Borg Expansion Pack Mod Release V 1.0.5

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 minute ago, borg- said:

That's exactly what I thought, speed reduction.

Exactly. If I could, I would make them hesitate or break off attacks or make them harder to control in some way. But a speed/rate reduction simulates it well enough for now.

[av93]

5 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.

 

 

 

 

Translated to heavy  (melee) and light (ranged) units

 

Spearman - pikeman > All cavalry and elephants;

Archer - slinger > Heavy Infantry

Javelinist infantry - Light infantry and archer cavalry

Swordman infantry >  All Round

Spearman cavalry > All cavalry and elephants;

Archer cavalry > Heavy Infantry

Javelinist cavalry > Light infantry and archer cavalry

 

If we left apart the Darc Raven thing about that design should come first and then balancing, I think that a real problem in this game is the 3 ranged units.  Possibly roles:

- Ranged infantry with bonus against melee (classical ranged)
- Ranged infantry with bonus against ranged (classical skirmisher)
- Ranged infantry with bonus against cavalry (rare unit in RTS, usually unique units)
- Ranged/melee hybrid

Tanky ranged usually goes to cavalry, but specially to elephant archers. My proposal given the archetypes would be:

Ranged 1: generic high attack, fast movement, lower range , worse than other specialist ranged infantry, beaten by the range of other ranged infantry (but if they caught other light infantry, they would punch), and have the better outpout against cav (but cav should be able to kill them, so the game isn't focused on massing ranged) -> Javelin

Ranged 2: Anti infantry (both heavy and light) medium range.  -> slinger

Ranged 3: Anti light, better range. Classical skirmisher -> archer

 

The thing is that I would make javelins available to all and early, only primary resources (food and wood, sorta trash), and archers and slingers prizey and available later. Mercenaries maybe are an idea to try to balance and cover incomplete rosters, but in a limited and expensive way, so there's an asymmetrical balance.

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

slinger must be a sacrifice not a guys can take down iberian towers and walls. 

[borg-]

12 minutes ago, av93 said:

Translated to heavy  (melee) and light (ranged) units

 

Spearman - pikeman > All cavalry and elephants;

Archer - slinger > Heavy Infantry

Javelinist infantry - Light infantry and archer cavalry

Swordman infantry >  All Round

Spearman cavalry > All cavalry and elephants;

Archer cavalry > Heavy Infantry

Javelinist cavalry > Light infantry and archer cavalry

 

If we left apart the Darc Raven thing about that design should come first and then balancing, I think that a real problem in this game is the 3 ranged units.  Possibly roles:

- Ranged infantry with bonus against melee (classical ranged)
- Ranged infantry with bonus against ranged (classical skirmisher)
- Ranged infantry with bonus against cavalry (rare unit in RTS, usually unique units)
- Ranged/melee hybrid

Tanky ranged usually goes to cavalry, but specially to elephant archers. My proposal given the archetypes would be:

Ranged 1: generic high attack, fast movement, lower range , worse than other specialist ranged infantry, beaten by the range of other ranged infantry (but if they caught other light infantry, they would punch), and have the better outpout against cav (but cav should be able to kill them, so the game isn't focused on massing ranged) -> Javelin

Ranged 2: Anti infantry (both heavy and light) medium range.  -> slinger

Ranged 3: Anti light, better range. Classical skirmisher -> archer

 

The thing is that I would make javelins available to all and early, only primary resources (food and wood, sorta trash), and archers and slingers prizey and available later. Mercenaries maybe are an idea to try to balance and cover incomplete rosters, but in a limited and expensive way, so there's an asymmetrical balance.

 

 

In version 1.0.5 I made a p1 standard for all civilizations.

Only spearman infantry, archers or slingers and cavalry skirmishers are available for all civs, except ptolemeus and seleucids have archer cavalry instead of skir cav, but it also has skir infantry instead archer or slingers.

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by borg-

[av93]

1 hour ago, borg- said:

but it also has skir infantry instead archer or slingers.

 

 

What is your take in differentiating archers and slingers?

[borg-]

1 hour ago, av93 said:

 

What is your take in differentiating archers and slingers?

well, I do not know how to differentiate them, they were used for the same purpose in real fights.

The only difference I see is that archers penetrate heavy armor and slingers were used vs light infantry.

[Sundiata]

2 hours ago, borg- said:

well, I do not know how to differentiate them, they were used for the same purpose in real fights.

Archers have a higher rate of fire and can be massed. Slingers need more space to sling, but have a higher range. Slingers are for long range harassing. Archery can get more "up close and personal" (because of the massed effect, they're just as lethal "up close", but slingers can't mass, so the closer you get to them, the lower the density of projectiles heading your way).

Spoiler

Slingers need space... Wouldn't want to accidentally knock your buddy unconscious while slinging... This also makes them more vulnerable.

 

Archers can be massed, packed tightly in formation (potentially many rows deep), to send a wall of arrows flying at your enemy

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Sundiata

[borg-]

slings has greater range than bow? wow

[Guest]

A slingstone would also have pretty high velocities. 160km/h apparently. And sling stones are pretty aerodynamic while arrows have higher resistance.

They can absolutely knock you into afterlife.

[Stan`]

Slingers were also used to slow enemy progression.

[Lion.Kanzen]

slinger effect must be crush organic units and in very higher rush (50+units) but compensate with low hp. two hit to die. but faster cavalry spear can defeat them as mosquitoes. 

higher power weaker life and defense.

[Lion.Kanzen]

no the best example of romans but good example of slingers.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Lion.Kanzen

[av93]

@Lion.Kanzen please, can you try to not "triple post" and tag the videos under spoilers? I said that without acrimony. That would help to follow the debate, thx

 

If we talk about characterization of the unit, slingers could have less HP and less range (although some slingers were better regarding reach than some archers) because as you said, they need to be in a wide formation, thus fewer ranks could shoot, and also would be killed easily by melee charges. But if we speak about realism, they should punch more than arrows.

But my main concern should be that the 3 roles should be differentiated and used.

[Genava55]

5 hours ago, borg- said:

slings has greater range than bow? wow

Only with lead bullets.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I wonder though what sort of variables are accounted for for those claims.  What kind of poundage does the bow have for these tests?  Also, as far as I'm aware, it's difficult to know the techniques and length of the sling used, both of which I'd say would have a massive impact on the possible range. 

[Genava55]

11 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I wonder though what sort of variables are accounted for for those claims.  What kind of poundage does the bow have for these tests?  Also, as far as I'm aware, it's difficult to know the techniques and length of the sling used, both of which I'd say would have a massive impact on the possible range. 

This is mostly based on the Anabasis of Xenophon. He said that rhodian slingers reach the double than the Persian slingers and even more than most of the Persian bows. 

[DarcReaver]

3 hours ago, av93 said:

@Lion.Kanzen please, can you try to not "triple post" and tag the videos under spoilers? I said that without acrimony. That would help to follow the debate, thx

 

If we talk about characterization of the unit, slingers could have less HP and less range (although some slingers were better regarding reach than some archers) because as you said, they need to be in a wide formation, thus fewer ranks could shoot, and also would be killed easily by melee charges. But if we speak about realism, they should punch more than arrows.

But my main concern should be that the 3 roles should be differentiated and used.

In theory you have multiple approaches:

Option 1) You make slingers and archers the same role (ranged anti inf) with only different stats. And each civ only gets the type of unit they used the most - i.e. Egypt and Persians used slingers, while other factions use archers exclusively. It's then pretty much just a skin difference, a bit like the difference of Meso Civs in AoE having eagle warriors while regular civs have scout cav.

Option 2) You differentiate slingers and archers by stats : Both are available to most factions by default.
slingers have high damage and good accuracy on shorter ranges and relatively low rate of fire.
.They also are fast, but have low health - this makes them good early raiding infantry to do hit & run. Archers have lower damage, but good accuracy on all ranges, fire faster and deal damage more consistent and have better armor/health than slingers while being slower.
If you further out this system you could apply a modifier for ranged unit rate of fire with its shooting range. In CoH you have 4 different combat distances, in which you can modify accuracy, penetration and rate of fire of a gun. I.e. infantry rifles take 0.95sec. to aim at a target at 35m but only 0.6 at 6m. 

Option 3) You differentiate multiple archer/slinger classes (this option profits from battalions)

Slingers are on par with basic archers, the characteristics are similar to option 2. But you also have certain advanced archer/slinger units that players of certain factions can deploy.
Ie. egypt have basic slingers instead of normal archers, but they can deploy composite archers later in the game.

You can then train a battalion of Slingers, consisting of maybe 10 Slingers that move and fight in a loose formation. Archers come in larger numbers per battalion - maybe 20?- and fight is close formations. Also Archers could have a "rain arrows" ability that allows them to barrage a certain area with fire arrows to scare or instantly burn enemy units ("weapon critical damage"). Slingers could have a chance to stun enemy units upon hitting them from close range.

Some factions also have access to special slinger units/upgrades or special archers that allow unique tactics compared to other factions. And battalions allow to either make larger amounts of cheap "trash archers" or a bunch of elite archers, depending on civ and map choice. 

This version would be mostly interesting if you can apply armortypes to units and add flanking damage. Slingers would be used to "dance around" enemy units, trying to hit them from side/rear. While archers can inflict damage more consistently. from a "closed frontline". This sort of reflects the characteristics of both unit types more accurately, but is certainly the hardest option.

Option 4) You use multiple archer/slinger classes and use them regardless as assets for the game, leaving it up to the player which units to use. Stats like dmg, rate of fire etc. are done for each unit similar to option 2. This is the version currently present and has large drawbacks, esp. in terms of inner faction balance. This is prety much the easiest along with option 2.

There probably are even more options, those were just some I could think of in the nick of time.

Edited May 17, 2019 by DarcReaver

[Lion.Kanzen]

6 hours ago, av93 said:

@Lion.Kanzen please, can you try to not "triple post" and tag the videos under spoilers? I said that without acrimony. That would help to follow the debate, thx

 

If we talk about characterization of the unit, slingers could have less HP and less range (although some slingers were better regarding reach than some archers) because as you said, they need to be in a wide formation, thus fewer ranks could shoot, and also would be killed easily by melee charges. But if we speak about realism, they should punch more than arrows.

But my main concern should be that the 3 roles should be differentiated and used.

despues hago eso y nadie entrar a verlos. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Lion.Kanzen

[borg-]

4 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

In theory you have multiple approaches:

Option 1) You make slingers and archers the same role (ranged anti inf) with only different stats. And each civ only gets the type of unit they used the most - i.e. Egypt and Persians used slingers, while other factions use archers exclusively. It's then pretty much just a skin difference, a bit like the difference of Meso Civs in AoE having eagle warriors while regular civs have scout cav.

Option 2) You differentiate slingers and archers by stats : Both are available to most factions by default.
slingers have high damage and good accuracy on shorter ranges and relatively low rate of fire.
.They also are fast, but have low health - this makes them good early raiding infantry to do hit & run. Archers have lower damage, but good accuracy on all ranges, fire faster and deal damage more consistent and have better armor/health than slingers while being slower.
If you further out this system you could apply a modifier for ranged unit rate of fire with its shooting range. In CoH you have 4 different combat distances, in which you can modify accuracy, penetration and rate of fire of a gun. I.e. infantry rifles take 0.95sec. to aim at a target at 35m but only 0.6 at 6m. 

Option 3) You differentiate multiple archer/slinger classes (this option profits from battalions)

Slingers are on par with basic archers, the characteristics are similar to option 2. But you also have certain advanced archer/slinger units that players of certain factions can deploy.
Ie. egypt have basic slingers instead of normal archers, but they can deploy composite archers later in the game.

You can then train a battalion of Slingers, consisting of maybe 10 Slingers that move and fight in a loose formation. Archers come in larger numbers per battalion - maybe 20?- and fight is close formations. Also Archers could have a "rain arrows" ability that allows them to barrage a certain area with fire arrows to scare or instantly burn enemy units ("weapon critical damage"). Slingers could have a chance to stun enemy units upon hitting them from close range.

Some factions also have access to special slinger units/upgrades or special archers that allow unique tactics compared to other factions. And battalions allow to either make larger amounts of cheap "trash archers" or a bunch of elite archers, depending on civ and map choice. 

This version would be mostly interesting if you can apply armortypes to units and add flanking damage. Slingers would be used to "dance around" enemy units, trying to hit them from side/rear. While archers can inflict damage more consistently. from a "closed frontline". This sort of reflects the characteristics of both unit types more accurately, but is certainly the hardest option.

Option 4) You use multiple archer/slinger classes and use them regardless as assets for the game, leaving it up to the player which units to use. Stats like dmg, rate of fire etc. are done for each unit similar to option 2. This is the version currently present and has large drawbacks, esp. in terms of inner faction balance. This is prety much the easiest along with option 2.

There probably are even more options, those were just some I could think of in the nick of time.

Well I made changes to the new version, before slingers had bonuses against archers and archers cavalry, now they now have a bonus against infantry. I also did a standard village phase for all civilizations, spearman, archer / slinger, javelinist cavalry. Seleucids and Ptolemaic are somewhat different, they have spearman, javelinist infantry and archers cavalry. The civilizations that have archers in the village phase do not have slingers in the town phase (in barracks, may have mercenaries in other buildings), and the same for those who start with slingers.
The current status are: Slingers: Attack 4, Attack speed 1.25, armor 1/2, reach 48 meters, health 70, movement speed 10 / 16.5, bonus vs infantry melle 3.0.
Archers: Attack 4, Attack speed 1.0, armor 1/2, reach 72 meters, health 70, movement speed 10 / 16.5, bonus vs infantry melle 2.0.
Currently the slingers have a greater advantage than the archers in short distance, for having a greater bonus and also more precision of firing, but is also much more vulnerable to attack by having a smaller range
What I intend to do at the moment is to differentiate these units by civilizations, for example: Egyptian slingers may be cheaper but weaker than the standard model.

A question, rhodian slinger worked for which civilizations? I think the answer is Romans, but I'm not sure. Anyway I need a new slinger model for the Romans. They have no archer or slinger.

Edited May 17, 2019 by borg-

[Lion.Kanzen]

Spoiler

 

listen to @Revan Shan is in the exact min when he start to be crushed by slingers even was not balearic.

Quote

""what is this??? is take down my door with stones... What is this?????""

yes,  he said  "WTF."...lol

Edited May 17, 2019 by Lion.Kanzen

[GunChleoc]

On 5/17/2019 at 5:17 PM, borg- said:

A question, rhodian slinger worked for which civilizations? I think the answer is Romans, but I'm not sure. Anyway I need a new slinger model for the Romans. They have no archer or slinger.

This is where they are from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Rhodian slingers hired out as mercenaries for many civs, including the Greek states, Hellenistic and Successor states, fought for themselves, and for Republican Rome.

[theotherhiveking]

I was doing some experiments in Atlas -- trying to improve my borg's mod skills -- and this happened:

It was obvious that the spearmen would lose, but their defeat was much more hilarious than what I expected.