Philip the Swaggerless Posted May 7, 2019 Report Share Posted May 7, 2019 Hi. How about instead of the Nomad Camp and Nuba Village being like barracks with limited unit variety that have low HP/capture points and that take a L O N G time to build, you make them be like barracks with limited unit variety that have low HP/capture points and that take a short time to build. I mean come on, the Nomad camp appears to be a few tents. If I practiced I might be able to set that up in 200 seconds in real life. And while were at it, since its a Nomad camp, why not allow it to be built in neutral territory, requiring garrison to not turn into gaia? Just a suggestion to give Kushites some needed help to be a tiny bit more competitive in multiplayer. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asterix Posted May 7, 2019 Report Share Posted May 7, 2019 @borg- @Sundiata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundiata Posted May 7, 2019 Report Share Posted May 7, 2019 Balance isn't my strong suit, so I just went along with what the balance guys did. I have no strong feelings about the suggestion. As long as you don't add any wrong units to them, it seems cool to be able to build them in neutral territory. But if they're cheap and quick to build in neutral territory you could theoretically spam them at your enemy's border which I could imagine being very frustrating in a negative way.. Skirm spams are annoying as it is. The problem with Kushites is that their archers seem underpowered. Slingers can't take on experienced archers because in real life you can't mass slingers. They need a lot more room to operate. The problem isn't that Kushites are underpowered per se. It's that slingers are overpowered. This keeps coming up, and it needs to be fixed. Tweaking the stats in everything but slingers is dancing around the problem. Solve the slinger issue. They were not the champions of the battlefield. They're a support role. Kushite archers on the other hand aren't a support role. They used archery much more offensively (front line action). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nescio Posted May 7, 2019 Report Share Posted May 7, 2019 (edited) Reducing their building time is not a bad idea. For comparison: Kushite barracks: village phase, 150 wood, 150 stone, 150 s, 2000 health, six unit types Blemmye camp: town phase, 100 wood, 100 metal, 200 s, 1000 health, one unit type Nuba village: town phase, 100 wood, 100 metal, 200 s, 1000 health, two unit types [EDIT]: here you go: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1863 Edited May 7, 2019 by Nescio patch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip the Swaggerless Posted May 8, 2019 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 (edited) 20 hours ago, Sundiata said: The problem with Kushites is that their archers seem underpowered. Slingers can't take on experienced archers because in real life you can't mass slingers. They need a lot more room to operate. The problem isn't that Kushites are underpowered per se. It's that slingers are overpowered. This keeps coming up, and it needs to be fixed. Tweaking the stats in everything but slingers is dancing around the problem. Solve the slinger issue. They were not the champions of the battlefield. They're a support role. Kushite archers on the other hand aren't a support role. They used archery much more offensively (front line action). This is true. If the units were changed such that archers became more effective relative to other units, clearly kushites (and other archer civs) would all of a sudden be much better off. I still stand by my suggestions about build time and neutral territory. Edited May 8, 2019 by Philip the Swaggerless typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundiata Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 39 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said: I still stand by my suggestions about build time and neutral territory. I agree with build time. Still somewhat skeptical about being able to build them in neutral territory. Seems logical/fun/intuitive, but it risks upsetting the balance in the opposite direction. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
av93 Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 Building on neutral territory would overlap with roman camps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatherbushido Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 On 5/7/2019 at 5:39 AM, Philip the Swaggerless said: why not allow it to be built in neutral territory That was the way the ptolemaic mercenary camp worked (now it's more like a cc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nescio Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 Mercenary camps count as embassies, which means they're limited to two per player, so making them buildable in neutral territory won't seriously distort gameplay. It seems the AI doesn't currently understand how to build in neutral territory, though. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundiata Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Nescio said: Mercenary camps count as embassies, which means they're limited to two per player, so making them buildable in neutral territory won't seriously distort gameplay. Wow, I need to play the game more often... I never even noticed that. perfect. My reservations are hereby cancelled. Blemmyes and Nuba were semi nomadic peoples that liked to show up and settle where they don't belong, causing all kinds of havoc, so being able to build in neutral territory does actually fit their character very well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValihrAnt Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 Yeah, I really like this idea. It gives the Kushites some nice new options, but I feel like it would be best if the camp doesn't decay to Gaia even when ungarrisoned in Neutral territory because having 3 units sitting in each camp really adds up over time, especially since the camps are fast to destroy/capture and they don't have any defensive capabilities. Though the main weakness of Kushites in a23 is the same as all other archer civilizations - archers being nearly useless. And another problem for them is their siege options, which are only siege towers and elephants. To achieve anything with siege towers you need to base your entire strategy about them (which is currently one of their better options against the meta civs imo) and elephants simply are too expensive to be relied upon. Elephants are killed far too easily. So I'd suggest changing their cost to 200F/200M from 250F/250M. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nescio Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 (edited) Perhaps we should go one step further: hard-code the unit queue so that any player who captures a nuba camp can train nuba mercenaries there (but only Kushites can build the camps); similarly for Carthaginian embassies. [EDIT] The ptol_mercenary_camp can actually be built in neutral territory (no unit has it in its building queue, though). Mercenary camps and similar structures currently in game: back row: rome_army_camp, pers_hall, cart_embassy third row: spart_royal_stoa, athen_royal_stoa second row: kush_nuba_village, kush_blemmye_camp, ptol_mercenary_camp front row: cart_embassy_celtic, cart_embassy_iberian, cart_embassy_italiote Edited May 8, 2019 by Nescio other mercenary camps 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatherbushido Posted May 8, 2019 Report Share Posted May 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Nescio said: Mercenary camps and similar structures currently in game: The similar part is still to be defined/refined :-) (see that other discussion I started about that.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.