Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Speaking of alpha 15, not SVN (if you mean that). And even if at half, 231 damage, it one-shots almost anything.

They are definitely overpowered. Full army (me) vs most army (scythetwirler - as he used some to distract my ally).

• Scythe has 160 skirmishers, most of them in 6 Helepolis
• I have on first occasion 100+ archers, 30+ Armored Elephants, 50+ other troops (mostly spearmen)
• I have on second occasion almost full pop of Melee cavalry

-First occasion, the spearmen soak some missiles, the elephants could beat the helepolis with crush damage upon reaching them, but tada! Skirmishers ungarrisoned, bye elephants. Obviously lost the fight with minor losses for scythe.

-Second occasion, I lost around 200 melee cavalry in seconds, without even killing a tower or unit. And melee cavalry is supposed to be anti-siege.

Ofc scythe's a great micro-er and far better that me in general, but still I think you get the point. Nothing can counter those in the current game state. Loaded ships with missile troops are the water version of this.

And if you have a Army with Elephants why don't think the scythe can use all counter elephants, with ships I can say how counter that, I said today that to Ieper about naval maps. Be need coastal defense Buldings may be, but Helepolis it's good in that shape, May can be good thinks tactics to counter that for each civs.

[Prodigal Son]

And if you have a Army with Elephants why don't think the scythe can use all counter elephants, with ships I can say how counter that, I said today that to Ieper about naval maps. Be need coastal defense Buldings may be, but Helepolis it's good in that shape, May can be good thinks tactics to counter that for each civs.

You got me completely wrong there. I never said there shouldn't be a counter to elephants, nor my point about was Skirmishers/Javelinmen. I said that the elephants are the only counter to Helepolis full of ranged units, and only if they are too many. But, if the ranged units in the Helepolis are Javelinmen, (which Macedon has available) they can ungarrison them and kill the elephants easily. So there's NO counter for the Helepolis + Javelinman combo. And only one counter for Helepolis + other ranged troops, mass elephants, which is not even available to all civs.

With ships you can counter that by doing the same, but still ships like that can unrealisticly and easily wreck any units on the shore, and it feels just wrong to have 40 units inside every ship to have a competent naval force while the entire population cap is 300 or less. Added to that, it makes ranged troops the only good option as ship crews, and a must have-one way strategy making naval engagements boring. So reducing the bonus there, to make ungarrisoned ships at least competent against (ofc still weaker than) garrisoned would make much sense. Coupled with other options (bonus for melee crews, ramming, capturing etc), which I guess can wait till naval warfare gets some major love.

[Lion.Kanzen]

You got me completely wrong there. I never said there shouldn't be a counter to elephants, nor my point about was Skirmishers/Javelinmen. I said that the elephants are the only counter to Helepolis full of ranged units, and only if they are too many. But, if the ranged units in the Helepolis are Javelinmen, (which Macedon has available) they can ungarrison them and kill the elephants easily. So there's NO counter for the Helepolis + Javelinman combo. And only one counter for Helepolis + other ranged troops, mass elephants, which is not even available to all civs.

With ships you can counter that by doing the same, but still ships like that can unrealisticly and easily wreck any units on the shore, and it feels just wrong to have 40 units inside every ship to have a competent naval force while the entire population cap is 300 or less. Added to that, it makes ranged troops the only good option as ship crews, and a must have-one way strategy making naval engagements boring. So reducing the bonus there, to make ungarrisoned ships at least competent against (ofc still weaker than) garrisoned would make much sense. Coupled with other options (bonus for melee crews, ramming, capturing etc), which I guess can wait till naval warfare gets some major love.

yeah but was the bait, may ba 3 healer to scape. With ship , I do t want talk with ship, never I use naval units. And the team are no focus in navies for now. I personally avoid the naval battle, but you are right is moment to balance that one. May be the best idea with Helepolis is now if there are a possibly to survive or counter attack that tactic is a great trap.

[sanderd17]

...

Added to that, it makes ranged troops the only good option as ship crews, and a must have-one way strategy making naval engagements boring. So reducing the bonus there, to make ungarrisoned ships at least competent against (ofc still weaker than) garrisoned would make much sense. Coupled with other options (bonus for melee crews, ramming, capturing etc), which I guess can wait till naval warfare gets some major love.

Euh, melee infantry also adds arrows to ships (I guess ships have the bows available )

[LordGood]

there should probably be a garrison cooldown.

American conquest had a single-file garrison system that worked very well.

when a building came down before they were all ejected, those units were lost, and surrounding units were damaged.

I do have to say, stuffing a siege tower with pikemen make them very resilient to a cavalry charge

[Lion.Kanzen]

there should probably be a garrison cooldown.

American conquest had a single-file garrison system that worked very well.

when a building came down before they were all ejected, those units were lost, and surrounding units were damaged.

I do have to say, stuffing a siege tower with pikemen make them very resilient to a cavalry charge

I have 2 ideas, and if the damage in tower make this one more slower (75% damage) and if Elephants can push the towar and this down and fall and almost die?

[sanderd17]

The problem with this is that it can cause a lot of micro. If your units get damage when the tower is destroyed, but not when you eject them when the tower is at f.e. 10hp, a good micro player will eject his units just before the destroy point.

I do agree that there should be some way to punish those units that are ejected. Keeping trac of the damage being dealt while the unit was in the tower, and applying a fraction of the damage to the unit seems too complicated to me. And it defeats the purpose of garrisoning, which is defense for the unit.

Maybe we can disable the fighting ability of unit who are just ungarrisoned? So when an ungarrison happens in the middle of a battle, they are in serious problems. But I have no idea how we would make it look natural.

[Lion.Kanzen]

The problem with this is that it can cause a lot of micro. If your units get damage when the tower is destroyed, but not when you eject them when the tower is at f.e. 10hp, a good micro player will eject his units just before the destroy point.

I do agree that there should be some way to punish those units that are ejected. Keeping trac of the damage being dealt while the unit was in the tower, and applying a fraction of the damage to the unit seems too complicated to me. And it defeats the purpose of garrisoning, which is defense for the unit.

Maybe we can disable the fighting ability of unit who are just ungarrisoned? So when an ungarrison happens in the middle of a battle, they are in serious problems. But I have no idea how we would make it look natural.

we can burn the tower, with fireraiser or fire arrows.

[sanderd17]

Btw, the other problem is that moving siege towers aren't attackable (units keep chasing them without attacking). But this should be fixed in a few days.

[Prodigal Son]

Euh, melee infantry also adds arrows to ships (I guess ships have the bows available )

Didn't know, didn't even try actually:p, thinking they wouldn't add damage, like in land garrisons. Still the power of garrisoned vs ungarrisoned ships and vs land units needs some major check.

there should probably be a garrison cooldown.

American conquest had a single-file garrison system that worked very well.

when a building came down before they were all ejected, those units were lost, and surrounding units were damaged.

I do have to say, stuffing a siege tower with pikemen make them very resilient to a cavalry charge

The problem with this is that it can cause a lot of micro. If your units get damage when the tower is destroyed, but not when you eject them when the tower is at f.e. 10hp, a good micro player will eject his units just before the destroy point.

I do agree that there should be some way to punish those units that are ejected. Keeping trac of the damage being dealt while the unit was in the tower, and applying a fraction of the damage to the unit seems too complicated to me. And it defeats the purpose of garrisoning, which is defense for the unit.

Maybe we can disable the fighting ability of unit who are just ungarrisoned? So when an ungarrison happens in the middle of a battle, they are in serious problems. But I have no idea how we would make it look natural.

I don't really like this, not even just more micro, but also inability for the attacker to know what bonus damage he will suffer for attacking, and complete lack of realism (you can't deploy a spear/pike phalanx in a tower).

Btw, the other problem is that moving siege towers aren't attackable (units keep chasing them without attacking). But this should be fixed in a few days.

Yup, indeed, still they'll probably be overpowered though, even if less, when with garrison they can one-shot almost any unit.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Didn't know, didn't even try actually:p, thinking they wouldn't add damage, like in land garrisons. Still the power of garrisoned vs ungarrisoned ships and vs land units needs some major check.

I don't really like this, not even just more micro, but also inability for the attacker to know what bonus damage he will suffer for attacking, and complete lack of realism (you can't deploy a spear/pike phalanx in a tower).

Yup, indeed, still they'll probably be overpowered though, even if less, when with garrison they can one-shot almost any unit.

May be can be more slower per hit. But fire them can't be a bad idea, lose heal for seconds. Like in total war.

[dumbo]

While testing the Alarm from CC I ended up having most of my support units just standing outside CC when it was full. Not really taking cover from attack. So I thought that units – at least support units – should be able to garrison also inside houses. That would be just logical since houses are supposed to be the structures where people live.

Just adding <GarrisonHolder> to template_structure_civic_house.xml does the trick. Now in case of alarm from CC support units will seek cover also from nearby houses. Houses could also be used for slow recovery in case of injuries, going home to heal works slowly.

To have fighting units inside houses would be a way to hide them from attacking units and would allow structuring of the city in a way that makes "honeypots" for attackers only to find themselves surrounded. That would mean attacker needing to read the city structure and put more emphasis on houses. In IRC there was an opinion to have houses only for support units, so here is now three different patches:

house_as_garrison.patch: Every civ could garrison 3 units in a house, both support units and infantry fighting units. Houses would have healing effect of 0.2.

house_as_garrison_v2: Like previous, but civs with PopulationBonus 10 could garrison 6 units in a house.

house_as_garrison_onlysupport.patch: Like v2 but only support units could be garrisoned and no healing effects.

house_as_garrison_onlysupport_healing.patch: Like previous, but healing effect of 0.2.

Feedback and discussion would be appreciated.

house_as_garrison_onlysupport_healing.patch

house_as_garrison_onlysupport.patch

house_as_garrison_v2.patch

house_as_garrison.patch

Edited December 31, 2013 by dumbo

[newcivs]

i think that melle celtic units need a bonus & antibonus:

* On open terrain are too weak "6 attack" "but in forests are strong 11 hack"

i think that the britons this effect must be:

* Open terrain = -5 attack but +5 for chariots

* Forest = +3 attack for all units

and for gauls:

* Open terrain = -3 attack

* Forest = +2 attack for all units

tha gauls were more disciplinated and technologically advanced

[hollth]

While testing the alarm from CC I ended up having most of my support units just standing outside CC when it was full. Not really taking cover from attack. So I thought that units – at least support units – should be able to garrison also inside houses. Just adding <GarrisonHolder> to template_structure_civic_house.xml does the trick. Now in case of alarm from CC support units will seek cover also from nearby houses. Houses could also be used for slow recovery in case of injuries, going home to heal works slowly.

That would be just logical since houses are supposed to be the structures where people live. In "house_as_garrison" every house could garrison 5 units, however in patch "v2" they could hold as much people as they allow into population.

To have fighting units inside houses would be a way to hide them from attacking units and would allow structuring of the city in a way that makes "honeypots" for attackers only to find themselves surrounded. That would mean attacker needing to read the city structure and put more emphasis on houses. Version "onlyfemales" bases on "v2" but allows only females to be garrisoned into houses and for houses to have no healing effects.

Feedback and discussion would be appreciated.

edit: In "v2" I modified templates so that in civs where PopulationBonus is 10, max units garrisoned is also 10.

edit2: "onlyfemales" allows only female support units to be garrisoned into houses, without any healing effects.

Personally if this was implemented I'd prefer it to have only supports units in houses. I don't think having them die is a good idea. That seems like its breaking the trend for no gain. Healing could easily go either way, but I'd put it in since all garrisoning either adds to building attack or heals units (I could be wrong here).

My concern with having it is that you achieve exactly what you want. All support units garrisoned and protected. That would make raids, particularly early raids, ineffective. I do actually like the idea though.

[burzum2]

Romans were weak in the forest... But why would they need their atributes decreased if the attackers get higher attack bonuses... Doesn't make sense.

[Zeta1127]

Houses being able to garrison support units only sounds like a splendid idea.

I pointed out some minor issues with warships names and tooltips and the Gauls Tavern on the previous page that seems to have been missed among the other posts.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Romans were weak in the forest... But why would they need their atributes decreased if the attackers get higher attack bonuses... Doesn't make sense.

agree with that. This guy needs improve their ideas with bonus.

[Sighvatr]

Terrain has little to nothing to do to how well an individual soldier from a culture fights. Its mostly only the strategies and personal condition involved that terrain and weather applies. It does not make sense to me that somebody gets a bonus for being next to a tree?

[burzum2]

I disagree.

It has everything to do with how a culture fights. The picts and the Britons fought in the forests well and they beat the Romans at every time. The Romans did not fight in trees. The Britons did. There's the culture difference.

What I don't agree with is the "antibonus" bit.

If one team gains attack in the forest, the other shouldn't have decreased stats... That's the part that doesn't make sense.

[dumbo]

Personally if this was implemented I'd prefer it to have only supports units in houses. I don't think having them die is a good idea. That seems like its breaking the trend for no gain. Healing could easily go either way, but I'd put it in since all garrisoning either adds to building attack or heals units (I could be wrong here).

My concern with having it is that you achieve exactly what you want. All support units garrisoned and protected. That would make raids, particularly early raids, ineffective. I do actually like the idea though.

I added a patch that has support units with slow healing. Units won't die on destruction but eject, in keeping with the trend.

I don't think it'll make early raids necessarily ineffective, they just need to put more focus to destroying houses. AFAIK that was one central focus in the real-life raids back in the days.

[hollth]

I added a patch that has support units with slow healing. Units won't die on destruction but eject, in keeping with the trend.

I don't think it'll make early raids necessarily ineffective, they just need to put more focus to destroying houses. AFAIK that was one central focus in the real-life raids back in the days.

Sorry misread the original post as units died along with the building.

I still feel that it would make it much more difficult (-800 hp with high armour vs 50hp with no armour), but to be fair it can be balanced through other means, so I don't think that it shouldn't be tested or added. In isolation it would most likely push early raids away, which I don't think is where the game should be heading, but as I said, I do actually like the concept.

[dumbo]

Sorry misread the original post as units died along with the building.

No you didn't. There was for a while patches where units died along with the building but I changed that since I was told in IRC that it is used only for ships.

[hollth]

With regard to terrain bonuses if they were don't I think it would be good to give them direct combat stats. If it were done i'd think things like celts move faster in trees than other civs(maybe ignore collision) would be a better way. That gives more of a strategic advantage than a number/stat advantage. Could also do things like particular civs can't use X formation in trees or something. I'm not entirely sold on civ specific terrain advantages tbh unless it was only for one or two civs. (Gauls I'd imagine?) I do think more could be done with terrain but I don't think it needs to be civ specific.

[RoekeloosNL]

The problem with this is that it can cause a lot of micro. If your units get damage when the tower is destroyed, but not when you eject them when the tower is at f.e. 10hp, a good micro player will eject his units just before the destroy point.

I do agree that there should be some way to punish those units that are ejected. Keeping trac of the damage being dealt while the unit was in the tower, and applying a fraction of the damage to the unit seems too complicated to me. And it defeats the purpose of garrisoning, which is defense for the unit.

Maybe we can disable the fighting ability of unit who are just ungarrisoned? So when an ungarrison happens in the middle of a battle, they are in serious problems. But I have no idea how we would make it look natural.

And what about only let 1 unit out till all units are ejected so it takes some time too use your force.and if you wait to long your units wont all get out before tower is destroyed.

[Revan Shan]

PLAYER CHAMPION

I would like to see a custom hero that represents the faction you are playing with, as in Age of Empires 3. A character who can build houses and civ centres and has special abilities depending on the culture.

NO HISTORICAL HEROS MASHUP

Limit the historical heros you can have to 1, so that you don't end up with heros of different eras fighting together.