D896 disabled training cavalry at civil centres discussion

[av93]

(tl;dr in the end.)

Hey! I just bring this discussion to the forum and to the players. That has been discussed before, the last time I recall, here.

I think that a game that can be win with an only strategy is not fun. (who haves more ranged cav.)

I know that everybody have is perfect game in mind, the devs can't please everybody. But, some of us love discussing this kind of things and give our opinion, so a little more of spam about game design won't hurt, if it's polite.

 

Some arguments of the devs patch discussion:

Quote

I don't agree with that change. While comments on the forum may sometimes be useful, you must take them with some cautious as i have often the impression they come from people who have forgotten the simple pleasures of a game and are focused on their lobby ranting Being able to hunt well modelled animals during phase 1 in nice landscape using cav is one thing new comers do really enjoy a lot. Mimo

 

I think that you can still be a competitive player and and enjoy doing the right strategy and tactic, having fun. I don't think that competition and fun are a disjunctive, (although I know that a high competitive scene can kill the game, a good basis of that can be a good attraction to players).

I restarted to play multiplayer this days, and I played a few, and seems that the cav skirmish rush it's very unbeatable. Correct me if I'm wrong because my biased low numbers of games, there's a way to counter that strategy? If yes, I would rethink all.

A. Possible counters with the actual design

1) Towers seems that when cav skirmishers gain a critical mass, doesn't kill them because the spread of the arrows. Is there a way to make the arrows like the aoe2? They are fired independent? Also, they don't work well if you have to cover to much territory, because the mobility of the cav skirmishers. This is a good design IMO cause the early role (for me) of the cav skirmishers should attack weak points.

Solution proposal 1: Fix the spread of the arrows of the towers, add a bonus of them against ranged cav.

2) Melee infantry should stay as it is, I think.

3) Ranged infantry gets killed by the superior HP of the cav. But, by the way, It's cost effective against them? I don't have the numbers. In Total War, ranged infantry counters ranged cav (big target, against small target, but maybe that doesn't stand historicity and it's just a gameplay decision)

Solution proposal 2: Make cheaper ranged infantry, or more expensive the cav skirmishers (in resources or in population) or add a bonus of ranged infantry against ranged cav (or both)

My opinion would be that the cost are fine. Maybe a population increase. Although in scheme I would give them a bonus, first I know that you don't like hard counters, and second, if ranged infantry is very useful against cav skirmishers (and every civ has them), would make them obsolete and people would just train back ranged infantry. Don't like this solution.

B. Changing cav skirmishers (and cav archers)

I think that harassing should be possible, even a way to victory, but has to be balanced to have a viable strategy to counter them. Nerfing the cav skirmishers stats shoudn't make them unusable the rest of the game. 

The patch proposes disabling the training of the unit in the CC. As other proposals, this change is a retardant of the ability to training them (having corrals, the need of a specific tech, an upgrade in the barracks, etc.). This will work only if enough breath is created to make others strategy viable.

But having them on the barracks, delays with a good time and price the ability to make them, and makes you choose between making cav skirmishers and rush, or train c/s for wood booming (and defending). Also t delays the food booming of hunting or corrals. I'm strong in favour with this.

Quote

cavalry for scouting or gathering meat ( they are the fastest meat gatherer over there). Grugnas

You still have cav skirmishers in phase I to do that. And a explorer unit could be created, with the skirmisher skin, but without the javelins props (with a low limit, or without it) for training in the CC (and without gathering meat capacity?)

Quote

I agree that skirmisher cavalry seems a bit too strong (accuracy thing) for dedicated players. But I'm not convinced either that the solution is to remove it from the CC. It should be viable to fight with all units in age 1, so I'd favor a balancing change on these units). Elexis

I agree in the viability thing of the unit, as I said it before. I don't have an opinion on the accuracy, but maybe nerfing that makes them unviable. It depens on numbers.

 

Also, an direct way of nerfing them, and for me it have a degree of realism (maybe I'm wrong), it's to make them unable of herding. I don't see mounted people taking food from sheeps. Although maybe hunting is the same (you need stealth skills), I think that have cav hunting have some fun and maybe it hasn't to be removed.

C. Introducing a new counter (Cav swordmen)

Having the cav skirmishers and their natural counter be able to train in the same time, it's just a necessity. Right now, by stats, isn't the cav swordmen the designed counter? (and one of the most available units for most civs?) Having the possibility of choose, maybe lead to a breath in the soft-counter system, giving more sense to train spearmen, and then swordmen or ranged infantry to counter the spears. 

But where they would train, the two in the CC? This proposal would be paired with the disabling of the training in the CC of the cav skirmishers.

 

So a tl;dr of solutions or proposals:
You can take them all, you can take one, or you can't take anyone at all:

-Towers:
1) fix spread
2) add a counter bonus against ranged cav

-Ranged infantry:
3) Change cost and/or population of cav skirmishers or ranged infantry to be cost effective against the first.
4) add a counter bonus against ranged cav

-Ranged cav

5) Nerf them (but thinking about later viability)
6) Disable to training in the CC and be only trainable on barracks
     6.1) And replace them with a explorer unit in the CC
7) Disable the ability to herd
     7.1) Disable to ability to herd and to hunt

-Cav swordmen

8) Be able to training them in barracks in phase I

 

My opinion would be in favour in fixing towers with an added bonus against ranged cav, maybe increase pop of all cavalry, 6), disabling them in the CC, disabling the ability to herd, and maybe allow cav swordmen to be build in phase I (if there's enough effective counters, I wouldn't). I'm against nerf them.

Remember that the changes and solution have to affect also the (Egyptian cav archers).

 

Different solutions, different approaches.

 

PD: I don't know if devs want to bring the Phabricator discussions here.. If not, I won't do it again.

Edited September 16, 2017 by av93

[Hannibal_Barca]

I don't think that the ranged cav problem should be solved like this.

For balance, check out the Vox Populi Mod or the Monkey Wrench Mod

Cavalry contributes to the fun of a game. You got problems with it? Try to adjust values or even requirements but don't remove it from the Civic Centre.

[Lion.Kanzen]

But have sense in  many ways.

• if you are starting a colony you don't have so many horses, unless you are a horse breeder.
• It doesn't  have sense an archer inside a tower can even have that accuracy or take a heavy horse man.
• the best counter ranged cavalry is... other horse rider.
• "Nerf them".... in  this way all units will be nerfed.
• I agree with 3 and 4 because is historical for most of factions.
• 6- we need investigate that unit, in AoM each faction have their own type.
• 7-(this don't have sense, hunting is one of things they do. Herd... can be nice quit some bonus.
• 8 depends of civ. For me cavalry can start to shine in phase 2. Mostly European faction are non cavalry faction.
• Increasing 2-3 pop max is fine we are count the horse, the rider and the trainer may be(?)

[Lion.Kanzen]

As I said before want horses, make a stable(addon) is the more logical.

palisades must be cheaper and some Sentry tower can help to defend farmland but this is turtle tactic.

add upgrade to have anticavalry palisades adding pikes.  Ranged infantry must have advantage.

archers more range,  skirmishers more damage and  slinger more  pierce damage and slinger  more crush damage

[Hannibal_Barca]

23 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

As I said before want horses, make a stable(addon) is the more logical.

palisades must be cheaper and some Sentry tower can help to defend farmland but this is turtle tactic.

add upgrade to have anticavalry palisades adding pikes.  Ranged infantry must have advantage.

archers more range,  skirmishers more damage and  slinger more  pierce damage and slinger  more crush damage

You only think of cavalry here, if you do these changes then A23 will be about archers and slingers.

Remember that slinger crush had  to be nerfed? Now you are asking for them to be buffed?

Cavalry can be handled in more proper ways, but this is not one of them.

[Lion.Kanzen]

They can take cavalry same as cavalry can take as they. Ever was used a kind of trash units.

Quote

the Scythian cavalry and the Bactrians, who had been drawn up with them, sallied forth against them and being much more numerous they put the small body of Greeks to rout. Alexander then ordered Aristo at the head of the Paeonians and Grecian auxiliaries to attack the Scythians, and the barbarians gave way. But the rest of the Bactrians, drawing near to the Paeonians and Grecian auxiliaries, caused their own comrades who were already in flight to turn and renew the battle; and thus they brought about a general cavalry engagement, in which more of Alexander's men fell, not only being overwhelmed by the multitude of the barbarians, but also because the Scythians themselves and their horses were much more completely protected with armour for guarding their bodies. Notwithstanding this, the Macedonians sustained their assaults, and assailing them violently squadron by squadron, they succeeded in pushing them out of rank.

the skirmisher and slinger are used to many proposes. Any of your balance can be better without mechanic of counter.

 

Or Judean slingers...etc

 

 

[Hannibal_Barca]

Increasing crush damage makes them better vs. buildings. Currently they are already just fine.

Basically quote all you want but I don't think this is a rational idea to buff slingers, archers or skirmishers. Cavalry can be balanced without making other units OP.

[Lion.Kanzen]

So use x2 vs cavalry and 

defenses x vs slinger or something else the problem is the slinger in real life don't use cut or pierce damage.

We can add more resistance to mostly buildings vs non siege units.

thats why is better have counters because you can take down slingers or the doble K.O slinger is strong if isn't engage at melee battle.

reduce health of slinger.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

I will propose a new thing... like AOE 3 siege damage.

http://ageofempires.wikia.com/wiki/Siege_Damage

[Hannibal_Barca]

I think these suggestions are only quickly thought up ideas with no solid conception nor set direction behind them

[Grugnas]

Most of your points have been taken in consideration in my balance mod Monkey Wrench.

Matter of fact i proposed a cavalry hp nerf in order to let buildings be more effective against cavalry, especially skirmish cav (spear cav can be hit by spearmen) without the need of a bonus against cavalry.

Despite the realism, sentry towers are weak against a bunch of skirmish cavalry which shouldn't destroy any building. Buildings should be basically immune to any kind of pierce damage.

Having a general reduction of ranged units Max Attack Range and scaling their accuracy would also make them more vulnerable to melee attacks (perhaps ranged units should also deal slightly less damage).

Indeed skirmishers deal more damage than melee units, but they should be easy to kill with no protection.

Spear cavalry should basically have a role as cavalry counter ( hard hit while in movement and higher attack range than a sword cav).

[Sundiata]

Sorry once again for spamming the idea, but 0AD needs dedicated stables for training cavalry! This is the only realistic and logical solution. People training a mass of cavalry-men in the first 5-10min is ridiculous. A weak scout cav for scouting/hunting/herding is the only cav unit that should be recruitable from the CC, at best... Large cavalry engagements should be the cherry on the icing of the cake, after building up a strong infantry, and not be spammed like some cheap infantry skirmishers. Most/all of the civs are infantry heavy anyway! 

Are there no horsemen on this forum to weigh in? I grew up riding horses and therefore understand the requirements of maintaining even just a few horses. They're high-maintenance! Breeding horses, training horses, training riders, and equipping horse and rider are tremendous investments, very difficult to accomplish without dedicated infrastructure. 

Stables are a great idea for a new structure for each civ, which is nice to brag about in future alpha releases. It's new content that will attract new players. 

Stables are a staple of every serious historic RTS. 

Stables... 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Make a stable for each faction.?

@LordGood @stanislas69 

[Sundiata]

Also, soldiers destroying buildings by fire should be a thing. I'd love to see a bunch of swordsmen hurling torches at houses, which start smoking and eventually catch fire, then collapse in a cloud of dust and smoke  

[Hannibal_Barca]

Persians already have one

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

Persians already have one

Even the mods.... afortunattly Millenium don't have problem. And Aristeia I made Egyptian Stable ...

but @wowgetoffyourcellphone How many stables you need?

[av93]

On 16/9/2017 at 2:59 PM, Hannibal_Barca said:

 

Cavalry contributes to the fun of a game. You got problems with it? Try to adjust values or even requirements but don't remove it from the Civic Centre.

 

Well, removing them from CC basically just delay the training, and makes you choose between invest in more general workers/soldiers or cav/food gatherers. Then it just a matter of tastes.

I agree that touching others ranged units stats are very dangerous.

On 16/9/2017 at 4:58 PM, Hannibal_Barca said:

I think these suggestions are only quickly thought up ideas with no solid conception nor set direction behind them

You mean Lion's ones? I think that I have well argued, although you can disagree on the propositions.

On 16/9/2017 at 6:00 PM, Grugnas said:

Despite the realism, sentry towers are weak against a bunch of skirmish cavalry which shouldn't destroy any building. Buildings should be basically immune to any kind of pierce damage.

 

Spear cavalry should basically have a role as cavalry counter ( hard hit while in movement and higher attack range than a sword cav).

In my taste, ranged units making some damage it's necessary for gameplay purposes (maybe not against walls).. and about cav spearman, too few civs have them (It really doesn't worry me, I love asymmetrical balance) and maybe historically would be the role of cav swordmen? I really don't know (And I think that gameplay comes first)

Edited January 17, 2018 by av93

[Lion.Kanzen]

Cavalry sword only works with units with less armor or weaker unit like missile.

becomes more relevant if uses a long sword.

[Sundiata]

1 minute ago, Hannibal_Barca said:

Persians already have one

All the more reason for the rest of the factions to have it as well. I never understood why only they get stables. Sure they loved horses, but even the Persians were infantry heavy, training cavalry separately, like everyone else did.

The only type of factions that don't need a dedicated stable are factions like the nomadic Xiognu, or Scythians. Of the factions already in-game though, Iberians are the only ones of which it can be argued that they don't need stables to train cavalry, because they're the only really cav-heavy civ, but that's another discussion I think.

[Lion.Kanzen]

@Sundiata because are cavalry faction?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Xiongu and Nomads are pure cavalry faction, they don't need barracks.

[Sundiata]

Yes. They could definitely have stables or a horse dedicated building/yurt/coral or whatever, my point was just that they don't necessarily need it to train horses, because they were basically born on horse-back.

They're the only factions that start out with cavalry. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Just now, Sundiata said:

Yes. They could definitely have stables or a horse dedicated building/yurt/coral or whatever, my point was just that they don't necessarily need it to train horses, because they were basically born on horse-back.

They're the only factions that start out with cavalry. 

Sorry but I don't understand the reason.

greek cities have the terrain for breed horses? I'm not sure...

but my proposal is add an addon to barracks if you want cavalry. Feneur years ago says they don't planned stables because the lack of artist.

[LordGood]

jeez

well, that's a fair amount of work

should totally add all of the original AoE buildings too. archery ranges siege workshops

champion academys

wee

[Lion.Kanzen]

I love your spirit even if is sarcasm.