Inequality amongst civilization

[Diptangshu]

   It was a well discussed topic. But, I want to remind some of the inequality amongst civilizations...

 

1. Building Time:-

    As we know, Gauls and Britons have a lowered building time for their weak structures. But conversely this gave them advantage in games. As per history, their knowledge of architecture wasn't well and scientific as like that of others(Romans, Carthaginians, Persians or Greeks). So, it's obvious that their building would be rubble. But, this deduction in 20% building time make them more efficient. Again, most of their structures has a population bonus. But think carefully, did a hut like structure has any access to extension option? I think no, so it'll be better and more balanced if Britons & Gauls have a slightly slower building rate and No population extension option by houses unlike others and also weaker Armour for buildings(20% less). 

2. Superiority of Slingers over Archers(Especially) and Skirmishers:-

Apparently most of the player would definitely admit that Slingers are the strongest unit in the game. But, is it feasible for Slingers to have more than 1.5 times pierce damage than Archers. A piece of stone cause more crush damage than pierce. So, I think there should a balance between Slingers and Archers. Maybe 7.5 pierce damage for Archers and 8.5 pierce damage along with 1.5 crush damage for Slingers.

3. Superiority of Roman Siege and Persian Rams:-

There is no doubt that Romans and Persians had a superior Siege units with better atrack. But, this wasn't spontaneous. This was achieved by a long period of experiment. So, It'll be best to give them a technology(with practical costs) instead of just giving them directly. Along with that I would also suggest to give Carthaginian and Ptolemaic Juggernauts and Heavy Warships an equal Bonus by a similar technology.

4. Unlimited Access for certain Buildings

I'm listing some buildings that can be built during game...

Persians--- Apandana- 1, Hall- 2, Ishtar Gate- 1

Carthaginians--- Embassy- 2, Tophet- None.

Sparatans--- Royal Stoa- Unlimited

Athenians--- Royal Stoa- Unlimited, Gymnasium- Unlimited

Gauls--- Tavern- Unlimited

Britons--- Kennel- Unlimited

Mauryans--- Palace- None

Kushites--- Nuba Village/Camp- 2

Diadochii--- Military Colony- Unlimited

Romans--- Army Camp- Unlimited

These all disparity makes some civilization really underdog and some of them really strong. Please fix it. Maybe by giving an option for increasing the number of town phase buildings by 1 for each Civic Center was made and by limiting the number of City phase structures.

4. No Trample Damage for Elephants and Ability of Rams to Attack Organic Units:-

  This is one of the worst and impractical thing that makes Rams more stronger and efficient than Elephants. As Rams could only be destroyed by hack damage(most efficient and fast). On the other hand, not only Elephants can be killed by Ranged units easily but also they can be easily blocked by any units or women. And so this makes them useless. Again, more or less equal speed of an Elephants as compared to Rams make them more impractical. But, ideally an elephant has a great momentum along  with a speed of nearly 40 km/h. So, I think they should have more speed with a continuous movement not obstructed by Organic Units. It'll be also better if we add trample damage for cavalry.

5. Costs for making a Catapult and Elephant:-

  An elephant costs 250 food and 250 metal and 3 population which is really impractical. Raising an elephant is more costlier than making a Ram. Again, making a Catapult cause not that much wood (400). So, there should be a balance. Again, most of the units first try to capture Bolt Shooters and Catapults instead of just destroying it! So, there should be a mode which can determine whether units will attack it or try to capture it.

6. Units and Faction Requests:-

And lastly, I've some personal thoughts that I would like to share. In short---

I) Maiden Guards should not be trained from Barracks. They are elite and special units which only protect Royal persons and so they should be trained from Palace. And please give Mauryans access to Rams. 

II) Kindly give Chandragupta Maurya and Chanakya a decent hero bonus. And please reconsider the bonuses given to some heroes like Hannibal(a bonus of 20% faster batch time for mercenaries instead of 20% less damage for enemy mercenaries)

III) Instead of giving a 20% health Reduction for Archery Tradition, it'll be better if we apply a 5% or maybe 10% health Reduction just like Persian Infantry.

IV) Civ Bonuses--- Some Civs have very much helpful Civ Bonus(Iberians, Seleucids, Ptolemies, Sparatans, Athenians, Macedonians, Romans, Gauls, Persians, Kushites) and some have impractical Civ Bonus(Carthaginians, Mauryans, Britons). Please reconsider them. 

Hope, the authority will consider my urges...

Edited September 8, 2019 by Diptangshu

[Genava55]

30 minutes ago, Diptangshu said:

    As we know, Gauls and Britons have a lowered building time for their weak structures. But conversely this gave them advantage in games. As per history, their knowledge of architecture wasn't well and scientific as like that of others(Romans, Carthaginians, Persians or Greeks). So, it's obvious that their building would be rubble. But, this deduction in 20% building time make them more efficient. Again, most of their structures has a population bonus. But think carefully, did a hut like structure has any access to extension option? I think no, so it'll be better and more balanced if Britons & Gauls have a slightly slower building rate and No population extension option by houses unlike others and also weaker Armour for buildings(20% less). 

Overall I agree with your proposal, very urban civilizations have a denser population so they should have houses and residentials with a better increase. However, it has nothing to do with science, nor they are more scientific than the others. Greco-Roman houses construction were not applying more scientific principles than their Gallic equivalents. It is another matter for more complex buildings but for houses it is not the case. At this time, engineering has little to do with scientific knowledge but more with practical experience and socioeconomical needs. So I agree, civilizations that were more rural than urban should have cheaper and simpler houses, but not necessarily a population bonus. In the case of the Gallic, maybe it makes sense to give them a strong asset in spreading strategies in regards of the history of the La Tène culture but not necessarily through population bonus by buildings.

30 minutes ago, Diptangshu said:

These all disparity makes some civilization really underdog and some of them really strong. Please fix it. Maybe by giving an option for increasing the number of town phase buildings by 1 for each Civic Center was made and by limiting the number of City phase structures.

Good idea.

 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Genava55

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I in no way claim to be well informed about the siege methods of Persia at this timeframe, but at least the original developers thought that their capabilities were subpar.  What's your basis for considering them so good?

[sphyrth]

It's a great summary of what the players generally want. The reminder to put in the Trample Damage is my favorite.

I kind of have my own take with the ranged infantry. The rebalance has also to do with the range, movement speed, and attack rating as well as damage. the Range, Attack Rating, and Speed should be inversely proportionate with the Damage; the higher the damage, the farther the range, the slower the attack rating, and the slower the movement speed.

So, archers should have the highest range, highest damage, but the slowest attack rating and slowest movement speed. I don't know who to put in last place, though (Slingers or Skirmishers). As of now, the other thing that makes the slingers strong is that they fling stones faster than the Skirmishers throw their javelins.

And I'm not yet putting the Ranged Cavs/Camels/Chariots/Elephants into the mix.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, sphyrth said:

So, archers should have the highest range, highest damage, but the slowest attack rating and slowest movement speed

I disagree. I think range, firing rate, and accuracy should be inversely proportional to damage.  

Movement speed is inversely proportional to armor. Health is inversely proportional to Food cost. Health+Accuracy inversely proportional to train time. Wood/stone/metal cost (whichever) inversely proportional to damage+range. This all depends on how granular you want to get. It's not absolutely necessary.

[Diptangshu]

6 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I in no way claim to be well informed about the siege methods of Persia at this timeframe, but at least the original developers thought that their capabilities were subpar.  What's your basis for considering them so good?

It's not my idea. The 0ad team has given Persians Ram an 10% additional Crush attack to their Rams.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 minutes ago, Diptangshu said:

It's not my idea. The 0ad team has given Persians Ram an 10% additional Crush attack to their Rams.

It may have been to compensate for not having catapults. Not sure. 

I think the Persians (and Mauryas) should get catapults though.

[Sundiata]

7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

(and Mauryas)

Mauryas actually had siege equipment. It's been brought up before...

Some excerpts from Kautilya's Arthashastra, traditionally ascribed to Chanakya (aka Kautilya, aka Vishnugupta), who helped Chandragupta Maurya in his rise to power. Although some scholars claim it was written by a number of writers and estimated the date of the text to 2nd century BC - 3rd century AD.

Quote

machines (yantra), and such weapons as can destroy a hundred persons at once (sataghni)

...

Sarvatobhadra, jamadagnya, bahumukha, visvásagháti, samgháti, yánaka, parjanyaka, ardhabáhu, and úrdhvabáhu are immoveable machines (sthirayantrám)

Pánchálika, devadanda, súkarika, musala, yashti, hastiváraka, tálavrinta, mudgara, gada, spriktala, kuddála, ásphátima, audhghátima, sataghni, trisúla, and chakra are moveable machines.

...

Having well guarded his camp, transports, supplies and also the roads of communication, and having dug up a ditch and raised a rampart round his camp, he may vitiate the water in the ditches round the enemy's fort, or empty the ditches of their water or fill them with water if empty, and then he may assail the rampart and the parapets by making use of underground tunnels and iron rods. If the ditch (dváram) is very deep, he may fill it up with soil. If it is defended by a number of men, he may destroy it by means of machines.

....

Of course, you might wonder what kind of machines are being talked about here. In "CHAPTER III. THE APPLICATION OF MEDICINES AND MANTRAS", some Indian Juju[?] is described to to cut the strings of the enemy bows and shooting machines:

Having fasted for three nights, one should on the day of the star of Pushya fill with soil the skull of a man killed with weapons or put to the gallows, and, planting in it valli (vallari ?) plants, should irrigate them with water. Having taken up the grown-up plants on the next day of the star of Pushya (i.e., after 27 days), one should manufacture a rope from them. When this rope is cut into two pieces before a drawn bow or any other shooting machine, the string of those machines will be suddenly cut into two pieces.

 

As a side note, the text also speaks of nágaráyanam, or assailing forts and cities with elephants. It also speaks of the maintenance, formation and guarding of new "timber and elephant forests", proving that forest management in antiquity wasn't just important, it was vital! These managed forests were used as reserves for wild elephants, which could then be captured and trained as needed. The text also speaks of elephant stables. Trained elephants could be kept inside the fortifications. Untrained or rowdy elephants were kept outside. Someone who poached an elephant was simply put to death! Someone who burnt a timber and elephant forest would be killed by fire!

Quote

Military training [of elephants] is of seven kinds: Drill (upasthána), turning (samvartana), advancing (samyána), trampling down and killing (vadhávadha), fighting with other elephants (hastiyuddha), assailing forts and cities (nágaráyanam), and warfare.

...

The victory of kings (in battles) depends mainly upon elephants; for elephants, being of large bodily frame, are capable not only to destroy the arrayed army of an enemy, his fortifications, and encampments, but also to undertake works that are dangerous to life.

...

Thus the king shall not only keep in good repair timber and elephant forests, buildings, and mines created in the past, but also set up new ones.

...

The superintendent of forests with his retinue of forest guards shall not only maintain the up-keep of the forests, but also acquaint himself with all passages for entrance into, or exit from such of them as are mountainous or boggy or contain rivers or lakes.

Whoever kills an elephant shall be put to death.

...

There shall be constructed an elephant stable twice as broad and twice as high as the length (áyáma) of an elephant, with separate apartments for female elephants, with projected entrance (sapragrívám), with posts called kumári, and with its door facing either the east or the north.

 

@Nescio In a discussion a while back, you asked for this texts, so here it is:

https://csboa.com/eBooks/Arthashastra_of_Chanakya_-_English.pdf

 

Special bonus unit for the Mauryas:

Spoiler

 

I'm joking, please don't add this to the game  

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Sundiata

[Sundiata]

13 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I think the Persians (and Mauryas) should get catapults though.

This text, Kingdom of Magadha: Wars and Warfare, mentions the use of something like a catapult by King Ajatashatru of the Haryanka Dynasty of the Kingdom of Magadha, against the Vajii, a confederacy ruled by the Licchavi Kingdom, in the early 5th century BC (484 BC – 468 BC), more than one and a half centuries before the rise of the Maurya Dynasty. Wikipedia corroborates this.  

This Indian catapult was called mahashilakantaga, though I can find only very few mentions of the name, which all seem to point to the linked ancient.eu article. 

 

 

In the book, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, By Pierre Briant, p763, it's claimed that the Achaemenid Persians might have actually invented the catapult. this isn't exactly hard evidence though...

 

Buuuuuuut.... There's this verse from the Bible,  2 Chronicles 26:15, which talks about King Uzziah of Judah, who built what sounds like catapults way back in the 8th century BC!

Quote

And he made devices in Jerusalem, invented by skillful men, to be on the towers and the corners, to shoot arrows and large stones. So his fame spread far and wide, for he was marvelously helped till he became strong.

That's definitely a possible source for the later hypothesized Persian catapults...

 

It's also the reason why I'm not so quick to ignore the apparent mention of catapults (a thing casting stones at the enemy walls) in Piye's Great Triumphal Stela from the Amun temple at Napata, c. 727 BC: 

Quote

His Majesty’s coming forth from the cabin of (his) bark,
yoking with horses and mounting on a chariot.
The awesomeness of His Majesty reached the Asiatics,
every heart trembling at him.
Then His Majesty came storming out to vent his anger onto his army.
raging against it like a panther, (saying,)
“Is this delaying (in) my business the way of your fighting?
(when) fear of me (needs to be put) into North-land?
Make against them a very severe blow in striking.”
He pitched (his) tent on the west, south of Ogdoad-town,
while closing in on it daily.
A (counter-)wall was built to cover the (city-)wall.
A platform was built up to raise the archers as they shot arrows
and the catapults as they cast stones,
(thus) slaying men among them daily.
After (some) days Hare-town stank to the nose,
being without its usual (fresh) scent.
Then Hare-town placed itself on its belly,

The Kingdom of Judah entered into a sort of protectorate relationship with the Kushites after Piye (they paid tribute to Taharqa), and they probably had relations before that. So if King Uzziah had developed catapults a generation earlier, the idea the Kushites employed them isn't totally unbelievable. 

 

The book Technology and Culture in Greek and Roman Antiquity even states that there is a possibility that siege weapons including catapults came to Carthage from Mesopotamia via the Phoenicians. 

 

I know that the invention of the catapult is generally ascribed to the Greeks, but It's almost as if some of the Greek and Roman history writers and some of the people interpreting the texts today are full of manure... Greek scholars travelled all over, including Mesopotamia and Egypt, studying the local knowledge, then brought it back to Greece, adapted it and made it their own. The Pythagorean Theorem is good example. A lot of people think it's Greek, even though Pythagoras travelled to Egypt and studied there with the priests, where "Pythagoras' Theorem" was already known for about one and a half millennia before Pythagoras was even born... 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Sundiata

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

 

Special bonus unit for the Mauryas:

  Hide contents

 

I'm joking, please don't add this to the game  

 

Why not?

-------

With Persians ,.. Somebody know this?

Edited September 9, 2019 by Lion.Kanzen

[Sundiata]

2 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

With Persians ,.. Somebody know this?

 

From the Cyropaedia (The Education of Cyrus), by Xenophon, "a partly fictional biography of Cyrus the Great", Book VI:

Quote

(50) Afterwards Abradatas perceived how much Cyrus had at heart the scythe-bearing chariots and the cavalry and the war-horses with their armour, and he resolved to equip a hundred chariots for him out of his own cavalry force. (51) These he proposed to lead himself in a chariot of his own, four-poled and drawn by eight horses, all the eight protected by chest-plates of bronze. (52) So Abradatas set to work, and this four-poled chariot of his gave Cyrus the idea of making a car with eight poles, drawn by eight yoke of oxen, to carry the lowest compartment of the battering engines, which stood, with its wheels, about twenty-seven feet from the ground. (53) Cyrus felt that he had a series of such towers brought into the field at a fair pace they would be of immense service to him, and inflict as much damage on the enemy. The towers were built with galleries and parapets, and each of them could carry twenty men. (54) When the whole was put together he tested it and found that the eight yoke of oxen could draw the whole tower with the men more easily than one yoke by itself could manage the ordinary weight of baggage, which came to about five-and-twenty talents apiece, whereas the tower, build of planks about as thick as the boards for a stage, weighed less than fifteen for each yoke. (55) Thus, having satisfied himself that the attempt was perfectly possible, he arranged to take the towers into action, believing that in war selfishness meant salvation, justice, and happiness.

...

And suppose you heard that they have camels to ride on, each one of which would scare a hundred horses, and that they will bring up towers from which to help their own friends, and overwhelm us with volleys of darts so that we cannot fight them on level ground? [Cyrus speaking hypothetically from the perspective of his enemy]

...

You know your work, and you will do it. Euphratus," he added, turning to the officer in command of the artillery, "see that the waggons with the towers keep as close to the phalanx as possible. (29) And you, Daouchus, bring up the whole of your baggage-train under cover of the towers and make your squires punish severely any man who breaks the line. (30) You, Carouchas, keep the women's carriages close behind the baggage-train.

...

And as Cyrus sprang on the horse he saw the Egyptians worsted everywhere. For by now Hystaspas was on the ground with his cavalry, and Chrysantas also. Still Cyrus would not allow them to charge the Egyptian phalanx: the archers and javelin-men were to play on them from outside. Then he made his way along the lines to the artillery, and there he mounted one of the towers to take a survey of the field, and see if any of the foe still held their ground and kept up the fight. (40) But he saw the plain one chaos of flying horses and men and chariots, pursuers and pursued, conquerors and conquered, and nowhere any who still stood firm, save only the Egyptians. These, in sore straits as they were, formed themselves into a circle behind a ring of steel, and sat down under cover of their enormous shields. They no longer attempted to act, but they suffered, and suffered heavily. (41) Cyrus, in admiration and pity, unwilling that men so brave should be done to death, drew off his soldiers who were fighting round them, and would not let another man lift sword.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2085/2085-h/2085-h.htm.

By the way, this is an early 4th century BC Greek text referring to Persian and Egyptian phalanx formations of the 6th century BC (since the "Greekness" of the phalanx came up recently in another discussion). 

[Lion.Kanzen]

35 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

 

From the Cyropaedia (The Education of Cyrus), by Xenophon, "a partly fictional biography of Cyrus the Great", Book VI:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2085/2085-h/2085-h.htm.

By the way, this is an early 4th century BC Greek text referring to Persian and Egyptian phalanx formations of the 6th century BC (since the "Greekness" of the phalanx came up recently in another discussion). 

Greek Phalanx right? Because they haven't mercenaries teaching greek tactics.

Quote

But in Egypt itself also, the time from the 7th century BC onwards is characterized by profound change, occasioned to a large degree by the growing contact with – and intermittent rule by – foreigners. Recent scholarship has been increasingly aware of this phenomenon, which manifests itself in major developments such as the spread of demotic script (Bianchi 2005, 68; Martin 2007), the monetisation of the Egyptian economy, [2] the increasing role of religion (‘sacralisation’) for the construction of Egyptian identity and the associated crystallisation of an encyclopaedic canon of knowledge (Assmann 1996, 90–2). 

Contact and exchange between Egypt, Greece and other civilisations involved a range of different people and was played out on a variety of platforms. Military pacts, gift-giving and guest-friendships, immigration and migrant work, translocal elites, traders, aristocratic travellers, mercenaries, sailors, craftsmen, wives and courtesans, translators and administrators – all played their part in (Eastern) Mediterranean networks of contact and exchange. On the Greek side, Aigina and Athens, Sparta, but especially and particularly at the beginning the Eastern Aegean cities – such as Miletos, Samos, Phokaia and the cities on the island of Rhodes – were heavily involved, along with the Carians. So, too, were the major powers in their hinterland, Lydia and later Persia, as well as the cities of Cyprus and the Phoenician and Levantine coastland. All this was played out against, and ultimately depended on, the larger historical and economic constellations and events of the time – from the reshaping of the political map of the Eastern Mediterranean following the collapse of the Assyrian kingdom in the late 7th century (612 BC), to the Persian conquest of much of East Greece and Egypt in the later 6th to early 5th centuries BC, the rise of Macedon, the creation of the Ptolemaic dynasty and the formation and ultimate collapse of the Roman empire.

[...]

Of all the places in Egypt where Greeks are attested, or can be expected, to have lived, there is only one, however, where day to day contact between Greeks (and to some degree also other foreigners) and Egyptians can be traced continuously across time, and where processes of cultural contact, convergence and distinction can be examined from the 7th century BC to the 7th century AD: Naukratis, the earliest Greek settlement in Egypt.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/introduction/greek–egyptian_relations.aspx

Quote

The Egyptians supplied the Greeks with mostly grain but also linen and papyrus while the Greeks bartered mostly silver but also timber, olive oil and wine.ii[›] Naukratis, and the associated Greek "forts" in the general delta area, as demonstrated by accounts given above, became a ready source of mercenary fighting men for the Saite pharaohs, men with superior hoplite armor and tactics, and also possessing invaluable naval expertise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naucratis

[Sundiata]

Just now, Lion.Kanzen said:

Greek Phalanx right?

No, not necessarily. Egyptians were using phalanx formations for almost a thousand years before that. Long before the Archaic period in Greece had even begun... 

[Genava55]

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

By the way, this is an early 4th century BC Greek text referring to Persian and Egyptian phalanx formations of the 6th century BC (since the "Greekness" of the phalanx came up recently in another discussion). 

The word phalanx is only meaning a tight formation working as a wall with spear hedge. The word has been applied several times for the Gauls. But clearly the Greeks and the Hellenes were those that push the concept to its maximum.

[Sundiata]

Just now, Genava55 said:

The word phalanx is only meaning a tight formation working as a wall with spear hedge. The word has been applied several times for the Gauls. But clearly the Greeks and the Hellenes were those that push the concept to its maximum.

I'm not denying that the hoplites and their fighting style was one of the most beautiful/dreadful/efficient things in the world at the time. Truly one of history's greatest warriors. 

I'm merely pointing to the fact that the Ancient Greeks themselves literally referred to Egyptian melee infantry formations as "phalanx": 

"φάλαγγα τῶν Αἰγυπτίων" (phalanx of the Egyptians), 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0203%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D1%3Asection%3D39

In a story set in the 6th century BC, no less, written down in the the 4th century BC, indicating that Egyptians continued using phalanx formation for at least c. 500 years after the collapse of the New Kingdom. My argument was that there's no reason to think that it fell out of use in Nile Valley warfare, and it evidently didn't.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Sundiata

[Lion.Kanzen]

6 hours ago, Sundiata said:

No, not necessarily. Egyptians were using phalanx formations for almost a thousand years before that. Long before the Archaic period in Greece had even begun... 

Sumerians had Phalanx too.

[wraitii]

I have this idea, that I should flesh out in a mod, of having civilisations "Tiers", and only trying to balance inside intra-tier, not extra-tier. That would allow for more diversity imo, while still allowing balanced gameplay.