Celtic war dogs

[sanderd17]

I've been wondering about the celtic war dogs. According to me, they're too expensive, but also too powerful.

Just look at it, they're just as powerful as the celtic melee cavalry unit, while I know for sure I could survive a dog attack from a single dog, but not a cavalry attack. Even the horse on its own is more dangerous than a dog.

But the price is also ridiculous. 100 food and 1 population for a dog? That means a dog has twice the value of a female, and you have to build houses to have more dogs.

I suggest the dogs should cost less than a female, and no population. Something like 40 food.

The attack value is more difficult to suggest, as the system will probably change to an exponential system. So I don't want to give a hard value for it, but it should be less than every other citizen soldier.

It would make the game more realistic I think. An army with dogs is only effective if there are lots of dogs.

Btw, maybe a nice technology for the kennel: "train bloodhounds" -> makes the dogs have a large vision range, more than normal soldiers (bloodhounds can smell humans from a big distance).

What do you think about it?

[alpha123]

Dogs are useless currently; they get taken down by anything with a ranged attack well before they can do any damage.

Also 100 food is really cheap.

Edited April 6, 2013 by alpha123

[sanderd17]

100 food is cheap, but 1 population isn't. You can't really use them to create a big army. I don't mind they get taken down so easily, it's reality. they just should be cheap.

[idanwin]

These dogs are trained to fight. You've clearly never been attacked by one, or you would know that killing them can be harder than you think.

The main point (irl) would be to incapacitate the enemy so that he can be taken out easily by a friendly soldier.

Not sure this is a good comparison, but I would compare them to antibodies, Clinging to enemy units so that they can hardly move or attack.

If they don't take population thy should be limited by the amount of kennels you have.

I like the bloodhound idea, but I wouldn't increase vision range, I'd rather have coloured circles in the void/fog that show where units are, but not which. If cloaking gets implimented they should show hidden units as well.

They are good for hunting.

[alpha123]

1 population is also very cheap. You have 300 population, 50 dogs is nothing. I don't max out every game and I'm a fairly decent player (I'm more of a micro player though, but still), so really I think it's pretty viable to have a lot of dogs.

The problem is they get taken down before they do any damage. Yes they should go down easily, but not so easily that they don't do anything.

If they don't take population thy should be limited by the amount of kennels you have.

I like that idea. Each kennel could maybe hold 10 or 20 dogs.

However I don't think the engine supports multiple types of population (humans -> houses / dogs -> kennels).

Edited April 6, 2013 by alpha123

[feneur]

However I don't think the engine supports multiple types of population (humans -> houses / dogs -> kennels).

It might not be implemented, but it doesn't sound too difficult to implement technically. The issue would probably more be how to make it easy for the player to learn and understand the concept.

[Pedro Falcão]

AoEO's Norse have warhounds too and they are limited to 21 units, IIRC. They just put there on the tooltip " X out of 21 units ".

[gab]

i remerber thinking that using the same population for dogs and warrior seems strange, it would be more realistic to have different kind of population

( but we shouldn't allow the player to build 300+ dogs ^^' )

[sanderd17]

These dogs are trained to fight. You've clearly never been attacked by one, or you would know that killing them can be harder than you think.

And you've never been hit by the hind legs of a horse.

If you are unarmed it is quite difficult, but as almost every unit in 0AD is armed and armoured, they should be killable in every 1-to-1 fight. Dogs also have no armour at all. If a dog attacks, their most vulnerable parts are in the front. If you hit a dog on the nose with a sword or your fist, they pass out, if you stab them in the throat, it's also over.

The problem with fighting against dogs is that they never attack alone, but then we're again with the numbers.

I do really like the idea of a kennel increasing the dog population limit. I didn't expect this was technically possible. As Pedro said, some info in the tooltip would be enough. Maybe in the same format as the hero build limit. And in the kennel tooltip some info like "increase dog limit with 10 dogs".

I also like the alternative bloodhound idea from Idanwin. If that's possible to implement.

[idanwin]

The problem is more than just their numbers, it's also the fact that they're fast and can take you by surprise.

I never said a horse wasn't dangerous (I do wonder though: if a horse acts dangerously isn't that dangerous for its rider as well?) Anyway I think the dogs should be best at immobilizing infantry.

Yes, I must admit that the whole being armed thing does change a lot ... hadn't really thought about that one.

[Pedro Falcão]

Concerning trained dogs... I've seen many dogs trained by the police around here and i can say that those dogs that immobilize are the ones trained for hunting, to cripple the preys for the hunter. The dogs trained by the police instead attack the arms to disarm the guy. And dogs not trained at all generally attack the neck (by instinct), for the neck is the most vulnerable part of the body.

[idanwin]

Concerning trained dogs... I've seen many dogs trained by the police around here and i can say that those dogs that immobilize are the ones trained for hunting, to cripple the preys for the hunter. The dogs trained by the police instead attack the arms to disarm the guy. And dogs not trained at all generally attack the neck (by instinct), for the neck is the most vulnerable part of the body.

I was talking about that aamof xD sorry for the confusion. They immobilize the thief/criminal so that the police can catch them, they don't kill.

[dvangennip]

I think that once such a population number distinction is made with the reasoning that dogs are not human, it would be a slippery slope for the current interpretation of the population metric. That is, unless it is very clear that (for example) elephant and warship units take up population numbers because humans have to man these animals/machines. Dogs are independent, so they may have their own population number. This could be helpful for a tooltip or explanation for using kennels as a way to increase the dog population

If this kennel/dog population is used, I think there should be a maximum as well, like 1/5th of the usual population number. For a normal max of 300 it means max 60 dogs. However, this seems unfair because Celts can now field 360 units. So for balance, their human population maximum should be reduced, let's say to 270. That boils down to value a dog at 0.5 human, so one could as well simplify the whole thing by putting dogs at 0.5 cost of the regular population number.

So to conclude my thinking/writing aloud post: For diversifying the Gauls with the Britons, doing something extra with dogs could help, but I'm not sure using an extra population number would really help. Adding a dog population number should reduce the human pop maximum, which in turn means dogs should be used in late game tactics because the numbers require it (hence less tactical freedom?).

Edited April 7, 2013 by dvangennip

[Shield Bearer]

See how AOE3 does different pop limits with the native Americans, seems relevant. Also we can't make the dog pop indefinite, about 3-4 kennels should be enough.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I think that once such a population number distinction is made with the reasoning that dogs are not human, it would be a slippery slope for the current interpretation of the population metric. That is, unless it is very clear that (for example) elephant and warship units take up population numbers because humans have to man these animals/machines. Dogs are independent, so they may have their own population number. This could be helpful for a tooltip or explanation for using kennels as a way to increase the dog population

Indeed. "Population" cap is supposed to be somewhat of a nebulous or general concept for sake of simplicity. We could make it more complex, but you have to have a very good reason for doing so, and then you also have to consider elephants, horses, and all those other units besides just dogs. If you add complexity in one area, you have to add simplicity to another area. Just some general thoughts.

I'd rather just balance the War Dog better and be done with it, rather than introducing a new population dynamic just for them.

[idanwin]

I dunno. I wouldn't mind a dog cap based on the nr. of kennels, like on natives in AoE III

But horses/elephants as well would be too much.

[sanderd17]

The difference between dogs and the others (horses and elephants) is that dogs operate on their own. Horses and elephants are always mounted. It's not just the horse you get, it's the horse cavalry unit (including rider).

The same for sieges and ships, you could say they're mounted with some units to operate the sieges and ships (although it would be nice if some of the sieges could show the units).

[Lion.Kanzen]

The elephants be nice to have own population, the other day almost to be rushing by 12 elephants, I came close to losing.