Borg Expansion Pack Mod Release V 1.0.5

[borg-]

1 hour ago, Glestul said:

Please also fix in Version 4 or in future autopacking unpacking that is also very annoying

This is something I will look at more carefully for version 1.4.

[Silier]

42 minutes ago, Glestul said:

Mauryan working elephant should have a menu of buildings like citizen soldier has.

Actually I think this would be weird for elephant to be able to build and if unit cannot actually build structures, it should not have ability to place one. (just my opinion)

[Sundiata]

27 minutes ago, Angen said:

Actually I think this would be weird for elephant to be able to build and if unit cannot actually build structures, it should not have ability to place one. (just my opinion)

Mauryan elephants can build, which is super weird if you ask me. They can't initiate a construction, but they can build it. 

I think like free ptolemaic houses and starting walls for the Iberians, it's one of those civ specific things that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Having the elephant boost construction speed when other units are already building seems really cool and even intuitive, but the elephant building by itself is weird.

[borg-]

2 hours ago, Glestul said:

Mauryan working elephant should have a menu of buildings like citizen soldier has.

Elephants have no thinking ability to build something alone, so they are just helpers.

[borg-]

17 minutes ago, Glestul said:

The reason why i complain here is because i know there is another version of the game developers call svn or subversion and they play it with different stats.

And we have to play this alpha 23 garbage, but thanx to Borg Expansion Pack we dont have to anymore. Once more game is again great.

Anyone can play SVN.

It's just the developmental version, the new things that came up in the a24, will be there.

[Silier]

@Glestul you are free to download development version and play it. However I do not think there have been significant changes to stats if any since a23b release. So I am not sure what you are trying to say. Sure if there are changes they will be first in dev version and after that in release. I do not know what is wrong with that. And I do not know how would you test any change in game if not by playing the game? So yes, devs play game with different stats and features. And sometimes they have to play the same map over and over again just to balance it or at least to make sure some player is not overpowered by position.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 3/14/2019 at 2:56 PM, Glestul said:

I have played Dalenda ESt mod today and its also excllent,  you should merge what is good with your mod, chinse civ and the other stuff like making catapults on field. I also like making storehouses  outside of border zone. But making house limit to 20 is very bad and also there are are some good upgrades but upgrades for military are missing. I think you shou merge that tech from farmstead and i also like a choice in specializing either on wood cutting or on stone mining. 

I will write longer opinion when i play more however i like Borg Expansion Pack more, for now i would say that Dalenda Est mod has start of the game that i really like, first 15 min is playing in peace thats how i like it but then there are no tech to do for units i think there isnt even a workshop but i have only played thebes and chinese so far.

 

 

Keep playin. Lol

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

@borg-

 

[borg-]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

@borg-

 

Tnx so much!!!

[borg-]

Guys, version 1.0.4 of the mod is already available, with several cool new things.

[Lion.Kanzen]

59 minutes ago, borg- said:

Guys, version 1.0.4 of the mod is already available, with several cool new things.

which? (the most importants to you)

[Stan`]

7 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

which? (the most importants to you)

See the first post.

[borg-]

8 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

which? (the most importants to you)

Changelog on first post.

[elexis]

I didn't read all posts of all related threads, but these are relevant points I found so far:

• Account for the previous game designs:
  • Hard-counters were designed already in 2004, it ought to be implemented or consciously argued against it, not ignored.
• Account for the development process:
  • Reach out to devs:
    • It is rare that people make gifts towards each other, seeking out developers and asking them questions when and how something may be reviewed is much more successful than offering something and hoping that someone will come around and do the hard work without being bothered. It shouldn't be like that, but it is.
  • Package it for devs:
    • Entirely unrelated features should not be added, the more features are combined in one diff, the harder it becomes to review and audit, the more oversights and mistakes are added, the more has to be fixed in retrospect.
    • It can only be committed for a24 / svn, not a23. The longer this is postponed, the more changes gets added to a24, the harder it becomes to transform it for a24.
• Successful communication:
  • Communication is bidirectional, so I guess if we haven't conveyed the information what we wanted to change, then we probably didn't express ourselves appropriately. But communication is bidirectional, so you also always have the choice to read statements multiple times and ask questions for those that you didn't understand. At least I asked the above two points before in the lobby and on the forums already.

About the design stage, I didn't reall all versions from the design documents, nor all related forum threads. But fatherbushido posted it in 2017 already, we reminded in december 2018 again to evaluate that, it must be done before thinking about having your proposal commited.

On 8/10/2017 at 6:38 PM, fatherbushido said:

All that work had already be done many times (and is also done in some mods). 

IIrc, one of the final version in 2004 was something like that. 

The source for this hadn't been posted.

It's from 2004, so from the time when 0 A.D. was closed source (< July 2009). After 0 A.D. was open-sourced, noone had spent the time to try to make these relevant threads public. I spent the last months on IRC logs with that regard, when/if I finished that I will try to publish it for all versions of the design documents (unless something changes my destiny) and relevant old forum threads, but this will take a while. Perhaps this thread can be published, perhaps as a PDF. It was discussed by WIjitmaker (project founder), Acumen (programming manager) and Phoenix-The-Real-Deal (Ken Wood)

This should be accounted for, at least by the one who does the review if not by the general public.

[Genava55]

 

2 hours ago, elexis said:

 

Outside some clear issues as the slingers efficient against structure and lance cavalry against infantry, how battalions will fit in this? In the long term, if it will be implanted, this framework won't survive.

[Stan`]

7 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Outside some clear issues as the slingers efficient against structure and lance cavalry against infantry, how battalions will fit in this? In the long term, if it will be implanted, this framework won't survive.

I'm not sure, but isn't a battalion of spearmen the same as a spearman when it comes to being efficient against cavalry ? 

[elexis]

2 hours ago, elexis said:

Perhaps this thread can be published

Oh it's public now. I don't know if it was public before already or if someone moved it.

Anyhow, the linked graphcis are broken, but the cited graphcis above comes from this thread. The links were broken 2 months ago and there hasn't been a response to my posts and proposed fixes yet. (That's what I meant with noone handing out gifts.) (Editing the thread manually may work for this specific thread but won't scale to fix all old threads.)I'll just funnily attach it here:

Spoiler

 

 

rps.zip

 

I guess the text is more important, but if the graphcis are missed, the text that refers to the graphics becomes less comprehensible.

Edited May 16, 2019 by elexis

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ram will be taken by almost every unit except defenses. that's why isn't super op tank to spam in AoE 2.

same with slingers less hp may be.

[borg-]

Counter system is really hard to work with, because it needs to be realistic, but it is impossible to follow it 100% true to the real world.

I could have done by unit type as Cav > ranged > melee infantry. But that would be strange because we will have several units with the same proposal, example: archer, skirmishers and slinges. How it would work the skirmisher cavalry and archer cavalry?? They must have bonuses against ranged for being cavalry or against melee infantry for being ranged??

I discarded this possibility and prefer to make a system based on each unit of the game.

How the system works now:

Spearman - pikeman > All cavalry and elephants;

Archer - slinger > Melee infantry;

Javelinist infantry - Archer, archer cavalry and slinger.

Swordman infantry > Does not have a bonus, but has a better status than the other units, so it becomes naturally "good" against everything;

Spearman cavalry > All cavalry and elephants; (same infantry spearman standard)

Archer cavalry > Melee infantry (same infantry archer standard)

Javelinist cavalry > Archer, archer cavalry and slinger (same infantry javelinist standard)

Well, we have some more bonuses that happen naturally, per example: Swordman cavalry and Spearman cavalry > ranged.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by borg-

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, elexis said:

Oh it's public now. I don't know if it was public before already or if someone moved it.

Anyhow, the linked graphcis are broken, but the cited graphcis above comes from this thread. The links were broken 2 months ago and there hasn't been a response to my posts and proposed fixes yet. (That's what I meant with noone handing out gifts.) (Editing the thread manually may work for this specific thread but won't scale to fix all old threads.)I'll just funnily attach it here:

  Hide contents

 

 

rps.zip 57.55 kB · 1 download

 

I guess the text is more important, but if the graphcis are missed, the text that refers to the graphics becomes less comprehensible.

bonus...

 

https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Counter

Quote

There are 16 total armor classes for units and 5 for buildings, thus complicating which unit is better suited to deal with enemies in different situations. Some units even serve very specific niches: an example is the Condottiero. This unit boasts an attack bonus of + 10 against units with gunpowder unit armor class combined with a unique armor class that makes it quite resistant to gunpowder units, which makes them an excellent choice to counter specific units, such as Hand Cannoneers.

Quote

Exceptional units among this counter system are ones which revert the mechanic, like the Destroyer and Huskarlinfantry units being resistant or even strong against archers. Chinese cavalry are based around on a reversed mechanic, such as the anti-infantry Cataphract, anti-cavalry mounted archer-cavalry hybrid, the Mounted Archer, and Scout Cavalry being part of a basic cheap cavalry.

https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Unique_unit_(Age_of_Empires_II)

Edited May 16, 2019 by Lion.Kanzen

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, borg- said:

Counter system is really hard to work with, because it needs to be realistic, but it is impossible to follow it 100% true to the real world.

I could have done by unit type as Cav > ranged > melee infantry. But that would be strange because we will have several units with the same proposal, example: archer, skirmishers and slinges. How it would work the skirmisher cavalry and archer cavalry?? They must have bonuses against ranged for being cavalry or against melee infantry for being ranged??

I discarded this possibility and prefer to make a system based on each unit of the game.

How the system works now:

Spearman - pikeman > All cavalry and elephants;

Archer - slinger > Melee infantry;

Javelinist infantry - Archer, archer cavalry and slinger.

Swordman infantry > Does not have a bonus, but has a better status than the other units, so it becomes naturally "good" against everything;

Spearman cavalry > All cavalry and elephants; (same infantry spearman standard)

 Archer cavalry > Melee infantry (same infantry archer standard)

Javelinist cavalry > Archer, archer cavalry and slinger (same infantry javelinist standard)

Well, we have some more bonuses that happen naturally, per example: Swordman cavalry and Spearman cavalry > ranged.

 

In Delenda Est, it's:

Infantry Spear/Pike > Melee Cavalry

• Hoplite class spear infantry have Shield Wall aura which boosts armor of nearby allied Hoplites
• Pikeman class spear infantry have Massed Pikes aura which boosts the attack and armor of nearby allied Pikemen

Infantry Sword > Infantry Spear/Pike, Elephant

Infantry Archer > Melee Infantry

Infantry Javelinist > Infantry Spear, Ranged Cavalry (this includes Chariots), Elephants

Infantry Slinger > Infantry Sword, Ranged Infantry

Cavalry Spear > Ranged Infantry, Siege

Cavalry Swords > Ranged Infantry, Ranged Cavalry, Siege

Cavalry Archer > Melee Infantry

Cavalry Javelinist > Support

Elephants > Cavalry, Buildings, Gates

• Stench Aura vs. Cavalry
• Terror Aura vs. All enemy units
• Trample Aura vs. All enemy units

Camelry > Cavalry

• Stench aura vs. Cavalry

 

YMMV. The bonuses are adjusted in strength so that a unit class with a large number of bonuses (Infantry Javelinists for instance) aren't OP. Cavalry have a lot of classes which counter them, but counters such as elephants and camelry are relatively rare. Civs which lack certain classes of units may be able to field units of those classes in limited numbers from captured mercenary camps, which helps plug that balance hole for them.

 

Seriously though, don't send cavalry against elephants, lol.

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[borg-]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

In Delenda Est, it's:

Infantry Spear/Pike > Melee Cavalry

• Hoplite class spear infantry have Shield Wall aura which boosts armor of nearby allied Hoplites
• Pikeman class spear infantry have Massed Pikes aura which boosts the attack and armor of nearby allied Pikemen

Infantry Sword > Infantry Spear/Pike, Elephant

Infantry Archer > Melee Infantry

Infantry Javelinist > Infantry Spear, Ranged Cavalry (this includes Chariots), Elephants

Infantry Slinger > Infantry Sword, Ranged Infantry

Cavalry Spear > Ranged Infantry, Siege

Cavalry Swords > Ranged Infantry, Ranged Cavalry, Siege

Cavalry Archer > Melee Infantry

Cavalry Javelinist > Support

Elephants > Cavalry, Buildings, Gates

• Stench Aura vs. Cavalry
• Terror Aura vs. All enemy units
• Trample Aura vs. All enemy units

Camelry > Cavalry

• Stench aura vs. Cavalry

 

YMMV. The bonuses are adjusted in strength so that a unit class with a large number of bonuses (Infantry Javelinists for instance) aren't OP. Cavalry have a lot of classes which counter them, but counters such as elephants and camelry are relatively rare. Civs which lack certain classes of units may be able to field units of those classes in limited numbers from captured mercenary camps, which helps plug that balance hole for them.

 

Seriously though, don't send cavalry against elephants, lol.

 

Stench of the camels scare the horses? interesing.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 minutes ago, borg- said:

Stench of the camels scare the horses? interesing.

Right, same for the Elephants. There's no way to make the horses "hesitate" or "run away", so the closest approximation I could do was reduce their movement speed and attack rates by a percentage when near enemy camels and elephants. Same goes for the "Terror" elephant aura . Trying to simulate the psychological effects of these beasts.

Edited May 16, 2019 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[borg-]

1 minute ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Right, same for the Elephants. There's no way to make the horses "hesitate" or "run away", so the closest approximation I could do was reduce their movement speed and attack rates by a percentage when near enemy camels and elephants. Same goes for the "Terror" elephant aura .

That's exactly what I thought, speed reduction.