A few small tweaks which would balance out some Civilizations

[Mr.Monkey]

On 27/01/2016 at 8:20 AM, intipablo said:

On another note, I think Britons longswordsmen need to be down-graded a little. I mean come on, it's just unfair.

I can think of an easy way to balance these guys. Simply lower the hero "Boudiccas" attack boost down to something like 1-2. 5 is just crazy lol. 20.4 Hack for the longswordsmen, and how fast they can be massed, these guys are just too overpowered.

 

Interestingly, the Roman champion meelee infantry has the exact attack as the britons (they have the same hero, therefore their damage output is also exactly the same) but more people use britons which is weird.

[intipablo]

5 hours ago, Mr.Monkey said:

Interestingly, the Roman champion meelee infantry has the exact attack as the britons (they have the same hero, therefore their damage output is also exactly the same) but more people use britons which is weird.

I think alot of Britons units are cheaper and they have a few Eco upgrades as well. But that's true.

[Philip the Swaggerless]

On 2016/1/31 at 0:36 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Realkisticallly, a unit should cost dozens of resources.

From gameplay perspective, Food for all organic unit make sense, and then 1 more non-food resource to give hint to their primary weapon and usage.

I'm curious, what gameplay disadvantage have you found pertaining to units costing more than 2 resources?

My main RTS background is AoE 2 where everything is 2 resources (or less), so I appreciate the novelty of certain units requiring multiple resources.  As far as gameplay goes, if a swordsman was 50 food 50 metal that'd be a waste of metal you need for endgame.  But if it were much less than 50 metal they might be too easy to mass early as they have less overall cost.  Unless you bumped up the food cost.  But what problem do you see with the way it is now?

[Phalanx]

12 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

I'm curious, what gameplay disadvantage have you found pertaining to units costing more than 2 resources?

My main RTS background is AoE 2 where everything is 2 resources (or less), so I appreciate the novelty of certain units requiring multiple resources.  As far as gameplay goes, if a swordsman was 50 food 50 metal that'd be a waste of metal you need for endgame.  But if it were much less than 50 metal they might be too easy to mass early as they have less overall cost.  Unless you bumped up the food cost.  But what problem do you see with the way it is now?

Well, it means that it costs a lot more to create units, which in this game, are the villagers. It'd be the equivelent in AoE of having to pay food and say wood for a villager. The earlygame is already slow, but that would reduce the game to an agonizing crawl early game.

[Palaxin]

53 minutes ago, SeleucidKing said:

The earlygame is already slow, but that would reduce the game to an agonizing crawl early game.

 

Hm... Some good players reported to hit 130 or even 150 pop at 10 min in 0 A.D.
If I remember right, similar numbers were not possible in AoE2. I think the early game of 0 A.D. FEELS slower (because you have not that much early game choices like in AoE2 I guess) but actually you produce more units because of batch training and because all early game population can gather including fighting units...

Edit: here is the claim for 150 pop (against AI though)

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by Palaxin

[Mr.Monkey]

6 minutes ago, Palaxin said:

Hm... Some good players reported to hit 130 or even 150 pop at 10 min in 0 A.D.
If I remember right, similar numbers were not possible in AoE2

With Mauryans I was able to get 130 in 10 minutes once, but with anything else I get around 115-120. I wonder what everyone else gets though, that would be interesting to see.

[Palaxin]

On 2/3/2016 at 6:49 PM, Mr.Monkey said:

With Mauryans I was able to get 130 in 10 minutes once, but with anything else I get around 115-120. I wonder what everyone else gets though, that would be interesting to see.

I haven't done that much games yet and didn't have more than about 100 I guess. I wasn't explicitly focused on booming though.
In AoE2 that number would be around 60 perhaps

 

Edit: 24 pop at 10 min with booming strategy in aoe2:

Spoiler

 

 

This is mainly due to

• fewer initial population (3 gatherer and 1 scout in AoE vs. 8 gatherers in 0 A.D.)
• fewer inital resources (200 vs. 300 of each type)
• much longer train time for units (e.g. villager 25s vs. about 10s)
• early break in villager production due to the Feudal Age upgrade

Honestly 0 A.D. is an insane race compared to that...

Edited February 9, 2016 by Palaxin

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 2/3/2016 at 0:17 AM, Philip the Swaggerless said:

I'm curious, what gameplay disadvantage have you found pertaining to units costing more than 2 resources?

My main RTS background is AoE 2 where everything is 2 resources (or less), so I appreciate the novelty of certain units requiring multiple resources.  As far as gameplay goes, if a swordsman was 50 food 50 metal that'd be a waste of metal you need for endgame.  But if it were much less than 50 metal they might be too easy to mass early as they have less overall cost.  Unless you bumped up the food cost.  But what problem do you see with the way it is now?

The problem is resource management is now watered down a bit. With only 2 resource cost for your mainline unit, you can have strategies focusing on gathering those resources. If unit cost 3 or 4 resources, then your econ just focus all the time at getting all resources equally. The difference on this is difficult for me to describe. I also find it hassle to be denied a sword man because I don't have enough wood. Right now player doesn't just need food and metal, but ALSO wood for a swordman. Why? Why 3 resource for a swordman but only 2 resource for spearman?

Food cost should probably be increase, yeah. Also harder to get and more vulnerable.

[GunChleoc]

Maybe we could go with 2 resource types maximum for first phase units, and then more resource types for higher-level unites where appropriate?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 2/4/2016 at 5:02 AM, GunChleoc said:

Maybe we could go with 2 resource types maximum for first phase units, and then more resource types for higher-level unites where appropriate?

Maybe. But I think it more interesting if maybe all unit are only 2 resource cost, but maybe add a resource cost based on a tech effect. So, if you give "Sidearms" (knives, swords, etc.) to infantry, you add attack amount but also add +5 metal cost (so now the spearman also cost 5 metal). Just example.

[Lion.Kanzen]

18 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Maybe. But I think it more interesting if maybe all unit are only 2 resource cost, but maybe add a resource cost based on a tech effect. So, if you give "Sidearms" (knives, swords, etc.) to infantry, you add attack amount but also add +5 metal cost (so now the spearman also cost 5 metal). Just example.

Yes I'm not happy with my latest gameplay. These maps are where was few food resource. 

I'm not sure si 3 sources formula works, even if technology works.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Lion.Kanzen