Jump to content

What if pikemen had their attack rate halved?


Recommended Posts

Personally I like how pikemen work as they are now. If you really what to decrease their attack, fine. But maybe multiply RepeatTime by 1.4, not 2. 2 would be too extreme and makes pikemen useless. Meanwhile, we can boost their armour even further to emphasise their ability to act as a meatshield.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stan` said:
3 hours ago, ChronA said:

Perhaps another solution would be to scale down the models, but with the amount of art assets I'm guessing that would take months of continuous work.

Indeed. assuming we can scale them all without remaking them (some cannot be imported in blender), which we cannot.

And that sunk cost fallacy is precisely why I argue so loudly against adding more civs (and art assets in general) while the game remains in alpha.  It is a bad situation when art assets start dictating what is possible in core gameplay and balance decisions. But it is what it is, and we are stuck with it. 
 

This very thread is a prime example. A lot of people want pikemen to fit into the role of the tank, but it simply does not fit their art direction. Moreover, the fact that each civ gets exactly one P1 melee infantry unit, and for some civs that one is a pikeman, prevents us from exploring some of the more interesting possibilities for diversifying their role:

Making pikemen slow super-tanks doesn't work because (apart from not fitting their in game depiction) lowering their movement speed would nerf the economy of pike civs...

Making them melee superiority with high hack resistance but low pierce armor won't work because it would make an anti-cav counter, which the pike civs depend on, too vulnerable to ranged infantry... etc.

I don't want to point fingers. It seems to me that everyone working on this project does so out of genuine enthusiasm and good faith. But we should acknowledge that the art contributors, who appear to enjoy an privileged role in the governance of this project, are likewise culpable in an outsized fraction of its balance and gameplay issues. Maybe it is not unreasonable to ask those same contributors for some outsized efforts in service of solving those problems?:orthanc:

 

Edited by ChronA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

Personally I like how pikemen work as they are now. If you really what to decrease their attack, fine. But maybe multiply RepeatTime by 1.4, not 2. 2 would be too extreme and makes pikemen useless. Meanwhile, we can boost their armour even further to emphasise their ability to act as a meatshield.  

When I made the title of this tread, I purposely made it bi-ambiguous. It could mean ¨What would happen if pikemen had their attack rate halved?¨ and then the video would be the answer: They would still be excellent target dummies and that is the problem with the meta.  It was not meant to be a serious question of ¨What do you think about if pikemen had their attack rate halved?¨. I just wanted to say that their current gameplay role seems ludicrous to me.

 

1 hour ago, ChronA said:

Maybe it is not unreasonable to ask those same contributors for some outsized efforts in service of solving those problems?

I think the art team makes the models based on history. As a community I think we could all help out by shaping the balance such that the units serve a historically accurate role. If people want target dummies, they probably need to give that role to a unit with a big shield. Also I feel like the game should be shaped such that being a target dummy is not a thing. The problem does not lie with the art team, it lies with the people that decided pikemen needed to have huge armor stats.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChronA said:

And that sunk cost fallacy is precisely why I argue so loudly against adding more civs (and art assets in general) while the game remains in alpha.  It is a bad situation when art assets start dictating what is possible in core gameplay and balance decisions. But it is what it is, and we are stuck with it. 
 

This very thread is a prime example. A lot of people want pikemen to fit into the role of the tank, but it simply does not fit their art direction. Moreover, the fact that each civ gets exactly one P1 melee infantry unit, and for some civs that one is a pikeman, prevents us from exploring some of the more interesting possibilities for diversifying their role:

Making pikemen slow super-tanks doesn't work because (apart from not fitting their in game depiction) lowering their movement speed would nerf the economy of pike civs...

Making them melee superiority with high hack resistance but low pierce armor won't work because it would make an anti-cav counter, which the pike civs depend on, too vulnerable to ranged infantry... etc.

I don't want to point fingers. It seems to me that everyone working on this project does so out of genuine enthusiasm and good faith. But we should acknowledge that the art contributors, who appear to enjoy an privileged role in the governance of this project, are likewise culpable in an outsized fraction of its balance and gameplay issues. Maybe it is not unreasonable to ask those same contributors for some outsized efforts in service of solving those problems?:orthanc:

 

But pikemen being good against cav but bad against archers is the holy triangle of RTS counters!! 

Historically I bet they were more vunarable to archers than hoplites due their shield ( not sure if i should call it pelta) being smaller than the traditional aspis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I think the art team makes the models based on history. As a community I think we could all help out by shaping the balance such that the units serve a historically accurate role. If people want target dummies, they probably need to give that role to a unit with a big shield. Also I feel like the game should be shaped such that being a target dummy is not a thing. The problem does not lie with the art team, it lies with the people that decided pikemen needed to have huge armor stats.

Definitely the defining trait of pikemen that should dictate their advantages in fights should be their long range.  That said, all melee infantry should be able to tank arrows relatively well if they are slow.  With that in mind, pikemen have to have good pierce armour since they have been defined by the trait of being slow units.  I think that by and large there is a good argument for making all melee infantry (with some exceptions) start with roughly the same movement speed.  Technologies could then potentially serve to differentiate them in later phases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

That´s very true, but we don´t see that in any aspect of the game.

It is, but the unit collision and a few other factors make it very rare to properly show up in gameplay.  Unlike kamyuks, in which there seems to be enough range for up to three units to stand between, pikemen instead can only reach about the size of a single person standing.  A reason for this is that the sarissa is represented as fairly short in game.  According to a random google search, the average man in ancient Greece was roughly 1.6 metres tall.  The length of the sarissa according to wikipedia was roughly 4-6 metres.  Looking at the game, pikes stand at roughly twice the height of a person, making them only 3.2 metres if the information from earlier is correct.  That 0.8-2.8m is a rather massive disparity that translates into their range in game being rather lacklustre.  If one watches kamayuks fight in Age of Empires II, their range still plays an important role even without formations since it allows for them to attack more frequently without needing to move.  

In short, make pikes longer and extend the range of pikemen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

As a community I think we could all help out by shaping the balance such that the units serve a historically accurate role. If people want target dummies, they probably need to give that role to a unit with a big shield. Also I feel like the game should be shaped such that being a target dummy is not a thing. The problem does not lie with the art team, it lies with the people that decided pikemen needed to have huge armor stats.

In history, pikes were used en masse to pin down enemy formations so the skirmishers and cavalry could pick the enemy apart with flanking maneuvers. Without hard battalions or formation fighting, the only way to simulate this is to make the game's phalangites very very tanky ("meat shields", "damage sponges"). And to prevent them from being OP, their speed and attack has to be unusually low.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

In history, pikes were used en masse to pin down enemy formations so the skirmishers and cavalry could pick the enemy apart with flanking maneuvers. Without hard battalions or formation fighting, the only way to simulate this is to make the game's phalangites very very tanky ("meat shields", "damage sponges"). And to prevent them from being OP, their speed and attack has to be unusually low.

That is the problem of not having bonuses for formations.

Will be simulated better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stan` said:

See 

 

thanks, this post seems to be more about making it possible to ahve a working syntagma, and the scale of objects in game. As someone already pointed that formations are not a priority and will remain  as eye candy for the most part so I already quit trying to advocate for working formations .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

why not give the champion pikeman a bigger sarrissa

Was answering this ^ :) Which is what the post was about before it went to formation.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/05/2021 at 2:19 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

In history, pikes were used en masse to pin down enemy formations so the skirmishers and cavalry could pick the enemy apart with flanking maneuvers. Without hard battalions or formation fighting, the only way to simulate this is to make the game's phalangites very very tanky ("meat shields", "damage sponges"). And to prevent them from being OP, their speed and attack has to be unusually low.

and why would that armor be pierce-resistant then, instead of mostly hack-resistant? The latter seems more logical.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alre said:

and why would that armor be pierce-resistant then, instead of mostly hack-resistant? The latter seems more logical.

Well, again, it's a simulation attempting to get something close to what happened in history. Historically, archers weren't necessarily very good against pikes. It's not like phalangites had bigger shields or anything, I've read it may have been the "forest of pikes" phenomenon which scattered the incoming arrows. Very difficult to simulate in 0 A.D. with its very simple combat paradigm. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pikes should not be longer than 6 metres because that would become unrealistic. The longest sarissa was 6 metres and it was already bending.  Longer pikes put more tension in the material and very few materials back in 0AD can withstand such stress, while being of a reasonable mass. 

 

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...