Civ balance

[sanderd17]

I think the army camp should be compared to a civic centre rather than a fortress. After all, it was mainly meant for a rest place for the army (while reducing the chances of getting raided).

It has a disadvantage over a CC: it doesn't create territory. But also an advantage: you can create more powerful units. So I think the price should be comparable.

Also, as army camps were meant primarily for protection of those garrisoned in it, the range an army camp has should be minimal, and the maximum arrows fired should also be limited. An empty army camp shouldn't fire arrows at all.

So it should have a good armour, but a very light attack. So only protecting the ones garrisoned.

[Enrique]

I'm going to throw my 2 cents here about the army camp.

Less hp than a fortress (it's mainly wood) garrison max of 20 with an expensive or dual technology to increase up to the current 40.

[Sighvatr]

That sounds about fair. Any excuse to throw in technology is awesome.

[Pureon]

Any excuse to throw in technology is awesome.

As long as it serves a gameplay purpose, yes

[idanwin]

That sounds about fair. Any excuse to throw in technology is awesome.

Yay, Technology!!! :-) Each time I see some post about technologies my heart skips a beat...

[alpha123]

Also, as army camps were meant primarily for protection of those garrisoned in it, the range an army camp has should be minimal, and the maximum arrows fired should also be limited. An empty army camp shouldn't fire arrows at all.

That brings up another interesting possibility: I'd be fine if it could garrison 40 soldiers if it only fired no more than 20 arrows. Either cap it at 20 or make it so that only every 2 soldiers adds an arrow (to simulate half resting while half defend).

The army camp heals soldiers inside it, so there's still a point to garrisoning 40 even with only 20 arrows fired.

[Sighvatr]

I like that. Can we do a similar technology pair foe the fortress as well?

[Enrique]

I like that. Can we do a similar technology pair foe the fortress as well?

But this will remove the "special" in the definition of "special building" of the army camp :/

[alpha123]

But this will remove the "special" in the definition of "special building" of the army camp :/

It's still quite special in that it can be built anywhere.

[Sighvatr]

But this will remove the "special" in the definition of "special building" of the army camp :/

Well it would it not make sense if you couldnt increase the number of garrison in a fortress either?

[Lion.Kanzen]

and its have "decay", that is a limit. love that SB but, many army camp later in History was converted into Cities.

and with army, a lot of civil people marching with legions

[Sighvatr]

and its have "decay", that is a limit. love that SB but, many army camp later in History was converted into Cities.

and with army, a lot of civil people marching with legions

Yep, if a legion is stationed in one area for a long time, people move to get protection, and eventually replace the wooden fort with stone. The Romans would build bath houses and even aqueducts.

[alpha123]

Yep, if a legion is stationed in one area for a long time, people move to get protection, and eventually replace the wooden fort with stone. The Romans would build bath houses and even aqueducts.

I smell an upgrade to turn army camps into civ centers (like the wall to gate upgrade, it would be for each camp independently). To balance, CostArmyCamp + CostUpgrade > CostCC + 100 (i.e. it would be significantly more expensive than a CC to begin with).

[Lion.Kanzen]

I smell an upgrade to turn army camps into civ centers (like the wall to gate upgrade, it would be for each camp independently). To balance, CostArmyCamp + CostUpgrade > CostCC + 100 (i.e. it would be significantly more expensive than a CC to begin with).

but can be more strategical, your defend a position, or a resource(metal or stone) with Army camp when you, succes and save the position, clean the whole area, you can convert it into CC.

London is an Example of that.

The status of Londinium is uncertain. It was not the capital of a civitas, though Ptolemy lists it as one of the cities of the Cantiaci. Starting as a small fort guarding the northern end of the new bridge across the River Thames, it grew to become an important port for trade between Roman Britain and the Roman provinces on the continent.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[idanwin]

I smell an upgrade to turn army camps into civ centers (like the wall to gate upgrade, it would be for each camp independently). To balance, CostArmyCamp + CostUpgrade > CostCC + 100 (i.e. it would be significantly more expensive than a CC to begin with).

That is a greeaat idea! And it's historical too! For balance reasons the resulting CC should've cost more, because of the defensive strength of the army camp and its ability to train almost anything. Having to choose between gaining territory, making civ-soldiers and having a dropspot for resource or having a strong defensive fort that can train a lot of military units, it would certainly add something to the game.

Maybe we could also have an outpost -> defence tower conversion?

Edited February 9, 2013 by idanwin

[Lion.Kanzen]

There is a pad http://piratepad.eu/Dj9wtFr9Ev for brainstorming.

In no color are the tech already implemented, and the rest are our ideas.

You're welcome !

we are Discuss Techs and Upgrades here.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[alpha123]

That is a greeaat idea! And it's historical too! For balance reasons the resulting CC should've cost more, because of the defensive strength of the army camp and its ability to train almost anything. Having to choose between gaining territory, making civ-soldiers and having a dropspot for resource or having a strong defensive fort that can train a lot of military units, it would certainly add something to the game.

I got the idea because it's pretty historical, but I'm worried it could be overpowered. Also, we'd need to implement some way for the tech to only be researchable if a normal CC could be built there (i.e. you couldn't build an army camp right next to your opponent's CC and convert the camp to your CC).

Maybe we could also have an outpost -> defence tower conversion?

I find that slightly unnecessary, but I'm not really opposed to it either.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I got the idea because it's pretty historical, but I'm worried it could be overpowered. Also, we'd need to implement some way for the tech to only be researchable if a normal CC could be built there (i.e. you couldn't build an army camp right next to your opponent's CC and convert the camp to your CC).

I find that slightly unnecessary, but I'm not really opposed to it either.

to not abuse of things the best way its limited number of Upgrades possibly: 5 for game session.

[idanwin]

I got the idea because it's pretty historical, but I'm worried it could be overpowered. Also, we'd need to implement some way for the tech to only be researchable if a normal CC could be built there (i.e. you couldn't build an army camp right next to your opponent's CC and convert the camp to your CC).

That is why it should be much more costly than a normal CC

I find that slightly unnecessary, but I'm not really opposed to it either.

I often end up destroying quite a few of my outposts later in the game when I conquer a part of the map where I previously placed outposts in order to see the enemy units approaching, and afterwards I often have to place towers there anyway, so if there was a button to convert an outpost into a tower this might be useful in quite a lot of cases.

[sanderd17]

I got the idea because it's pretty historical, but I'm worried it could be overpowered. Also, we'd need to implement some way for the tech to only be researchable if a normal CC could be built there (i.e. you couldn't build an army camp right next to your opponent's CC and convert the camp to your CC).

Are there ways to check for territory properties before enabling a tech? Like check if the outpost id on your own territory before you can tranform it, or check if the army camp is on neutral territory before you can make a CC from it?

[quantumstate]

Are there ways to check for territory properties before enabling a tech? Like check if the outpost id on your own territory before you can tranform it, or check if the army camp is on neutral territory before you can make a CC from it?

These aren't techs, the only thing that currently behaves in the same way is a gate. It would require some programming work, I'm not sure if it is worthwhile.

[Lion.Kanzen]

These aren't techs, the only thing that currently behaves in the same way is a gate. It would require some programming work, I'm not sure if it is worthwhile.

hmm can work in same way, the Tech enable to have a Icon, and the Icon Converts Army Camp into Civ center. like the gate and Wall.

[quantumstate]

hmm can work in same way, the Tech enable to have a Icon, and the Icon Converts Army Camp into Civ center. like the gate and Wall.

They might have the same GUI, the code behind would be different though.

[sanderd17]

These aren't techs, the only thing that currently behaves in the same way is a gate. It would require some programming work, I'm not sure if it is worthwhile.

Sorry, I confused the two. How do you call the wall to gate transformation? An entity upgrade? Entity transform?

I think the main difference (coding wise) is that a tech transforms all entities of its kind (and all future entities), while the behaviour described here only changes one of those entities.

For very special units, these entity upgrades could be nice (like adding even more armour to a hero, or making a "main" civil centre with double health. Of course, having these upgrades on normal units would cause too much micro managing, so not desirable.

I'm only posting my thoughts here. You do the coding, so you decide.

[Lion.Kanzen]

that can be a transform Entity button, we don't want Transform all Army Camps into C Centre. that is the difference.