Jump to content

Restrict the Mauryan worker elephant to within its own territory?


Recommended Posts

It would be helpful for maps with random biomes to have the option of excluding 1 or 2 particular biome, for example:

Mainland, Not Savanna

Mainland, Not Snowy

Mainland, Snowy or Alpine or Autumn

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yekaterina said:

It would be helpful for maps with random biomes to have the option of excluding 1 or 2 particular biome, for example:

Mainland, Not Savanna

Mainland, Not Snowy

Mainland, Snowy or Alpine or Autumn

I'd think then it would be better to load up a list with check boxes so you can check (or uncheck if checked is the default) which biomes you want. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/04/2021 at 4:59 PM, Yekaterina said:

The Mauryans are currently too OP, mostly because of their worker elephant. There are many situations where a Mauryan player can steal resources from the opponent easily and deny resources. Also, in savanna maps and Persian Highlands or Belgian Uplands the worker elephant is also an unfair advantage. Therefore, to nerf this we can limit the worker elephant to only travel in your own or allied territory. This way other civs stand a chance on maps which have sparsely or unevenly distributed resources.

 

I don't think this premise is right. If Mauryans are currently too OP (which I don't agree with--they are one of several good civs right now), Mauryans are good because (1) they have the best unit in the game right now (archers); (2) they have a higher pop cap than most civs; and (3) they have 75w houses. I've played a lot of games and I have seen resources "stolen" in very few games and in none of these games has actually changed the outcome.

 

The fact that very few players actually make worker eles indicates that the unit isn't OP at all. 

 

On 17/04/2021 at 3:40 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Indeed. My preference would be to boost the other civs, not nerf Mauryas. That said, it's possible to nerf the Worker Elephant slightly without overdoing it. I think requiring a Storehouse first or other such thing wouldn't automatically "cripple" the ele. Simply removing the free one at start might be enough.

The most immediate benefit (and arguably the most important too) of the ele is that you are able to start collecting res away from a CC without spending the initial 100 wood. Very few players ever make a worker ele and instead just rely on the initial ele plus storehouses that they build. So doing this would be a major nerf. 

 

@nani is right--we should make other civs better with their own unique features rather than eliminating the fun unique features that currently exist.

Edited by chrstgtr
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

The fact that very few players actually make worker eles indicates that the unit isn't OP at all. 

Indeed. I wonder if the complaints about the worker eles are off base, as you indicate. The "real solution" may be a slight nerf of archers and adding in some new unique benefits for other civs.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

worker elephant have been there for number of alphas even able to actually build so it is  unlikelyb worker elephant itself is suddenly op unit.

agree that possible tactic it opens is op but thats for the capabilities of units doing the gathering

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don´t have any experience on earlier alphas that is worth mentioning, so I will not go into history.

 

First of all, we need to consider the worker elephant is a great asset at the start and is a kick starter. I think a setup like 0ad shares similarities of the exponential growth. If one player need 95 seconds to double his population and the other 100, that might not seem to be a lot but after 1000 seconds the economies will differ by a factor of 1.6

Also it is the full packages that Maurya got, a great eco with the worker elephant, good archers, the ability to build elephant stables in p2, strong swordsmen and +10% pop cap. In previous alphas they had similar bonuses, but the other strong civs dropped a lot. On the same time the environment shifted hugely in favour of Mauryas as suddenly archers and elephants used to be a burden on a civ and now these units are a great asset. Also the meta became more defensive which meant that players are more likely to take advantage of the 10% higher pop cap .

Edited by LetswaveaBook
removed a misplaced word to increase readability.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest if Maurya is still a weak civ then no one would complain about the worker elephant. The problem is Maurya is too OP with access to both Asian elephant, rams and sword cavalry. If we can strengthen other civs in terms of eco and remove the population bonus then that would be balanced. I remember back in A23 Valihrant only ranked Maurya as a mediocre civ, and I agreed with him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I like the working elephant as it is now. In general, I like ele and enjoy everyone on my team.

More rationally I agree that Maurya civ is OP more often because of the archers, the higher pop cap and the siege weapons that are too easy to obtain. In A23 Maurya was not rated as to strong.

Pros working elephants:

  •          Saving 100 wood at the start of the game

  •          Unique Maurya tactic: start all in Cav / Harassment in Biome with a lot of hunt !!!

  •          Maurya is the most wood-heavy boom civilization (no slingers, no mercenaries, no military colony, 300 wood for barracks) and working elephants as a counterbalance, I think it's good

Contrary working elephants:

  •          Economy bonus is ok (travel time is often forgotten)

  •          Units spread over a larger area means higher risk = individual groups can easily be attacked

General:

  •          Different maps favor different civilizations and the Civ selection is part of the game (otherwise just mirror matchup)

  •          Playing Sim City is not so much about winning or losing. So the working elephant topic is more important in competitive games. Newer competitive players have greater advantages from good macro / map position.

  •          In the early / middle / late game, longer journeys mean economic losses and higher risk (scouting of the opponent is required)

  •          If someone is able to farm resources in my territory, they deserve them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

(2) they have a higher pop cap than most civs;

3 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

and +10% pop cap. In previous alphas they had similar bonuses, but the other strong civs dropped a lot. On the same time the environment shifted hugely in favour of Mauryas as suddenly archers and elephants used to be a burden on a civ and now these units are a great asset. Also the meta became more defensive which meant that players are more likely to take advantage of the 10% higher pop cap .

2 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

and remove the population bonus

39 minutes ago, a 0ad player said:

the higher pop cap

Yeah, the higher population cap is problematic. I never liked it and would prefer to see it removed: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2535

[EDIT]:

2 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

rams

All civilizations have rams in A24.

Edited by Nescio
rams
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

To be honest if Maurya is still a weak civ then no one would complain about the worker elephant. The problem is Maurya is too OP with access to both Asian elephant, rams and sword cavalry. If we can strengthen other civs in terms of eco and remove the population bonus then that would be balanced. I remember back in A23 Valihrant only ranked Maurya as a mediocre civ, and I agreed with him.

they was without rams in a23. nobody really used in rating games

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

How about just removing one or more of their carry capacity techs? That way microing the elephant becomes more important.

I agree. The problem with Mauryans is having both strong eco and strong military capacity. If we nerf either one of the two aspects then it would be balanced.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

there was so many replays. so may i already off-topic or to late and probably all already said.

yes i also give yes yekatatrina whats about nomad or not easy getting resources. to small for storehouse or so.

if you not start with mauri in nomad games then you start wrong. i tested for days. but that's the game-play now. i thing it is like it is. if you don't want it, its easy to talk that before you start our game. i like the maury and i started playing mauri in a23 because of the working ele. i found it so pretty and great feature. i don't know its fair. i don't know if it should be changed.

maybe you let them carry move back to the cc or sotorehouse every 5 or 10 minutes. thats a other idea. maybe looks then a bit more real.

Edited by seeh
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/04/2021 at 7:03 AM, chrstgtr said:
On 17/04/2021 at 10:40 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Indeed. My preference would be to boost the other civs, not nerf Mauryas. That said, it's possible to nerf the Worker Elephant slightly without overdoing it. I think requiring a Storehouse first or other such thing wouldn't automatically "cripple" the ele. Simply removing the free one at start might be enough.

The most immediate benefit (and arguably the most important too) of the ele is that you are able to start collecting res away from a CC without spending the initial 100 wood. Very few players ever make a worker ele and instead just rely on the initial ele plus storehouses that they build. So doing this would be a major nerf. 

Maybe other civs could acquire Worker Elephants as mercenaries. Then they can choose whether to get Worker Elephants or use the resources for other things e.g. upgrades. I don't know what a fair cost would be, maybe something like 40 food and 40 metal (I tried to get a similar proportion as for archer mercenaries).

I'm really new, so I don't know if this makes any sense; was just a thought. And I see that this wouldn't achieve the goal of making the civs more distinguishable, which would be in my opinion the much more interesting approach.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...