My Suggestions After Testing Alpha 17 SVN (And In General)

[Prodigal Son]

That makes it really more readable!

True:)

(NEW) UNIT CLASS ROLES

To better handle differences of ranged and spear weapons if the current combat system is to be maintained, I'd suggest a spear attack type in addition to the existing ones, possibly renaming pierce to missile.

Infantry Spearman

• High defense/Anti-Cavalry
• Low attack speed (big weapons)
• Higher Attack/Lower Collision for Pikemen (to make them work better in groups until formations are in) but also slightly reduced missile defense (massed sarissas to maked up for smaller shields, but not totally). Maybe reduced speed.
• Persian, Mauryan, Gaul and Briton Citizen versions get reduced melee defense (only large shield, no armor), essentially meatshields, with the two celtic ones possibly having average attack and the other two reduced. Maybe increased speed.
• Triarrii bonused or trained at rank 2 as veterans
• Spartans bonused at dps/defense or having a fear aura
• Machimoi weaker but cheaper and faster to train
• Silver shields bonused at attack/defense
• Immortals lower defense but train faster
• Hoplites slightly higher defense

Infantry Swordsman

• The average unit with no big weakness or bonus. Relatively high attack and defense.
• High attack speed. Could be slightly faster moving than spearmen
• Iberian Citizen version could have reduced (missile) armor having smaller shields.

Infantry Skirmisher

• Best dps and defense, lowest range and attack speed among ranged infantry.
• Fast train time.
• Agrianians,Thracians and Iberians bonus dps or speed.

Infantry Archer

• Average dps and attack speed, good range, weak defense. Could have low collision for increased effectiveness in numbers.
• Reduced wood cost (very cheap armament) but increased train time (hard to master weapon).
• Persians, Syrians and Indians longer range.
• Cretans increased defense.

Infantry Slinger

• Lowest dps and defense, highest range and attack speed among ranged infantry.
• Reduced stone cost (very cheap armament) but increased train time (hard to master weapon).
• Rhodians longer range.
• Balearics increased damage.

Cavalry Spearman

• High dps, Low attack speed (big weapons).
• Good defense and speed.
• Companions/Thessalians bonused at dps/speed.
• Bactrians/Cappadocians bonused at defense
• Cataphracts largely bonused at defense but reduced speed.

Cavalry Swordsman

• Could be removed (replaced with cav spears) as somewhat unhistorical and for easier balance (swords could be implemented as a side arm for all cavalry, like units in AOE 3), else:
• Better melee defense (melee instead of chargers/lancers)and lower damage compared to Cav Spears, higher attack speed.

Cavalry Skirmisher

• Best dps and defense, lowest range and attack speed among ranged cavalry.
• Thracians (Odrysians) and Iberians increased dps
• Numidians increased speed

Cavalry Archer

• Average dps and attack speed, good range, weak defense.
• Reduced wood cost (very cheap armament) but increased train time (hard to master weapon).
• Increased range over average archer (all eastern units)
• Do camel ones still need their stench aura? - perhaps camel-traders could also be deployed as cavalry debuffers.

Chariots

• Will need trample to balance and get a proper role, better left as more expensive cavalry archers/skirmishers for now

War Elephants

• Differentiate their stats among civs by armor and elephant species.
• Fear aura still missing?
• Seleucid, Indian armored increased dps, hp and defense, reduced speed
• Indian Archer increased hp
• Ptolemaic, Carthaginian, Possible Extra/Mercenary ones at average

Edited October 2, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[Zeta1127]

No, some civilizations only melee cavalry are Cavalry Swordsmen, specifically the Athenians, the Britons, the Gauls, and the Mauryans, and the Carthaginians and the Persians also have them.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Zeta1127

[Prodigal Son]

No, some civilizations only melee cavalry are Cavalry Swordsmen, specifically the Athenians and the Mauryans, and the Carthaginians also have them.

I suggested to replace them with cavalry spearmen, not just remove them, just forgot to mention it (again).

[Zeta1127]

I revised my last post to show just how many Cavalry Swordsmen there really are.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Zeta1127

[Prodigal Son]

My point is this: Cavalry Swords are a bit strange conceptually. I've yet to come across an ancient cavalry unit with swords as their main weapon. It would be a side-arm to spears, javelins or bows. I guess the class could be removed overall, making balance easier as well, as we have too many troop types.

[Stan`]

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/topic/27480-pictures-of-han-cavalry-spearscrossbows/ ? Also In japanese culture long curved katanas were used by cavalry.

[Prodigal Son]

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/topic/27480-pictures-of-han-cavalry-spearscrossbows/ ? Also In japanese culture long curved katanas were used by cavalry.

I was talking about 0 AD part I era (and included civs), not cavalry in general. It's just a suggestion that probably won't make it in the game anyway and that won't be a big deal. I just thought, since they're semi-unhistorical and balancing is hard enough already, we could reduce melee cavalry to one class.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[Stan`]

Ι'm not sure but I think hetarois and alexander used swords

[Zeta1127]

Yeah, several Cavalry Heroes also use swords, so there is no real point in removing the class.

[niektb]

Let cavalry pack and unpack between weapons? (Might not be the nicest solution)

[wolflance]

I am all for historical accuracy though. Maybe limit the cavalry swordsman to hero unit?

Edited October 3, 2014 by wolflance

[Prodigal Son]

Ι'm not sure but I think hetarois and alexander used swords

Yeah, several Cavalry Heroes also use swords, so there is no real point in removing the class.

Let cavalry pack and unpack between weapons? (Might not be the nicest solution)

I am all for historical accuracy though. Maybe limit the cavalry swordsman to hero unit?

Hetairoi indeed use swords, but as side-arm, their main weapons were spears, as was the case with most heavy and some light cavalry. The same would be the case with melee "cavalry heroes". Having alternative weapons in the game would be great. Not only for cavalry, several sword and spear units carried javelins as extra weapons, and many units had a sword or knife side-arm.

However, as I've already mentioned, the cav sword class can stay, that's just a minor issue, it's not gamebreaking for me and probably not for anybody else. Just a minor historical flavor that could be used to make balance easier. Are people here in love with cavalry swordsmen:p?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Hetairoi indeed use swords, but as side-arm, their main weapons were spears, as was the case with most heavy and some light cavalry. The same would be the case with melee "cavalry heroes". Having alternative weapons in the game would be great. Not only for cavalry, several sword and spear units carried javelins as extra weapons, and many units had a sword or knife side-arm.

However, as I've already mentioned, the cav sword class can stay, that's just a minor issue, it's not gamebreaking for me and probably not for anybody else. Just a minor historical flavor that could be used to make balance easier. Are people here in love with cavalry swordsmen:p?

I must say they did make more sense when the game had hard countering, which is a shame that is gone. Now it is just another melee cavalry soldier and you have to use a bunch of math to determine if they are more effective than the other melee cavalry unit. Same problem now with spearman and swordsman, who no longer have distinct roles in the game in order to make things "easier" to balance... if this is the case, might as welll have gone with one generic melee dude and one generic ranged dude and one cavalry dude. That would be really easy to balance right guys?

But to make the sword cavalryman different than the spear cavalryman, the spear cavalryman can be given pierce attack like the infantry spearmans now has (this may already have been done, I havent bothered looking lately)...

Edited October 3, 2014 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[iNcog]

Any ETA on when A17 non-svn gets released?

[Stan`]

Same as the Got sentence. What do we say to the release ? Not today

For more practical reasons see the release blockers here :

http://trac.wildfiregames.com/query?status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&group=status&milestone=Alpha+17

//OFFTOPIC

Edited October 3, 2014 by stanislas69

[Prodigal Son]

I must say they did make more sense when the game had hard countering, which is a shame that is gone. Now it is just another melee cavalry soldier and you have to use a bunch of math to determine if they are more effective than the other melee cavalry unit. Same problem now with spearman and swordsman, who no longer have distinct roles in the game in order to make things "easier" to balance... if this is the case, might as welll have gone with one generic melee dude and one generic ranged dude and one cavalry dude. That would be really easy to balance right guys?

But to make the sword cavalryman different than the spear cavalryman, the spear cavalryman can be given pierce attack like the infantry spearmans now has (this may already have been done, I havent bothered looking lately)...

Counters in the form of bonuses are not the only way to determine unit roles. They help for more clear to understand gameplay and make handling the combat part of the game quite easy, which I don't dislike, as I'm more of a macro player. But at the same time they limit player creativity and choice, since you just have to train what you need to counter the enemy and not what your playstyle or your current desire asks for. Units become more or less forced answers, not plans or smart use of their attributes in tactics.

In games like Warcraft and Starcraft, combat roles are a mix of attack/defense types and unit attributes, with focus on the second, making battles far more dynamic. Different players will like each combat system, with none of them being clearly the superior. 0 AD though is more economically focused than the previously mentioned games and at first sight going with counters would seem more sane, to allow more time for the needed macro at expense of micro. (Which suits me well:p).

However one minor reason to go with unit attributes instead of counters is that it is more realistic and there's a major one as well. When formations, stamina, directional bonuses etc are fully implemented, the combat part of the game will head more towards Total War style battles. Positioning, covering flanks etc. Pikemen won't lose to Swordsmen frontally when in formation. You'll win a battle for not needlessly tiring your units and making sure they aren't surrounded and pure counters don't fit well into that. Maybe excluding a damage bonus for spears vs cavalry. So I'm mostly for the second approach, at least accordingly to what I've understood as the desired combat system for the game. I have no clue though on if something has changed in the meanwhile and the game heads towards a more classic RTS combat system.

In the current combat system, units of closely related classes can be vastly different. Look at Footmen and Grunts in Warcraft 3, two units with the same role (tier 1 melee unit). They serve the same general purpose of line infantry, but at the same time they are vastly different. Grunts are stronger, more expensive, take longer to train and are more offensive, while Footmen are cheaper, weaker, train faster and are harder to kill (at least relatively to their cost). And that's the simplest unit difference in that game, higher tier unit equivalents have bigger ones. Something like that could be used to differentiate 0 AD units, with differences to similar units accordingly to their role and natural attributes. Spearmen and Swordsmen can be almost identical in some roles while vastly different in others. The same holds true for Cavalry Swordsmen/Spearmen, I just said an idea that could reduce the already many classes, helping with balancing and one that is realistic. I don't believe they're the same unit and even if they are close to being that, it can easily change even with the current system.

Cavalry Spears could have pierce or spear damage, with a slow strong attack (possibly with slightly increased range as well) and a high charge bonus, which would make them good against other cavalry and great for charge/run/charge circles, while Cavalry Swords could have hack damage, faster attack with better overall dps but a lesser charge, which would make them an alternative to melee infantry with the benefit of speed and the weakness of not being defensively-cost effective compared to melee infantry. So two units with the same main role (anti-ranged/anti-siege/secondary raider) will also be very different in other aspects.

On a side note, a few hours ago I played one game on A16 and right after that one on A17 svn. The second one felt much better on general balance and functionality, even though I'm getting slightly bored with the reduced options and variety on it. It needs better defined and more realistic unit roles and civ attributes but I guess that will have to wait.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[iNcog]

Same as the Got sentence. What do we say to the release ? Not today

For more practical reasons see the release blockers here :

http://trac.wildfiregames.com/query?status=assigned&status=new&status=reopened&group=status&milestone=Alpha+17

//OFFTOPIC

hah, nice reference

thanks for the information!

[Stan`]

I get an awful performance moving 165 mauryan archers. more than when there was formations... plus some of them cancel movement cause the mass is preventing them to move...

[Radagast.]

Without formations, finding the end positions seems to be costly. It takes a lot of time until the units stop moving.

[Prodigal Son]

I tend to believe that performance is slightly better overall now, but I'm not really sure nor paid major attention on that. Btw, what's the issue with some people on multiplayer "forbidding" the use of trade? Is it considered imbalanced currently or just to reduce the number of constantly moving units? I've even come across a person rage-quitting because he discovered I used traders. He then admitted he hadn't mentioned it before, but the game was already wasted.

I also noticed that now Mauryans might be a little op in the mid-late game. Having their spearmen equally strong and sharing the same upgrades with those of other civs, besides feeling strange as they are almost naked levies, lets them absorb a lot more damage than they used to, increasing the survivability of Armored Elephants and Elephant Archers, allowing them to decimate the opposition.

I think realism needs to come into the game here as a balancing factor. Mauryans have 2 elephant superunits, for different roles, something that no other faction has. The one (elephant archer) only costs wood and food and is trainable from phase 2, so it's relatively easily massable. That's fine so far (historically and gameplay wise). But it breaks both combined with an averagely strong, very easily massable (due to low wood/food cost) line infantry. The answer to this is weaker spearmen, as in reality. I'd suggest nerfing/removing infantry citizen swordsmen as well (they even have 2 extra champion versions and I doubt swordsmen were a major part of ancient Indian armies anyway), but gameplay-wise it's less of an issue since metal cost reduces their massability, especially if you want to combine them with Armored Elephants.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[Stan`]

I tend to believe that performance is slightly better overall now, but I'm not really sure nor paid major attention on that. Btw, what's the issue with some people on multiplayer "forbidding" the use of trade? Is it considered imbalanced currently or just to reduce the number of constantly moving units? I've even come across a person rage-quitting because he discovered I used traders. He then admitted he hadn't mentioned it before, but the game was already wasted.

I also noticed that now Mauryans might be a little op in the mid-late game. Having their spearmen equally strong and sharing the same upgrades with those of other civs, besides feeling strange as they are almost naked levies, lets them absorb a lot more damage than they used to, increasing the survivability of Armored Elephants and Elephant Archers, allowing them to decimate the opposition.

I think realism needs to come into the game here as a balancing factor. Mauryans have 2 elephant superunits, for different roles, something that no other faction has. The one (elephant archer) only costs wood and food and is trainable from phase 2, so it's relatively easily massable. That's fine so far (historically and gameplay wise). But it breaks both combined with an averagely strong, very easily massable (due to low wood/food cost) line infantry. The answer to this is weaker spearmen, as in reality. I'd suggest nerfing/removing infantry citizen swordsmen as well (they even have 2 extra champion versions and I doubt swordsmen were a major part of ancient Indian armies anyway), but gameplay-wise it's less of an issue since metal cost reduces their massability, especially if you want to combine them with Armored Elephants.

I believe not using traders is a common agreement between players and so is not building walls (But they build mass watchtowers which is basically the same). They say it destroys the rush for ressources cause you nearly have infinite of it.

I'd need a historical proof they weren't part of armies, cause IIRC they had some nice swords. Even though the damascus ones came way after that. Also, I think a good way to check if a unit is OP or not is too test in Atlas with the same amount of enemies (That can be of different types) I was worried that spearman would not be efficient anymore against cavalry but apparently ptol spearman are really efficient against ptol cavalry.

[Prodigal Son]

I believe not using traders is a common agreement between players and so is not building walls (But they build mass watchtowers which is basically the same). They say it destroys the rush for ressources cause you nearly have infinite of it.

I'd need a historical proof they weren't part of armies, cause IIRC they had some nice swords. Even though the damascus ones came way after that. Also, I think a good way to check if a unit is OP or not is too test in Atlas with the same amount of enemies (That can be of different types) I was worried that spearman would not be efficient anymore against cavalry but apparently ptol spearman are really efficient against ptol cavalry.

Common agreements are fine as long as they are made at game start. Trade can potentially do what you said, but it also produces either short, ineffective routes, or easy to raid, long ones. It also reduces late game economy management, which is a certainly a good thing when you're spread all over the map and with many more units to handle. Can't remember if the increase trade tech is phase 2 or 3 though, I guess phase 3 would be better for it.

I didn't say swordsmen weren't a part of their armies, I said I doubt they were a major part. From what I've read (I'm noway an expert on them) Indian/Mauryan armies were mostly masses of spearmen and archers, with support from cavalry and chariots and an insanely high for non-indian standards number of war elephants. Nice swords don't necessarily mean many swordsmen, they could easily be just side arms, at times only for some noble units. Anyway this was just a bonus thought, but for some reason those seem to grab the most attention. Maybe cause I don't bother to phrase them in detail.

On testing units, what you said can work to a point. But on units with different costs, it's better to test units of equal combined costs than equal numbers. If the game gets further balanced around population (which it should imo - see op - balance templates) pop costs are something to have in mind as well, especially for late game balancing.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[Stan`]

Well actually it's removing units that annoys me. I like being able to have variety. It was the same discussion for the han mod on wether crossbowmen should be an upgrade to archers. I am against that, because, different costs means different strategies, it also allows you when you are low on ressources to have weaker but still useful units. And I like diversity in general, maybe armies were mostly made of spearmen, but I don't see this as a reason to remove less predictable units. It's also a challenge to balance them I understand that, but realism is not supposed to be balanced. So if they were not used, it was maybe because they were weak in interns conflicts. Now you challenge them against the whole world. So some strategies might now work. If they need to be nerfed I'm all for it, but never remove them. (I maybe also saying that cause I know the time it takes to make them )

On testing units, what you said can work to a point. But on units with different costs, it's better to test units of equal combined costs that equal numbers. If the game gets further balanced around population (which it should imo - see op - balance templates) pop costs are something to have in mind as well, especially for late game balancing.

That's why tonight matches are a good place to be

[Prodigal Son]

Well actually it's removing units that annoys me. I like being able to have variety. It was the same discussion for the han mod on wether crossbowmen should be an upgrade to archers. I am against that, because, different costs means different strategies, it also allows you when you are low on ressources to have weaker but still useful units. And I like diversity in general, maybe armies were mostly made of spearmen, but I don't see this as a reason to remove less predictable units. It's also a challenge to balance them I understand that, but realism is not supposed to be balanced. So if they were not used, it was maybe because they were weak in interns conflicts. Now you challenge them against the whole world. So some strategies might now work. If they need to be nerfed I'm all for it, but never remove them. (I maybe also saying that cause I know the time it takes to make them )

That's why tonight matches are a good place to be

I can certainly get all your points and agree with most of them. Rare units are ok to be in the game for me, as long as they don't throw out of the rooster more obvious ones. Still though, 3 different infantry swordsmen units for a civ historically not focused on them is an overkill. If I were to decide I'd probably switch off the female champion one, maybe replacing it as trainable with it's archer version if the Mauryan rooster needs some boost.

[Stan`]

I wish mythos could explain why its design doc was that way. He may disagree on the balancing but his knowledge would be useful. maybe he is still around