Classical Warfare AEA

[Asher]

Would it be too hard to make it so if units get hit from the back it does more damage? I am thinking for strategy purposes, then there would be an advantage to attacking from behind

[Emacz]

That's a good question... I think they potentially would take teh same amount of dmg BUT your attackign unit would not really take any dmg because the unit is facing the wrong direction.  However, I think we would REALLY need to slow down the "turn" speed or something... and that could throw other things out of walk.  

But I do like the strategic/historical aspect about trying to ambush, out flank etc.

[Asher]

But let's say someone has a shield, the shield doesn't help them in the back, they would have to turn around. But then, not everyone has shield. Maybe people with a shield have -1 resistance from the back?

[Emacz]

14 minutes ago, Asher said:

But let's say someone has a shield, the shield doesn't help them in the back, they would have to turn around. But then, not everyone has shield. Maybe people with a shield have -1 resistance from the back?

Well that's kind of what I was talking about, I don't think we (me personally with my limited experience) could make that possible.  But it could still be to your advantage because you aren't getting attack.

[Asher]

17 hours ago, Emacz said:

However, I think we would REALLY need to slow down the "turn" speed or something... and that could throw other things out of walk.  

Maybe for cavalry, boats, and siege, but normal units are probably fine. I also think archers should do more damage, it seems like someone in game could get hit with 10 arrows and still be fine (with less health ), and still be charging

[Deicide4u]

24 minutes ago, Asher said:

also think archers should do more damage, it seems like someone in game could get hit with 10 arrows and still be fine

I'm not sure if you want to do this. The major advantage of archers is their range. Because of that, you can better snipe with them, and they don't overkill as much as slingers or javelins. 

Don't forget their faster rate of fire, as well.

Edited 3 hours ago by Deicide4u

[Asher]

You are right @Deicide4u, archers would be too good, but I feel like it would be more accurate

[Emacz]

We have tweaked archers a little... There are two types, greek archers who do a little more dmg but less range, and then the traditional archers with longer range like Persia, Maury and Kush. While they actually dont have faster rate of fire with us... slingers are faster, then archers then Javs.  Each of the 3 major archer civs has a unique advantage.  Kush has added poison dmg which by passes armor all together.  Maury does have a little extra pierce dmg and Persia's rate of fire decreases by phase.  So I am not too particularly worried with where archers are.  Potentially could bump up dmg just a little, but then would decrease spread (accuracy.)  Yes a volley of Persian arrows could be deadly and do a lot of dmg, but they didn't exactly hit the targets they were aiming for. They just unleashed a lot of arrows towards the enmey and they fell where they fell.