Please reduce speed of battering ram

[thankforpie]

5 minutes ago, macemen said:

Which civilization are you playing? Seleucids have swordsmen from the Military Colony (Thracian Black Coats). Ptolemies also have swordsmen from their Military Colony (Galatian (?) Swordsman). The Kushites have the Napa (?) Clubman that has hack attack if I remember correctly. You can also use your elephants to destroy rams to great effects.

so Hack the type of attack working vs rams? I thought its Crush because wiki says crush is effective for buildings and siege machines

[Guest]

Hack and crush. Pierce is useless though, hence the undesirable side effect of spears and pikes being ineffective.

[macemen]

Hack is the most effective as the ram has just 1 hack armor.

[Diptangshu]

19 hours ago, thankforpie said:

althrough im new, i noticed typical game looks like players make a lot of archers for the back and a lot of melee for the front and they also include siege machines. my fav civs dont have battering rams so i send 5 elephants. my enemy sends 5 battering rams.

 

battering rams take dmg from all archers and some melees and are alive. they crush building by building till they get CC.

my elephants maybe crush one building then die from archers either ungarisoned or garrisoned in fortress (elephants are very vulnerable for arrows) (actually thats why i gave up on crushing fortress with elephants, its never worth it, all your elephant die just from 20 garisoned units, while one battering ram would be enough in this case to take down fortress).

one battering ram can take as much damage as siege tower can or even more? and he has 5 of them, and they crush bases at insane speed.

 

i also had 5 catapults in base just to counter rams but they deal much less damage than rams that i barely killed one ram with 5 catapults (and they were firing constantly).

 

enemy dont even need to invest in infantry, they can use rams to block most of damage and no matter what you do you are in losing position even if you win the battle with him you wont kill 5 rams in time. (even if you win battle (i mean kill most of his human units) he will get your CC , next time he will get CC and barracks, progressing in each attack even if you had advantage in eco and army (and thats because you usually dont have enough firepower to kill even half of his rams, well I have the units but they dont do dmg))

 

maybe im missing something but my barracks have 0 swordsmen and pikes+spearmen+archers do very low damage to rams.

 

 

 

Yes, it's a genuine problem for organic siege based civilizations. In fact, I know that whenever a elephant rushes, no one can stop it forcefully but in game, it always take a turn in response to a obstruction. Again, elephants can also cause a trample damage for nearby units (even the allies or own units), but this feature haven't been still implemented. So, it always seems to be disadvantageous to use Carthaginians, Kushites, Mauryans, Ptolemies, Seleucids. As, they have only Elephants for close sieging...

Again, as the main topic of this discussion suggest that the excessive speed of a ram also make them more utilisable (probably more than the real history), so there should be a reduction in speed (at least, it should be less than the speed of a war elephant). On the other hand, a ram can't cause a momentum induced damage but an elephant can cause it. It will be better if the authority put such kind of modifications in their future releases.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Diptangshu

[dmzerocold]

56 minutes ago, Diptangshu said:

elephants can also cause a trample damage for nearby units

I think elephants needs charge  

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, Diptangshu said:

Yes, it's a genuine problem for organic siege based civilizations

I don't think elephants should be siege units per se. They should be spec'd as the ultimate battlefield melee unit rather than as a substitute for battering rams.  Perhaps a bonus vs. gates, and then that's their only "siege" bonus. Sure, they could be good vs. buildings due to their high hack damage, but they aren't a substitute for battering rams. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

21 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't think elephants should be siege units per se. They should be spec'd as the ultimate battlefield melee unit rather than as a substitute for battering rams.  Perhaps a bonus vs. gates, and then that's their only "siege" bonus. Sure, they could be good vs. buildings due to their high hack damage, but they aren't a substitute for battering rams. 

basically  an ultralisk  unit in 0 A.D a mêlée unit that can tank several attacks.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Right, the ultimate meat shield, with trample and charge effects, etc.

[Diptangshu]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't think elephants should be siege units per se. They should be spec'd as the ultimate battlefield melee unit rather than as a substitute for battering rams.  Perhaps a bonus vs. gates, and then that's their only "siege" bonus. Sure, they could be good vs. buildings due to their high hack damage, but they aren't a substitute for battering rams. 

But, it's true that elephants can run at a speed of 40-50 kmph when they are agitated but a battering ram can only move at a speed of 4-5 kmph(maximum). Again, it also can't change direction so easily (may be a special bonus of speed for each unit garrisoned inside the ram). So, how the speed of a ram and a elephant are equal?

[Sundiata]

I've mentioned it before, but I think every civilization needs a battering ram as the standard close range siege-equipment. It's not some kind of technological marvel that only the brightest thinkers of the ancient world could figure out. It's just a glorified log to smash down a door... (see the Xiongnu ram)  

As with many civ-specific details in this game, the fact that some civs have rams and others don't doesn't seem to be based on anything tangible/not based in history. It's rather a cheap way of differentiating civs. The reason this annoys me, like starting walls for the Iberians or free houses for the Ptolemies, is that they not only seem to be poorly thought out, but actual historical nuances between the civs that make sense are continually shunned for "balance" concerns. 

[greedisgood500]

9 hours ago, dmzerocold said:

I think elephants needs charge  

I hear elephant is scary when they hurted and near dead.maybe a bloodlust buff at low hp?

[dmzerocold]

4 minutes ago, greedisgood500 said:

I hear elephant is scary when they hurted and near dead.maybe a bloodlust buff at low hp?

Yeah and not only when they gurt also when they really scare of something.... (for example fire) , they go berserk , when they berserk they kill ally units as well...

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

As with many civ-specific details in this game, the fact that some civs have rams and others don't doesn't seem to be based on anything tangible/not based in history. It's rather a cheap way of differentiating civs. The reason this annoys me, like starting walls for the Iberians or free houses for the Ptolemies, is that they not only seem to be poorly thought out, but actual historical nuances between the civs that make sense are continually shunned for "balance" concerns. 

I think it wasn't decided upon whether civilizations used it. But rather whether they use alternative means, like an elephant. In which case, that means was given to a civilization instead of a ram. IMO, such civs could be given weaker rams instead of no ram (who wouldn't know how to hit a wall with a log?). No 100 pierce armor if the ram is just a log.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Guest

[Diptangshu]

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

I've mentioned it before, but I think every civilization needs a battering ram as the standard close range siege-equipment. It's not some kind of technological marvel that only the brightest thinkers of the ancient world could figure out. It's just a glorified log to smash down a door... (see the Xiongnu ram)  

As with many civ-specific details in this game, the fact that some civs have rams and others don't doesn't seem to be based on anything tangible/not based in history. It's rather a cheap way of differentiating civs. The reason this annoys me, like starting walls for the Iberians or free houses for the Ptolemies, is that they not only seem to be poorly thought out, but actual historical nuances between the civs that make sense are continually shunned for "balance" concerns. 

Okay, it's true but elephants still need some kind of modifications. Again, unfortunately it costs 400 wood and 250 stone to construct a catapult but a battering ram can be constructed at a much cheaper resources. So, it always seems that in battle, who ever has rams , has the mere advantage (i.e. face to face open battlefield). So, I think catapults should cost equal amount of resources like the rams(may be in the amount of woods).

[Guest]

Actually, if this were to change someone needs to do something. This discussion could go on forever.

I would try to tweak some values and make a mod. It might go in for A24. Even if it doesnt, experimenting doesnt hurt.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Guest

[Sundiata]

22 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

I think it wasn't decided upon whether civilizations used it. But rather whether they use alternative means, like an elephant. In which case, that means was given to a civilization instead of a ram. IMO, such civs could be given weaker rams instead of no ram (who wouldn't know how to hit a wall with a log?). No 100 pierce armor if the ram is just a log.

Ah, indeed. As it's been brought up before more than once though, including in this thread, elephants weren't primarily used for sieging, although they could definitely take down simple structures and ram gates. Elephants were more of a risky elite battlefront unit, used to scare the living daylights of anyone on the other side. Their ability to take down structures should be a nice extra, but not their main feature. That task belongs to proper siege equipment. Wasn't @LordGood working on a tunneling mechanic to undermine walls? That's another siege-tactic that was pretty universally used (and effective), and can help mitigate the lack in other siege-equipment for some civs. 

[LordGood]

It was deemed too hacky to be of practical use

[Sundiata]

29 minutes ago, LordGood said:

It was deemed too hacky to be of practical use

The subterranean slow bolt shooter thing didn't work out? Any plans to make it less hacky? Twas pretty cool... And mind you, I was originally skeptical towards sapping techniques in RTS-games...

[LordGood]

The templates have broken in the past few alphas and all i have is the  gaul model. I'm not a programmer, so  hacky is all I can really do on my own.

underground projectile isn't too bad, just needs particle effects on my end, a smaller (perhaps animated) decal, and dedicated sounds of course.

problems i cant fix are the projectile continuing after the source building is destroyed/ garrison is ejected, and the inability to kill soldiers in a collapsed tunnel.

[Rolf Dew]

Why don't we reduce the movement and attack speed of the ram, so it would take longer to destroy buildings and suspectible to other units

[Sundiata]

37 minutes ago, LordGood said:

animated decal

This would be so nice... The first slow projectile representing the actual digging of the tunnel, would generate a moving decal of disturbed earth until it hits the wall. The following projectiles could generate dust at the base of the wall, representing the actual sapping. 

Maybe this could be done by specialized one-time sapping units trained at the siege-workshop. Like, three grimy guys with shovels. One-time units, because, let's face it, those poor saps probably didn't have a high survival rate, and I assume it would make coding a little easier if they just die at the end of the attack. They would build a simple tunnel entrance, and then enter, disappearing from sight. Then it would be like 4 slow "bullets": one bullet for digging, generating the decal, and three bullets for each of the sappers. The first bullet only generates the decal. The following three bullets generate dust at the base of the wall. After the final "bullet" hits, the wall collapses (and your sappers die/disappear under the rubble, a worthy sacrifice).

You would just task the sappers to attack a wall or any other structure of choice, and they would automatically construct the tunnel entrance at the same site siege-equipment would choose to unpack, out of range of the towers of whatever it's attacking. The entrance to the tunnel (looking like a small mine entrance) can be destroyed by the enemy, thereby killing the sappers (lack of oxygen). 

(the disturbed ground decal would slowly dissipate over time)

So we need a code-charmer huh... Anyone feel compelled? 

 

33 minutes ago, Rolf Dew said:

Why don't we reduce the movement and attack speed of the ram, so it would take longer to destroy buildings and suspectible to other units

I think most people want this. Also, units specialized at taking out rams, like sword units, shouldn't ignore rams on the battlefield. It's good that that ranged units automatically focus on organic units, but swordsmen should give equal priority to killing organic and inorganic units like siege and rams. This would do a lot to eliminate unnecessary/unnatural/annoying micro when there's rams on the battlefield. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Sundiata

[Stan`]

We should really feed our balancing changes into a ML algorithm in the future. Then add some KPI over the release the mods etc stating how good they were. And crunch all those numbers into something like you tried this and it messed up because of that. Could also find better numbers.

Anyway about tunneling yeah an underground bolt shooter with what may look like a tunnel entrance as a special building could work 

We don't have animated textures with the exception of water which IIRC is a huge hack. That's one of the backlog tickets 

Of course one could animate a deforming tunnel but it will only look good on flat terrain.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I'm going to make some changes to rams and eles in DE based on some of the discussion here. Rams will be rarer and slower. An individual ram approaching your walls should cause you a bit of anxiety, while for the attacker their anxiety comes from using such an expensive unit. The same thing should occur with siege towers, but those are a completely different discussion and need custom code, imho. 

One thing's for sure: the era of massed rams should and will come to an end.

Edited September 19, 2018 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Guest]

Not sure of the exact details, but I do have some plans to split ships and siege towers from buildingAI. This would atleast make it more flexible and easier to change in the future.

Still waiting for that rerelease xD.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Guest

[Stan`]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone Soft or Hard Limit of the number of rams ?

1 hour ago, (-_-) said:

Not sure of the exact details, but I do have some plans to split ships and siege towers from buildingAI. This would atleast make it more flexible and easier to change in the future.

Do you know there are work in progress for this ? I don't have the diffs number in my head but I think fatherbushido started something with Itms input.