of 0a.d is that you can obtain thousands of resources without having expand your city. You can literally reach 300 pop with all the upgrades without needing to expand a single inch. A simple solution without the need for new developments would be to change the standard cost of units, add metal to all infantry and cavalry units, except slinger which already has its stone cost. It would also be necessary to reduce the game's initial mines to perhaps 1000 resources for metal and stone. I think that this way the player really needs to expand his territory and look for new game alternatives.

Of course, this is just a vague idea, it would need to be worked on better.

Fair point.

[Aquatichead]

I think rams should be slower so infantry can catch them, but maybe give them more armor if they're too easy to kill after that. Balance feels off right now.

[Dakara]

Siege tankyness is op, hard to kill even with sword infantery unit, take too much time, cata too much hp and ram too fast move compare to infantery

[Perzival12]

8 minutes ago, Dakara said:

Siege tankyness is op, hard to kill even with sword infantery unit, take too much time, cata too much hp and ram too fast move compare to infantery

Rams should move only slightly slower than infantry, after all, they are presumably being pushed by infantry (otherwise, their just rolling of their own accord). Even if the ram weighs a lot, ten infantry should be able to make it go at least as fast as a single infantryman.

An idea for balancing (and realism) is that rams and other siege machines should be stationary until their are people garrisoned in them. Siege towers and seige machines with people as part of the actor would be the only exceptions (and ships, which presumably have a rowing crew onboard).

[Classic-Burger]

The battering ram in this game is absurd.

[Dakara]

1 hour ago, Perzival12 said:

Rams should move only slightly slower than infantry, after all, they are presumably being pushed by infantry (otherwise, their just rolling of their own accord). Even if the ram weighs a lot, ten infantry should be able to make it go at least as fast as a single infantryman.

An idea for balancing (and realism) is that rams and other siege machines should be stationary until their are people garrisoned in them. Siege towers and seige machines with people as part of the actor would be the only exceptions (and ships, which presumably have a rowing crew onboard).

too much micro for low goal, the actual garnison already give strategy and advantage 

They cost 3 pop so it meaning they have someone managing them

Edited 1 hour ago by Dakara

[Perzival12]

They should cost 0 pop, only wood and maybe metal. Any population cost would come from soldiers garrisoned inside. (This would probably make rams garrisonable on ships without taking up space though).

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I don't think rams are OP. Once players figure out that swords and melee destroy them, they are pretty harmless. Right now because of the strength of capturing, you oftentimes don't need siege at all.

I don't see the point of requiring them to be garrisoned to move, as one could argue the 3 population cost is three dudes that come "pre-installed" inside the ram to push it. 

 

[Perzival12]

4 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I don't see the point of requiring them to be garrisoned to move, as one could argue the 3 population cost is three dudes that come "pre-installed" inside the ram to push it. 

Then there should be unit actors pushing the ram, just like how the siege catapults and ballista have people manning them. At the moment rams look like their moving of their own accord, they could at east have two people in them to make them look better. Maybe I should talk to @wowgetoffyourcellphone about this.

[Classic-Burger]

A single ram can destroy an entire city.

Swords? swords are expensive for both cavalry and infantry.

If swords are the solution why do all civs have rams but no swords?