Civ balance

[alpha123]

I like the slinger changes, although I haven't tested them yet, it seems like they should definitely help.

I'm a little worried about the war elephant changes -- they get taken down by a handful of skirmishers too easily already. :/

AFAIK, nobody has ever complained about elephants being overpowered: usually the opposite.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I like the slinger changes, although I haven't tested them yet, it seems like they should definitely help.

I'm a little worried about the war elephant changes -- they get taken down by a handful of skirmishers too easily already. :/

AFAIK, nobody has ever complained about elephants being overpowered: usually the opposite.

Dunno. I've heard plenty of comments about how 10 elephants can come through and steamroll everything. I suspect things with them will be in flux as things like trample damage and running amok are implemented.

[WhiteTreePaladin]

Elephants are overpowered compared to Carthaginian siege weapons. Carthage with standard siege are not nearly was effective as Carthage with elephants as far as buildings are concerned. You also don't need as many elephants to be effective against buildings, yet the elephants have a pop of one vs three for the more powerful siege. The only change Michael made as far as I can tell is to lower the elephants speed.

Are Carthaginian archers the same or weaker than other civs archers? They didn't seem effective against elephants at all.

[alpha123]

Dunno. I've heard plenty of comments about how 10 elephants can come through and steamroll everything. I suspect things with them will be in flux as things like trample damage and running amok are implemented.

Elephants can do a lot of damage as long as the enemy doesn't know how to defend against them. Unfortunately, if they do, 10 elephants go down very easily. Just ask alkazar.

Elephants are overpowered compared to Carthaginian siege weapons. Carthage with standard siege are not nearly was effective as Carthage with elephants as far as buildings are concerned. You also don't need as many elephants to be effective against buildings, yet the elephants have a pop of one vs three for the more powerful siege. The only change Michael made as far as I can tell is to lower the elephants speed.

Elephants definitely should cost 3 pop. I'm quite surprised they don't. Perhaps put their speed back to 7 but adjust the pop and the train speed (which seems much too fast right now).

Are Carthaginian archers the same or weaker than other civs archers? They didn't seem effective against elephants at all.

According to quantumstate's balance tester thingy, they're actually the strongest (although they don't have very good range). However, archers are not very effective against elephants anyway. Skirmishers and swordsmen are, both of whom are bonused against elephants.

[sanderd17]

A big disadvantage when it comes to elephants is with naval maps. You can't transport elephants by ship. I don't know if this is a feature or a bug, but to me, it sounds more reasonable to be able to transport elephants by ship than Macedonian siege towers.

Edited February 25, 2013 by sanderd17

[idanwin]

A big disadvantage when it comes to elephants is with naval maps. You can't transport elephants by ship. I don't know if this is a feature or a bug, but to me, it sounds more reasonable to be able to transport elephants by ship than Macedonian siege towers.

For the sake of the game, both should be transportable. ..

Edited February 25, 2013 by idanwin

[alpha123]

A big disadvantage when it comes to elephants is with naval maps. You can't transport elephants by ship. I don't know if this is a feature or a bug, but to me, it sounds more reasonable to be able to transport elephants by ship than Macedonian siege towers.

Oh, you discovered the siege tower thing? And it only counts as one garrison slot... you could conceivably load a ship up with 20 towers, each filled with 20 units....

This actually came up on IRC today, and the verdict was it was overlooked and elephants should be transportable by ship.

[sanderd17]

Oh, you discovered the siege tower thing? And it only counts as one garrison slot... you could conceivably load a ship up with 20 towers, each filled with 20 units....

This actually came up on IRC today, and the verdict was it was overlooked and elephants should be transportable by ship.

I thought it was a known problem. As naval warfare isn't really completed yet. Some factions also are very bad at naval warfare. Like you can't transport any Iberian sieges, because they only have a merchant ship.

Anyway, naval civ balance will probably only be useful when naval warfare is at a better level.

[kosmo]

I thought only persians would be able to transport cavalry (or elephants)?

E: seems i was wrong:

• Name: Naval Craftsmanship
  
• History: Early Achaemenid rulers acted towards making Persia the first great Asian empire to rule the seas. The Great King behaved favourably towards the various sea peoples in order to secure their services, but also carried out various marine initiatives. During the reign of Darius the Great, for example, a canal was built in Egypt and a Persian navy was sent exploring the Indus river. According to Herodotus, some 300 ships in the Persian navy were retrofitted to carry horses and their riders.
  
• Effect: Phoenician Triremes gain the ability to train cavalry units.
  

Edited February 26, 2013 by kosmo

[Lion.Kanzen]

I thought only persians would be able to transport cavalry (or elephants)?

E: seems i was wrong:

• Name: Naval Craftsmanship
  
• History: Early Achaemenid rulers acted towards making Persia the first great Asian empire to rule the seas. The Great King behaved favourably towards the various sea peoples in order to secure their services, but also carried out various marine initiatives. During the reign of Darius the Great, for example, a canal was built in Egypt and a Persian navy was sent exploring the Indus river. According to Herodotus, some 300 ships in the Persian navy were retrofitted to carry horses and their riders.
  
• Effect: Phoenician Triremes gain the ability to train cavalry units.
  

change the name, its too generic, persian Naval Cavalry?

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Perhaps each civilization should have transport ships which can garrison elephants, cavalry, and siege units. At least the Iberians should for that matter, but if I am not mistaken, the Iberians are not meant to be a naval civilization, making the idea possibly irrelevant. Even so, a technology which allows them to acquire better ships at a high metal cost, simulating that the ships are being bought, could be added for them.

[Sighvatr]

Anybody care to make a gameplay video of Islands? Play a game using Naval warships?

[Lion.Kanzen]

without Naval Full game play, i don't think anybody wants do that.(For Now) even we don't know how be that system, if its really possibly units fighting over sea wooden Plataforms, or a Ship firing arrows.

[Pedro Falcão]

Transporting horses, elephants and siege engines isn't that hard, i think this is a point where historical accuracy (if that's the problem) shouldn't be taken into account, it only adds unnecessary complexity to the game. Though they make take more room than normal men, I still want to be able to transport them, no matter what.

without Naval Full game play, i don't think anybody wants do that.(For Now) even we don't know how be that system, if its really possibly units fighting over sea wooden Plataforms, or a Ship firing arrows.

I don't think it'll be like that, Lion, since the "units on the wall" feature was also postponed. But who knows? It doesn't hurt to hope, does it? Sincerely, if the guys implement at least ship ramming (also unlikely, though), i'll be more than satisfied.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Transporting horses, elephants and siege engines isn't that hard, i think this is a point where historical accuracy (if that's the problem) shouldn't be taken into account, it only adds unnecessary complexity to the game. Though they make take more room than normal men, I still want to be able to transport them, no matter what.

I don't think it'll be like that, Lion, since the "units on the wall" feature was also postponed. But who knows? It doesn't hurt to hope, does it? Sincerely, if the guys implement at least ship ramming (also unlikely, though), i'll be more than satisfied.

i wish same, but nobody talk about this, is planned but very secret, or not fully planned, but for now. im very worried, about many things, The Triggers re important, the Optimization, that i hope happens since i was play this for first time. See Mythos R Retired, down me a lot. i want Believe in this Project. but(sighs) many things we discussed and don't happen as fast how we want, aLL not only Players.

[zoot]

We should never make the mistake of thinking that 'plans' is the prerequisite for something getting done - ramming will happen if e.g. Pedro Falcão decides to implement it.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Thanks for Annswer, yes this is like linux, many people change this game, in many variants. like happen linux or Mirc Scripting Clients. that is something about many us forgot, Zoot is right. thank you for reply.

[Burzum]

Regards to the garrison of to few troops in a Roman army camp.

Construct a Roman fort like this:

You looking at a garrison of over 130 troops

Edited March 2, 2013 by Burzum

[alpha123]

Regards to the garrison of to few troops in a Roman army camp.

The problem is that army camps hold too MANY troops. 40 is a bit of an arrow fest; nothing can really approach the camp without being shot down.

Construct a Roman fort like this:

You looking at a garrison of over 130 troops

Nobody has the time to build a fort like that. It would be quite powerful if you could -- 130 arrows is a bit extreme.

[wraitii]

They should probably have a lower arrow multiplier.

BTW, is it wanted that barracks have such diverse costs? It seems to me like costing 100W/200S is much more advantageous than 300W in the early game, as you usually start with unused stone so you effectively only need 100W.

[feneur]

BTW, is it wanted that barracks have such diverse costs? It seems to me like costing 100W/200S is much more advantageous than 300W in the early game, as you usually start with unused stone so you effectively only need 100W.

But you'll need to spend the stone you have from the beginning if you want to construct a new civic center, and at least in most cases I'd say expansion is worth more than being able to build a barracks at that point.

[Mythos_Ruler]

BTW, is it wanted that barracks have such diverse costs? It seems to me like costing 100W/200S is much more advantageous than 300W in the early game, as you usually start with unused stone so you effectively only need 100W.

But you also need that stone to phase up to level III. Balances out, in my mind.

[wraitii]

I see. Hadn't really considered that, yeah.

[alpha123]

They should probably have a lower arrow multiplier.

I'd be okay with that. So they could garrison 40, but only have 20 arrows?

BTW, is it wanted that barracks have such diverse costs? It seems to me like costing 100W/200S is much more advantageous than 300W in the early game, as you usually start with unused stone so you effectively only need 100W.

I actually consider the 300W barracks to be an advantage. By the time I reach town phase I have a strong wood economy built up, so it's not much of a problem. The advantage, even, is that I can pop 3 barracks up pretty quickly, whereas I can only do 1 or 2 for other civs before I have to start mining stone. Also, I can use that 300 stone to go toward an expansion, so I only have to mine 200 more stone instead of 350 or a full 500.