Alpha 17 Balancing Branch

[zzippy]

Capacities got decreased....in a16 the cav was able to collect more food in less time afair.

And where is the logic in being good for killing dear but no sheep/chicken? Dear is much faster.

[Zezil]

I apologize if you already discussed about that somewhere but:

Dont you feel like sieging capabilities for elephants are too low , especially if compared to normal footmen? I mean atm investing your resources on elephants to destroy a building is not worth it, you can send footmen instead and have the same if not better outcome.

I once had the occasion to read the stats in a game :pto elephant 10 crush damage, chartaginian spearman(citizen7soldier one, no champion) 5 crush damage.

I feel like it needs some rebalancing, maybe improving the crush damage for elephants.

[plumo]

Capacities got decreased....in a16 the cav was able to collect more food in less time afair.

And where is the logic in being good for killing dear but no sheep/chicken? Dear is much faster.

I'm testing the dev version + release candidate (A17) and I dare to say that cavalry is gathering food at a very fast rate (Playing with Persians: Median Cavalry as example).

What would you kill while on horseback? Wild animals or chicken? Berry bushes and domesticated animals are for women/infantry. Wild animals can be attacked by cavalry.

[tau]

And where is the logic in being good for killing dear but no sheep/chicken?

What would you kill while on horseback? Wild animals or chicken? Berry bushes and domesticated animals are for women/infantry. Wild animals can be attacked by cavalry.

Well, since there is no such thing as dismounting, we can 'imagine' that a dude got off from his horse and kills chicken, but then he shouldn't have the same bonus for hunting which cavalry has. And in general, cavalry shouldn't have hunting bonus much bigger than infantry, since cavalry already has natural advantage in hunting due to their speed and capacity. Afaiu this bonus should reflect their 'skill': men are better in mining, women are better in farming, but why cav hunting skill is 5 times better than inf hunting skill - no idea.

[plumo]

Well their bonus lies in the speed + attack (they kill the animal faster + transport the food faster to the gathering point and back). Harvest speed should be the same IMO.

[WhiteTreePaladin]

I don't think that their walk speed is fast enough for that to be enough of a bonus. They are only a little faster than infantry in the game, whereas in reality, the walk speed would be several times faster. Since we have slowed them down over what they would normally be, I think the faster gathering is in order. Also, they cannot collect any other resource or build or even help build (like a worker elephant).

Edited October 11, 2014 by WhiteTreePaladin

[Lion.Kanzen]

A question. Now are some counter how works unit rock scissor and paper now?

[Prodigal Son]

A question. Now are some counter how works unit rock scissor and paper now?

Attack and defense types are the counter system now.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Attack and defense types are the counter system now.

an example?

[Prodigal Son]

an example?

Cavalry now have reduced pierce armor, spearmen deal pierce damage, so they counter them.

[zzippy]

Hey scythe !!

Hope you still follow this topic; as I asked you in irc days ago, what about continuing sbb? After about 30 "real" matches in a17 there are a few points to mention/discuss:

- champions. need. more. health.

- buildings need more pierce armor. Its ridiculous, how 8 archers can tear down a building thats in progress or a few more archers can destroy eg a tower.

(which damage do archers to a stone tower in reality? Imho: nearly none.)

- rams are op now compared to catas. Need less pierce armor too, or champs more health, as said above. Or units generally dealing more hack, dunno.

- That skirmcav auto-micro needs discussion too. All ranged units should get this feature, or, what I personally would prefer: no auto-micro at all.

- Ptolemies are clearly op in earlygame. Its nearly impossible to defend their raids in first gameplay minutes without own eco going downhill. Also in lategame, that hero that increases pikemen health 40% during his lifetime is ridiculous. Give him an aura, or nerf the percentage.

No balancing, but generally:

2v2 multiplayer are nearly impossible due to huge lag, compared to a16/15/early sbb. Afair leper told me that the lag might be related to the new FOW/mirages. If so, it might be worth to undo the new FOW, imho. I would prefer smooth gameplay to laaaaag and scouting.

Edited November 7, 2014 by zzippy

[Lion.Kanzen]

i agree champions are overpower

archers are fine against towers

why dont star with towers or outpost and females add attack to them and when pass through phase lose that bonus.

[scythetwirler]

- champions. need. more. health.

I definitely agree with this. I wasn't able to spend as much time balancing champions as I liked prior to A17.

- buildings need more pierce armor. Its ridiculous, how 8 archers can tear down a building thats in progress or a few more archers can destroy eg a tower.

(which damage do archers to a stone tower in reality? Imho: nearly none.)

Agree for the most part, but I do think that foundations/half-built buildings should be squishy.

- rams are op now compared to catas. Need less pierce armor too, or champs more health, as said above. Or units generally dealing more hack, dunno.

I'll have to test this a little more, but I recall thinking that 5 melee soldiers can down a ram pretty quickly. Catapults should be placed behind fortified positions such as a fortress or an army for best results and are quite devastating against enemy units.

- That skirmcav auto-micro needs discussion too. All ranged units should get this feature, or, what I personally would prefer: no auto-micro at all.

I'm not very fond of the auto-micro either; I'll see what I can do about that.

- Ptolemies are clearly op in earlygame. Its nearly impossible to defend their raids in first gameplay minutes without own eco going downhill. Also in lategame, that hero that increases pikemen health 40% during his lifetime is ridiculous. Give him an aura, or nerf the percentage.

I'll have to test this a little more. The hero's bonus does seem overly effective, though I don't think that was introduced with my changes.

[iNcog]

On buildings:

- They are too easy to kill when they're being built, especially to ranged units.

- They are still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too strong against units when they're up. Mother mercy it's not even funny how strong buildings are. Units are irrelevant in the game until buildings are nerfed.

[zzippy]

Not at all, imho. Think they are too weak vs pierce damage. Arrows can not take a building down, not at all, but 40 archers kill a building in seconds..

Also think that siege engines exist for a reason ...

Btw, "units", what do you mean exactly? Also hack_dealing units (roman swordmen are pretty nice siege_units, eg)?

Edited November 11, 2014 by zzippy

[Prodigal Son]

On buildings:

- They are too easy to kill when they're being built, especially to ranged units.

- They are still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too strong against units when they're up. Mother mercy it's not even funny how strong buildings are. Units are irrelevant in the game until buildings are nerfed.

Not at all, imho. Think they are too weak vs pierce damage. Arrows can not take a building down, not at all, but 40 archers kill a building in seconds..

Also think that siege engines exist for a reason ...

Btw, "units", what do you mean exactly? Also hack_dealing units (roman swordmen are pretty nice siege_units, eg)?

Imo buildings are strong not because they have too much hp or armor, but because they (still) have too high of an attack when garrisoned (compare it to AOM or AOE games for example). Actually most buildings have too low of a hack armor, often at the same levels with their crush one, making melee units better siege weapons than the actual ones due to massability. I see more of a problem when about 15 swordsmen easily kill a CC than 40 archers.

What I'd do and will do for my mod is buffing their defense a little but reducing the bonus arrows per unit.

Defensive buildings should this way be what they are meant for:

- Hard to kill, but not killers.

- Protecting chock points or economy (with some fire power and garrisons slots for civilians).

- Able to last until help arrives if you're not too slow or your army is at the other side of the map, giving some response time.

It should also reduce the effectiveness of forward building which seems to be the dominant strategy.

[zzippy]

INcog talked about ungarrisoned buildings.. I thought. Maybe a misunderstanding.

Edited November 11, 2014 by zzippy

[iNcog]

Any building that shoots is a problem imo. Their damage output is too high compared to how hard it is to take the down. A defensive style based around buildings and ranged units is too cost-efficient, imo.

Like, if the player has ranged units defending the building that location is impossible to take.

unless you have literally 3 times the amount of units that he has, which is unrealistic

Edited November 12, 2014 by iNcog

[whopxer]

I made an account to come on here and say that the Persian Chariots are to overpowered. When everything is upgraded, they have 380 health. It only cost 150 food and 100 wood for one of them. When there is a group of 30 or more of these chariots, it is impossible to counter them. Spearmen are dead before they even reach them, ranged calvary can not compare to that health. Any type of siege is too slow for the chariots. They are cheaper and more powerful than other civs that have chariots. The Mauryans have chariots that cost more than the persians and they cost 150 food, 100 wood, and 50 metal and the HP is somewhere around 210 upgraded fully. I found that the Mauryans chariots were more fair but I hope people can agree with me that the persians chariots need to be nerfed in some way.

Edited November 16, 2014 by whopxer

[iNcog]

I think all units need to be looked at to be perfectly frank. fights are mostly won by who has the most stuff, not who has the right unit composition or micro.

Or who has the most buildings.

[zzippy]

I made an account to come on here and say that the Persian Chariots are to overpowered. When everything is upgraded, they have 380 health. It only cost 150 food and 100 wood for one of them. When there is a group of 30 or more of these chariots, it is impossible to counter them. Spearmen are dead before they even reach them, ranged calvary can not compare to that health. Any type of siege is too slow for the chariots. They are cheaper and more powerful than other civs that have chariots. The Mauryans have chariots that cost more than the persians and they cost 150 food, 100 wood, and 50 metal and the HP is somewhere around 210 upgraded fully. I found that the Mauryans chariots were more fair but I hope people can agree with me that the persians chariots need to be nerfed in some way.

Persian chariots have 336 health, fully upgraded + tech, not 380. Ever tried to counter them with ranged cav? You can have ~45 vs 30 chariots for comparable costs.

But I agree that brit/maur chariots should be buffed. They are champions (persian chariots are citizens); all champions will get buffed for sure in next alpha.

[thamlett]

I must agree, the chariots (and all ranged units IMO) are overpowered.

@scythetwirler

Maybe you should rename this to Alpha 18 Balancing Branch?

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

[zzippy]

I must agree, the chariots (and all ranged units IMO) are overpowered.

Just had a few tests. Indeed, 30 chariots win easily against 45 ranged cav.

But: 45 melee cav (comparable costs to 30 chariots) win (even without any micro). Pls test yourself and think things over...

Edited November 17, 2014 by zzippy

[iNcog]

So what happens when you mix chariots and protect them with spear infantry?

[zzippy]

Whats there to laugh? Then add same amount of melee inf to melee cav, or something similar.

...we can test those scenarios.

Edited November 17, 2014 by zzippy