Jump to content

Alpha 17 Balancing Branch


Recommended Posts

@scythetwirler

Maybe you should rename this to Alpha 18 Balancing Branch?

I'll probably make a new topic for that. No need to bloat this one imo.

Once I get that topic up, I'll probably lock this.

Also, could you add me and/or somebody else to the commit privileges?

My answer to when you first asked that still stands. :P

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 253
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I can't vouch for scythe's intentions beyond what he said: trying to make the game more fun, more strategic. I will say from my reports that we do seem to be on slightly different pages, but we have h

"thx, didn't know how the spread changes turn out. I wondered what less than 1 changes mean. Having no cavalry units in village phase looks okay to me. Perhaps make them all depend on a cavalry te

Hello everyone, Due to some of the imbalances of gameplay in Alpha 16 (notably early cavalry rushes), I have started a re-balancing GitHub branch for experimental gameplay balancing purposes. (NOTE:

Posted Images

You can test these very easy in scn editor. I look forwqard to your data. :D

My point was that massing just a single unit is unrealistic.

I mass only Chariots, that gets beat by melee cav.

I mass only melee cav, that gets beat by spear infantry.

I mass only spear infantry, that gets beat by ranged units.

I mass only ranged units, that gets beat by Chariots or by melee cav.

What you should really be doing is mixing up the different types of units at your disposal. You should also be able to judge whether or not you can fight in a given scenario. If you can't, pull back, regroup to your reinforcements. Make sure that your units are well positioned when they fight as well, and so on.

I don't know much about chariots so I'm not going to talk about them; I just hope they aren't skirm cav Mk II. If the only possibility of beating Chariots is using melee cav and everything else loses, that might actually be a problem since a good player will be able to simply protect the flanks of his chariots. It might also not be a problem at all, I don't know enough to say anything.

Edited by iNcog
Link to post
Share on other sites

Played A17 MP for a couple of weeks or so and can confirm that pers chariots are popular indeed and hard to counter. Maybe they are indeed 'new skirm cav' to some extent.

Also can confirm that in a test (see zzippy's post above) melee cav counters chariots (both sides no micro). Now needs to be tested in a real game. Probably with micro chariots will again do better.

However before considering any changes for chariots it should be decided if automicro will be kept for (some) ranged units. Chariots have it, and i think that it is a significant part of their strength.

Also i find it important to figure out which changes encouraged people to use chariots so much (in A16 they were almost never used). As far as i can see there were two:

1) population decreased from 3 to 1
Removes some indirect costs of chariots production, but unlikely to be the reason

2) hardcounters gone
Chariots lost skirmishers as a hard counter and didn't get them as a 'natural' counter, should be countered by melee cav now. Maybe players just aren't used to counters change? (Sorry, no idea if this counter is realistic or not.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If scythed chariots were to be used in their normal role, I'd say have them be low defense, high attack units with trample damage and a weakness to piercing attacks.

Since they are essential a buffed horse archer currently, we could treat them as such, maybe with an extra weakness to crush, since they are large targets.

Ranged Cavalry/Chariot automicro could be gone, and unlocked with a mid/late game tech adding back their minimum range as an intermediate solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

Ranged Cavalry/Chariot automicro could be gone, and unlocked with a mid/late game tech adding back their minimum range as an intermediate solution.

Minimum range will never be a solution to anything IMO.

As stated several times before:

- The minimum range of a ranged weapon is quite small (1-1.5 m) so historical accuracy is not a valid argument for min. range

- Min. range causes problems like the chase forever scenario (with equally fast units)

(Combined with formations and attack priorities several other issues arise and still will with them redone)

So IMO only siege units should have minimum range (from the historical point of view due to their fixed projectile launching angle).

The so called "automicro" is a byproduct of the simple unit AI and the minimum range. If the Unit AI would be better it would be an advantage for the melee units (as it should be).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Minimum range will never be a solution to anything IMO.

As stated several times before:

- The minimum range of a ranged weapon is quite small (1-1.5 m) so historical accuracy is not a valid argument for min. range

- Min. range causes problems like the chase forever scenario (with equally fast units)

(Combined with formations and attack priorities several other issues arise and still will with them redone)

So IMO only siege units should have minimum range (from the historical point of view due to their fixed projectile launching angle).

The so called "automicro" is a byproduct of the simple unit AI and the minimum range. If the Unit AI would be better it would be an advantage for the melee units (as it should be).

I wasn't trying to justify minimum range historically, that part of my comment is on the debate on if ranged cav automicro should be removed, gameplay wise, since that debate is going on for a while now.

I suggested a happy medium solution. Want your ranged cavalry to skirmish by itself so you can focus on other things? Pay for a tech.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prodigal Son: I understood that.

Since this is a balancing branch thread (with the aim of maximizing playability for the current implementation - if I got that right) your solution is OK here.

What I wanted to say is that IMO it is much more productive to improve the basic game system instead of fiddling around with the current, incomplete implementation that should be replaced in the end anyways (and with it your suggestion).

But within this thread you're entirely right (and I was stupid to post here in the first place), so go on ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What unit is supposed to counter chariots anyway? Are melee cavalry supposed to do that or skirmishers? A lot could be solved by simply playing on the pierce armor that chariots have. Reduce that and Skirmishers will probably become a cost-effective solution against chariots.

Of course, it depends on what role you want Chariots to have in the game. Are they a mobile glass cannon or something? I've been playing 0 AD recently but no one has made chariots against me yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have around 40 chariots, there is no melee cavalry that make it to them to do damage but if they do, its fine because the Persian Calvary can have around 380 hp at fully upgraded. I don't find that these champion chariots are a problem. The Mauryans, Britons, and Selecuids chariots are actually weaker in health but cost metal. Persians are to overpowered because these chariots only costs food and wood. It is becoming a problem because in every game I play, everyone is wanting to use the Persian civ and nothing can counter these chariots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my local mod I have made chariots a some different than "normal" citizen cavalry. They do not upgrade ranks, you must purchase improvements called Medium Chariot (City Phase) and Heavy Chariot (Imperial Phase) in order to make them uber good. It is my hope that I can change them further when trample damage is implemented by developer and improvements to the visiblegarrison part of the xmls that can make the archers passive garrisoned units and the chariot itself is used like a ram to smash into enemey units (trample and charge, you do still plan these right?). Like someone else said, the chariots would almost be a suicide unit (think of Petards in AOE2, but used against units instead of buildings), and the archers are just passive guys shooting at nearby enemies. I wish to do the same with elephants (but obviously less suicide and just more chaotic and crazy, for a big price).

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

remember that chariots will be given trample and what usually counter tramples are spearmen and pikemen i believe so i think that they will automatically become less powerful at least vs spearmen and another solution would be if the chariots couldn't turn as sharply as they do know in my experience they coudnt do 360 standing in the same place :P

Edited by LordIgorIIIofKiev
Link to post
Share on other sites

remember that chariots will be given trample and what usually counter tramples are spearmen and pikemen i believe so i think that they will automatically become less powerful at least vs spearmen and another solution would be if the chariots couldn't turn as sharply as they do know in my experience they coudnt do 360 standing in the same place :P

This is not set in stone at all. It is unclear exactly what the programmers wish to cut from the planned features.

Link to post
Share on other sites

remember that chariots will be given trample and what usually counter tramples are spearmen and pikemen i believe so i think that they will automatically become less powerful at least vs spearmen and another solution would be if the chariots couldn't turn as sharply as they do know in my experience they coudnt do 360 standing in the same place :P

wait so chariots would become melee units?

Link to post
Share on other sites

wait so chariots would become melee units?

how so, they could be used as melee units with trample and then as i suggested they need more room to turn it would be much easier to kill them even with the current stats they have since chariots though out history sure might of been as fast as horses but they definitely couldn't turn as easily. This would make it much easier to outflank them and so and easier to kill them

This is not set in stone at all. It is unclear exactly what the programmers wish to cut from the planned features.

no trample that would be horrible

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or how about having trample as standard attack and a garrison slot in which the player can garrison an archer (like the walls do) to obtain ranged attack?

i agree to this ^^ if you garison spear it gives a spear attack, sword sword attack and then ranged for either skirm or archer

Edited by LordIgorIIIofKiev
Link to post
Share on other sites

so chariots would become towers on wheels

i don't agree with that at all and i don't like the idea of any unit having two kinds of attacks, that's just too versatile

if it can be made so that it's not broken though, i guess that's fine

there's a difference between something that is OP and broken by the way. OP is simply too strong regardless of the situation. something broken is something that is useless in some cases and too strong in other situations. nerfing something OP is relatively simple however something which is broken is much more complicated to fix since it's a fundamental design issue.

skirm-cav were just OP i believe, just like buildings are currently OP as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

, just like buildings are currently OP as well.

buildings ain't Op

so chariots would become towers on wheels

how so, since the men are not as like they are in towers but as they are on walls, so that they can actually be killed off and they can only "garrison" one man?

Edited by LordIgorIIIofKiev
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...