Not very useful heroes

[Jofursloft]

In 0ad I noticed that there are some heroes that most people don't consider. I propose or to implement better auras for them or maybe make sure that every hero can be recruited only 1 time during the game (an idea that other players like Feldfeld already had). In my opinion these heroes are:

- Agis III (Sparta): he is practically an unuseful hero, because he doesn't own an aura and his melee attack is not enough strong. Considering that there are other 2 heroes with a fight aura, it would be good to increase his melee damage, maybe to 50-100, to create a useful hero in the fight (maybe not to send against the enemy army but to send in the enemy base).

- Seleucus I "The victor" (Seleucids): his +20% movement speed and attack for war elephants makes him a not very used hero. This because the elephants are not the siege unit that most people that use seleucids train: catapult spam is really better. Why not to extend that aura to every siege weapon?

-Xerses I (Persia): why not to extend his +15% gather rate for workers to the whole map? There is Britomartus (gaul hero) that has a +15% global gather rate aura

- Pericles (Athenians): why not to extend his +15% build and repair rate for workers to the whole map? He has not enough strong abilities now

[Guest]

Maybe you would be interested in D1400 by Hannibal. Auras and bonuses are greatly reviewed in that diff. Some of it got in for A23, rest may or may not be committed for A24.

[nani]

58 minutes ago, Jofursloft said:

maybe not to send against the enemy army but to send in the enemy base

Using hero to kill unprotected women in enemy base should not be the purpose of heros in 0ad ....

[Jofursloft]

Well, that's true, but I don't find Agis very useful in a frontal fight. Maybe for a op dancer hero. Surely that hero would be useful in Regicide

[Feldfeld]

34 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

Maybe you would be interested in D1400 by Hannibal. Auras and bonuses are greatly reviewed in that diff. Some of it got in for A23, rest may or may not be committed for A24.

All of them are in my mod

[greedisgood500]

5 hours ago, nani said:

Using hero to kill unprotected women in enemy base should not be the purpose of heros in 0ad ....

that what i do with cavalry hero ...

I also feel that some hero got 3 ability while other is a melee only with the garrison skill only and 500 more hp was a  bit bad......
we could assume they still thinking what skill give to what hero.

imo the worst is some hero give you option to build/train something.I always kill the Mauryans hero after I building enough of his special building....

[nani]

On 9/16/2018 at 6:39 PM, greedisgood500 said:

that what i do with cavalry hero ...

[greedisgood500]

20 hours ago, nani said:

cheap tactic for AI(might useful for vs human too),go to get ur hero severely wounded (prefer 1500 hp),and call him back to base let a healer heal him to full.
should get a healer from 1st rank to max rank,since level 3 healer is much stronger and last longer.this cheap tactics can train like 3-4 max healer in a few raid

[Rolf Dew]

On 9/16/2018 at 12:50 PM, nani said:

Using hero to kill unprotected women in enemy base should not be the purpose of heros in 0ad ....

What if we make the movement speed of heroes much slower, that way they can't raid very efficiently,  but are still good in combat

[Lion.Kanzen]

30 minutes ago, BigBan said:

But i am not interested in D1400 by Hannibai

...very wierd answer.

[Diptangshu]

Again, there is  more...

Chandragupta Maurya--- He has practically no aura

Again, Elephant based heroes has no need to give them inspired technology aura for garrisoned buildings. It's really seems to be a misnomer or a fake aura for such units. As per my knowledge, only Mauryans, Kushites, Persians have access to elephant stables (in which Mauryans are the only implemented civilization for alpha23).

Again, Carthaginian heroes lack a proper useful aura. Only Maharbal has a cavalry attack based aura whereas Roman heroes are quite helpful and give a lot of advantages to the player.

As I know, during the journey of Hannibal to Rome, he recruited a lot of mercenary units against Rome that nearly doubled his army. So, the allied attack based aura should be changed to an aura based on less cost for mercenary units (like 15% or 20% less cost for all or atleast some kind of mercenaries). It would be better for the game, history and equality for civ choices.

[Jofursloft]

3 hours ago, Diptangshu said:

Chandragupta Maurya--- He has practically no aura

I agree, the fact that he is a trainer hero doesn't countet the absence of an aura: the time to train champs from him is very high. I propose maybe a way to reclute that champion archer units from barracks (more equal).

3 hours ago, Diptangshu said:

 Again, Carthaginian heroes lack a proper useful aura. Only Maharbal has a cavalry attack based aura whereas Roman heroes are quite helpful and give a lot of advantages to the player.

I consider a good hero also Hamilcar Barca: he is very powerful against a civ like ptolemies

3 hours ago, Diptangshu said:

 As I know, during the journey of Hannibal to Rome, he recruited a lot of mercenary units against Rome that nearly doubled his army. So, the allied attack based aura should be changed to an aura based on less cost for mercenary units (like 15% or 20% less cost for all or atleast some kind of mercenaries). It would be better for the game, history and equality for civ choices.

The main problem of this is that the mercenaries can't be trained from barracks, so it is not so good if we consider we can train mercenaries only from 2 buildings

[Diptangshu]

34 minutes ago, Jofursloft said:

The main problem of this is that the mercenaries can't be trained from barracks, so it is not so good if we consider we can train mercenaries only from 2 buildings

Yes, you're right...

It's not so much advantageous for Carthaginians, may be it wouldn't be a problem if we add a feature that counts the number of Civic Centers and according to it gives the player an opportunity to have more than 2 embassies. Like, if the anonymous player has 2 Civic Center then he can build 1 or 2 more additional embassies.(i.e. for each 1 or 2 Civic Centers he/she can build 1 additional embassy). I also consider the same thing for Kushites, as they also have embassy.

On the other hand, according to the link---https://historum.com/threads/military-equipment-and-the-organization-of-the-army-in-mauryan-india.40710/

It also clearly states that after defeating Seleucus I Nicator, Mauryan army also start hiring Thracian petlast and superior Dravidian mercenary warriors. In fact, Herodotus also mistook Dravidians as Eastern Ethiopians (or probably described it in his own way). And at last, they also recruit tribals in exchange of gold or land as mercenary skrimisher. So, it is obvious that skrimishers are not forbidden class in Mauryan warfare.

“The division of the army into the four arms, Kautilya also divides the army into five different categories, not based on troop type, but on the nature of the warriors serving in the respective category. These categories are as follows: hereditary army, hired army, guild army, allied army, and the army of wild tribes (Arth. 7.7). The hereditary army was probably those that belonged to the Kshatriya caste, i.e. warriors (Rapson 1955), and would probably have constituted the majority of the Mauryan army, while hired troops are, obviously, mercenaries. The guild army is somewhat more complicated to analyse. Different authors have different interpretations of these, and while some argue that they were members of various trade guilds and corporations, who were bound to serve in times of need (Majumdar 1955), others suggest that there may have been warrior-guilds made up of professional soldiers who were contracted by the state to fight in campaigns (Rapson 1955). The latter alternative seems rather too similar to the mercenaries to have been considered a distinct type of warrior by Kautilya, but it is still a possibility. Allied armies constitute forces that allied kings and vassals supply. These forces would often be lent by allied kings, who found it in their interest to help fight a common enemy, but also forces that local Rajas would send to the Maharajadhiraja. They would also consist of Kshatriyas, just like ordinary hereditary forces (Rapson 1955). Finally, we have the wild forest tribes. These would most likely have acted as skirmishers that screened the main army in battle (Rapson 155). These forces consisted of wild tribes that lived in forests and mountains within the kingdom’s domains. What the equipment of such warriors would have been is not known, but an idea of what it might have been like can perhaps be derived from Herodotos. The so called “Eastern Ethiopians”, that Herodotos lists among the different peoples of Ḫšayāršā's army have sometimes been interpreted as being native Indian Dravidan warriors (Rawlinson 1971). This theory is further supported by the fact that in ancient times, India and Ethiopia were often believed to be one coherent landmass, and that Herodotos mentions that the Eastern Ethiopians were placed next to the Indians in the battle array. They are described as being dressed and equipped similarly to the Indians, but they wore the hide from a horse’s head as a helmet, and used shields made out of the hide of a crane. These, then, are the various forces that, according to Kautilya, an army could be made out of. Regarding the organisation, this has already been discussed, so I will just go through this very briefly. The army would often be commanded by the emperor, but the administration was overseen by an official of ministerial dignity, called the Senapati. According to Megasthenes, the Senapati had below him a war office consisting of six boards that each had a certain area of responsibility (Majumdar 1955). The first was for the navy, the second for logistics, and the following four for each of the four arms of the army: infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants. Thus, the Mauryan Empire had an efficient administrative system for their armed forces, which enabled them to keep armies of unusually large sizes whilst being able to manage and command them efficiently.”

Primary sources: (Unfortunately, the amount of Indian primary sources is cetainly lacking when taken to that of Greeks so more Greeks sources were included).

Aelian: De Natura Animalium

Arrianos: Anabasis Alexandri.

Arrianos: Indika.

Herodotos: Historiai.

Kautilya: Arthashastra

Megasthenes: Indika (fragments).

Strabon: Geographia

Secondary sources:

Bhardwaj, H.C. (1978). Aspects of Ancient Indian technology.

Boesche, R. (2003). The First Great Political Realist.

Majumdar, B.K. (1955). The Military System in Ancient India.

Rapson, E. (ed). (1955). Cambridge History of India(CHI).

Singh, S.D. (1965). Ancient Indian Warfare with Special Reference to the Vedic Age.

Keay, J. (2000). India – A History.

Egerton, W.E. (2002). Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour.

Chakrabarti, D.K. (1976). “Rajagriha: An Early Historic Site in East India”, World Archeaology, 7(3).

From Europa Barbarorum.

(It's a off topic discussion, so please allow me at least that much space for such a broad discussion, as it comes into my mind after seeing another site about influences of Mauryan heroes)

Edited September 24, 2018 by Diptangshu

[Altrine]

There are stuff in deference in heroes in each Civ as for example in Ptolemies we can have a variety of uses in all three heroes for example Ptolemy IV is good for defense as triangle 20 pikemen with him and hold a ground and something and if celophatra VII for attack and Ptolemy I Sorter for using in home defense as after attack easy to rebuild and form a new army to attack and he is a good seige. But in some Civ like Britons we mostly take Boudicca as its the only one with decent attacks and speed as if we send 5-10 more carrtios it would make a decent army but the second and third are useless as for seige in Britons no one needs it garrisoned as we use Britons only for rush and most games never train an hero waste of time and in Athenian we never mostly pick ( expect naval battles)  and only pick any one for the three as mostly the three of them as useless in land. So, it would be better to give all heroes decent boosts or attack to make it balanced. 

 

 

[Jofursloft]

2 hours ago, Altrine said:

But in some Civ like Britons we mostly take Boudicca as its the only one with decent attacks and speed as if we send 5-10 more carrtios it would make a decent army but the second and third are useless as for seige in Britons no one needs it garrisoned as we use Britons only for rush and most games never train an hero waste of time and in Athenian we never mostly pick ( expect naval battles)  and only pick any one for the three as mostly the three of them as useless in land. So, it would be better to give all heroes decent boosts or attack to make it balanced. 

Boudica is worst Briton hero I personally think. In fact a few people makes champions in team games or 1v1, so it's practically unuseful. Caratacus +15% speed and +1 armor to soldiers, that is a good boost, while the best, Cunobellio, heals your soldiers decently and is a good unit for dancing too

[DarcReaver]

Question is rather what the Heroes are actually needed for? I mean, at all? They come very late in the game, and are intended for what? attacking, defending, support the economy, support the Army? Create a global bonus to units? I mean what's the point to train a combat unit from a lategame military building that makes gatherers work faster? And why would a hero somewhere on the map make all workers gather faster? There'S no logic behind that except for "we need to find a bonus for this hero type".

Followup then is why you need a battlefield unit for economic bonuses or army bonuses is necessary in the first place? Why not make heroes selectible via a "commander" system similar to AoM, or Company of Heroes instead to "modify" your army and grant access to certain bonuses? If you keep heroes as combat units:  what about a morale system that affects units that are nearby a hero for battlefield heroes? Experience gain for troops etc.? What about an in depth combat system with combat tactcics like flanking and dynamic sight range?

On 9/16/2018 at 11:50 AM, Jofursloft said:

In 0ad I noticed that there are some heroes that most people don't consider. I propose or to implement better auras for them or maybe make sure that every hero can be recruited only 1 time during the game (an idea that other players like Feldfeld already had). In my opinion these heroes are:

- Seleucus I "The victor" (Seleucids): his +20% movement speed and attack for war elephants makes him a not very used hero. This because the elephants are not the siege unit that most people that use seleucids train: catapult spam is really better. Why not to extend that aura to every siege weapon?

So your proposal is that because Elephants are not useful the aura should affect other siege weapons to make those Catapults even more efficient when spammed? Good idea...

Edited October 21, 2018 by DarcReaver

[Jofursloft]

3 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

Create a global bonus to units? I mean what's the point to train a combat unit from a lategame military building that makes gatherers work faster? And why would a hero somewhere on the map make all workers gather faster? There'S no logic behind that except for "we need to find a bonus for this hero type".

In fact in my opinion some hero bonuses shouldn't be global, but they should be associated to a small/large aura, mostly eco ones. Anyway, we ave also to look at the history. I am a historical, but maybe these heroes have economy global bonus or repair rate because they introduce reforms about it. 

3 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

Question is rather what the Heroes are actually needed for? I mean, at all? They come very late in the game, and are intended for what? attacking, defending, support the economy, support the Army?

I need heroes for 3 main reason: they give most time a useful bonus, they are a good tank unit for battlefield. Except mauritanian healer hero that has a really weak armor, other heroes, independently from their bonus are useul in fight, because you have a tank unit to dance / distract the enemy units

3 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

So your proposal is that because Elephants are not useful the aura should affect other siege weapons to make those Catapults even more efficient when spammed? Good idea...

Also because there is at the moment only one hero that makes catapults more efficient: Cleopatra

[DarcReaver]

Since when did "heroes" release reforms while they were moving around the battlefield with their armies? And furthermore, what's the point of a limited area aura for i.e. metalworking on villagers? This essentially forces unit that is supposed to tank damage on the battlefield (and costs a ton of resources )should stay near some villager women to make them collect berries faster? Yea sure... 

There's just no logic behind that. If heroes are to be taken as "historical" the mechanic currently present is crap.

Just make 3 "commander type" heroes instead, chooseable via pop up screen at a certain time of the game (i.e. when the first city gets access to phase III) and this then either unlocks a couple of passive bonuses and/or unique technologies that the other "heroes" have no access to. Alternatively bind this mechanic to cities and actually create a concept around this. Or at least something that is slightly original ...

Edited October 22, 2018 by DarcReaver

[Jofursloft]

1 hour ago, DarcReaver said:

This essentially forces unit that is supposed to tank damage on the battlefield (and costs a ton of resources )should stay near some villager women to make them collect berries faster? Yea sure... 

Maybe I used bad words to explain what I wanted to say. I think that fight heroes should all be associated to a aura (like most of them currently are), while heroes that in their life introducted or promulgated edicts about for example boosts for the economy, should be all global. Every hero must also be a tank unit for battlefield, or the role of the hero doesn't make much sense. 

The type of heroes that are closer to my idea at the moment are Hyrule Conquest ones. They all have a particular unit that can be trained only if you choose him, they unlock a particular type of economy upgrade (really useful most of times) and they have different types of auras for battlefield. Hyrule Conquest is what approached better what a hero should look like. Also, you can train only 1/4 heroes that you choose at the beginning of the game. 

In fact, what doesn't make sense to me is also the fact that a player can train different heroes during the game more times.