Mercenaries in p1: Bad or Good?

[Belisarius17]

Love the idea...sound very dynamic and will make the game more interesting with new strategic options...I like it!

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

If I may do a suggestion, such a tech might also allow military colonies, Carthagian embassies, temples to heal your wounded units, blacksmiths, a market to trade some extra metal, melee citizen cavalry and some extra upgrades. It would be good that after this tech you could train mercenaries very fast, like in 4 seconds and overwhelm an unsuspecting opponent.

If we only could think of a name and cost for such a tech...

I think one of the changes of https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3699 (as I understand) is the new training times for mercs are .5 the training times for their corresponding CS type, which I think comes out close to the value you suggested. Do you think making the tech cost 200 food 100 wood 100 metal is a good way to prevent merc spam with starting res from being a default strategy? 

The extra feature of the tech you mentioned are potentially nice, but would probably complicate the discussion about this feature a bit too much. If someone makes a mod with these features, then we could try a 4v4 and determine if the p1 mercs need further adjusting. If they do, we could include one of the smaller extra bonuses you mentioned for this.

If someone is interested enough to make a mod, it should definitely include https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3699 in it, since this seems likely to be implemented in a25, and is the cost/power balance considered in this topic.

[Dizaka]

8 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

 

@Dizaka@LetswaveaBookDo we agree that capturable buildings for mercs are a little too random to be put in the general game, but could be an add on feature in game setup?

 

Random capturable buildings would be interesting.  However, what would happen if someone decided to build their base around these buildings?  Like highly fortify it.  Would it impact the game massively?  How effective would the mercenary training be?  How many buildings?  Would they be close together or all over the map?

 

5 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@Dizaka what do you think of the upgrade timing/cost/research location

 

 

IDK.  Ptolemies used to be a solely 'merc-oriented' civ with the Skrimishers.  They used to cost 10 (or 20?) metal and be built right from the CC in p1.  They didn't really impact balance.  Actually, Ptolemies were always risky to use Skrimishers b/c you ALWAYS needed a 2nd metal mine.  Actually, b/c of cav upgrades you couldn't rush in a23 with ptol skrimishers.  In a22 you could have.  

Currently, the skrimishers are 60 metal.  They are rarely used.  They can only be built during and after p2.  

The main thing about mercs is the metal cost.  The big difference between a23 and a24 mercs was that they ranked up faster than other units.  Ptol, however, had the added bonus of discounted merc units.  Currently, at 60 metal cost, mercs are a no-go in any game.  As long as the cost remains at 60 they won't be used.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Dizaka

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

57 minutes ago, Dizaka said:

The main thing about mercs is the metal cost.  The big difference between a23 and a24 mercs was that they ranked up faster than other units.  Ptol, however, had the added bonus of discounted merc units.  Currently, at 60 metal cost, mercs are a no-go in any game.  As long as the cost remains at 60 they won't be used.

I have my worries about this too, I think it is essential to increase the amount of metal available to players on average. I think replacing the little stone mines with metal mines would be fine. Another option would be to increase the capacity of large metal mines from 5000 to 10000. 

I feel 60 metal is too high for mercenaries especially if they only come out as advanced rather than veteran, but that also trade could be used to abuse the low total cost.

I would be in favor of making mercenaries be 40 metal for inf and 50 metal for cav, and then the other resources adding up to 60 for inf or 60+50 food for cav. Mercs would also starting in advanced rank. I think having a still metal intensive, but more distributed cost, makes them both less spammable from starting metal in p1 and more attainable throughout the game. Overall, I think this cost is best to put them in the suitable role. Unfortunately, it seems the momentum is with doubling down on mercs costing only metal. If more people read this and are in agreement, then perhaps we could eventually test this cost setup combined with the p1 upgrade for the barracks in a mod.

[LetswaveaBook]

On 27/05/2021 at 1:05 AM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Do you think making the tech cost 200 food 100 wood 100 metal is a good way to prevent merc spam with starting res from being a default strategy? 

The extra feature of the tech you mentioned are potentially nice, but would probably complicate the discussion about this feature a bit too much. If someone makes a mod with these features, then we could try a 4v4 and determine if the p1 mercs need further adjusting.

We can discuss the matter, but the only real way to test how things balance the meta is to test it out with a mod. So I made a mod.

I think the tech should cost 500 food and 500 wood, if you can´t guess its name, you can check the mod below. I do consider the starting metal as a problem for p1 mercenaries, so therefore they should be limited by some tech. I agree with you on the fact that a tech to unlock mercenaries could be useful.

I added some things to the mod to support aggression. Features of the mod:

•wood gather rate reduced by 0.10, food gather rate reduced by 0.10 (This means women/cavalry get ¨cheaper¨ and citizen soldiers stay at about the same ¨cost¨, which should encourage people to make more women/cavalry and that would favor aggression).

•speed upgrade for cavalry is reduced in cost to 200f,100m. This might be useful for cavalry rushes. From an economic viewpoint it means that 10% speed is about +10% gather rates at long distances. The 100m is left over after doing the p1 wood/food techs. So the speed upgrade tech seems to be worth it if you have around 15 cavalry.

•I like the concept of age of empires 2, where you getting to the next phase means a significant step in military power. Therefore I added +10%attack/health to all soldiers once p2 is reached.

•Mercenaires need 48seconds to train in p1 for infantry and 64 for cavalry. In p2 these times get reduced to 2 seconds and 2.66.

• Infantry mercenaries cost 35 food and 45 metal and cavalry mercenaires cost 60 metal and 60 food.

•Expertise in war costs 250 metal and need 20 seconds to research. It now triples the train time (This means that you can train mercenaries very fast, until you decide you want to scarify train rate for military power).

• civ specific changes about mercenaries(Athens: +10% metal gather rate in p2, Carthage: can build an Iberian embassy and mercenaries in p1&expertise in war, Kush: can build an Blemmye camp and mercenaries in p1, Macedon: Suited for cavalry rushed and can train mercenary cavalry in p1, Ptolemies: Fantastic eco and Ptolemy 1, Seleucids: start now with an extra mercenary swordsmen and military colony is as fast at producing mercenaries 2 times and researching expertise in war).

•Misc: archers have 2.5 spread and Persian axe cavalry in p1. I also reduced the metal cost of p2/p3 eco and blacksmith techs to make them more accessible and to provide more metal to the players.

I did test the mod in 1v1s and it seems that for Carthage and Kush, you can get about 20 mercenaries out before minute 10. From my tests, I tend to conclude that these changes allow you to get sufficient numbers of mercenaries to deal a really good blow as at this point the opponent seems to have 40-50 citizen soldier scatter around his base. What I tested was a strategy where you only produce 1 barracks and aim click p2 when you have 80 to 110 units. Once you are in p2, you can produce a lot of mercenaries very fast. Then you research expertise in war, which gives coupled with the +10% attack/health bonus some very strong units. I suppose it really allows for a deadly early p2 attack when you opponent is late to p2.

(Also I played a 4v4 last night from the pocket position as Britons. I rushed the opposing flank with cavalry and 12 slingers which was effective and it seems show that passive pockets could get to see their allies destroyed. I have to remark that one player was 1700+ and the receiving end was mid 1300s)

Each of these modded mercenary civilizations will affect the meta in different ways. I would like if there would be some players that try these features in player vs player. Any test results would be appreciated.

 

mercenary_mod.zip

Edited May 29, 2021 by LetswaveaBook
I had some old stuff in the zip file and I did not add the misc comment.

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

30 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

We can discuss the matter, but the only real way to test how things balance the meta is to test it out with a mod. So I made a mod.

I think the tech should cost 500 food and 500 wood, if you can´t guess its name, you can check the mod below. I do consider the starting metal as a problem for p1 mercenaries, so therefore they should be limited by some tech. I agree with you on the fact that a tech to unlock mercenaries could be useful.

I added some things to the mod to support aggression. Features of the mod:

•wood gather rate reduced by 0.10, food gather rate reduced by 0.10 (This means women/cavalry get ¨cheaper¨ and citizen soldiers stay at about the same ¨cost¨, which should encourage people to make more women/cavalry and that would favor aggression).

•speed upgrade for cavalry is reduced in cost to 200f,100m. This might be useful for cavalry rushes. From an economic viewpoint it means that 10% speed is about +10% gather rates at long distances. The 100m is left over after doing the p1 wood/food techs. So the speed upgrade tech seems to be worth it if you have around 15 cavalry.

•I like the concept of age of empires 2, where you getting to the next phase means a significant step in military power. Therefore I added +10%attack/health to all soldiers once p2 is reached.

•Mercenaires need 48seconds to train in p1 for infantry and 64 for cavalry. In p2 these times get reduced to 2 seconds and 2.66.

• Infantry mercenaries cost 35 food and 45 metal and cavalry mercenaires cost 60 metal and 60 food.

•Expertise in war costs 250 metal and need 20 seconds to research. It now triples the train time (This means that you can train mercenaries very fast, until you decide you want to scarify train rate for military power).

• civ specific changes about mercenaries(Athens: +10% metal gather rate in p2, Carthage: can build an Iberian embassy and mercenaries in p1&expertise in war, Kush: can build an Blemmye camp and mercenaries in p1, Macedon: Suited for cavalry rushed and can train mercenary cavalry in p1, Ptolemies: Fantastic eco and Ptolemy 1, Seleucids: start now with an extra mercenary swordsmen and military colony is as fast at producing mercenaries 2 times and researching expertise in war).

•Misc: archers have 2.5 spread and Persian axe cavalry in p1

I did test the mod in 1v1s and it seems that for Carthage and Kush, you can get about 20 mercenaries out before minute 10. From my tests, I tend to conclude that these changes allow you to get sufficient numbers of mercenaries to deal a really good blow as at this point the opponent seems to have 40-50 citizen soldier scatter around his base. What I tested was a strategy where you only produce 1 barracks and aim click p2 when you have 80 to 110 units. Once you are in p2, you can produce a lot of mercenaries very fast. Then you research expertise in war, which gives coupled with the +10% attack/health bonus some very strong units. I suppose it really allows for a deadly early p2 attack when you opponent is late to p2.

(Also I played a 4v4 last night from the pocket position as Britons. I rushed the opposing flank with cavalry and 12 slingers which was effective and it seems show that passive pockets could get to see their allies destroyed. I have to remark that one player was 1700+ and the receiving end was mid 1300s)

Each of these modded mercenary civilizations will affect the meta in different ways. I would like if there would be some players that try these features in player vs player. Any test results would be appreciated.

 

mercenary_mod.zip 45 kB · 0 downloads

God bless your heart my good man

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

We can discuss the matter, but the only real way to test how things balance the meta is to test it out with a mod. So I made a mod.

I think the tech should cost 500 food and 500 wood, if you can´t guess its name, you can check the mod below. I do consider the starting metal as a problem for p1 mercenaries, so therefore they should be limited by some tech. I agree with you on the fact that a tech to unlock mercenaries could be useful.

I added some things to the mod to support aggression. Features of the mod:

•wood gather rate reduced by 0.10, food gather rate reduced by 0.10 (This means women/cavalry get ¨cheaper¨ and citizen soldiers stay at about the same ¨cost¨, which should encourage people to make more women/cavalry and that would favor aggression).

•speed upgrade for cavalry is reduced in cost to 200f,100m. This might be useful for cavalry rushes. From an economic viewpoint it means that 10% speed is about +10% gather rates at long distances. The 100m is left over after doing the p1 wood/food techs. So the speed upgrade tech seems to be worth it if you have around 15 cavalry.

•I like the concept of age of empires 2, where you getting to the next phase means a significant step in military power. Therefore I added +10%attack/health to all soldiers once p2 is reached.

•Mercenaires need 48seconds to train in p1 for infantry and 64 for cavalry. In p2 these times get reduced to 2 seconds and 2.66.

• Infantry mercenaries cost 35 food and 45 metal and cavalry mercenaires cost 60 metal and 60 food.

•Expertise in war costs 250 metal and need 20 seconds to research. It now triples the train time (This means that you can train mercenaries very fast, until you decide you want to scarify train rate for military power).

• civ specific changes about mercenaries(Athens: +10% metal gather rate in p2, Carthage: can build an Iberian embassy and mercenaries in p1&expertise in war, Kush: can build an Blemmye camp and mercenaries in p1, Macedon: Suited for cavalry rushed and can train mercenary cavalry in p1, Ptolemies: Fantastic eco and Ptolemy 1, Seleucids: start now with an extra mercenary swordsmen and military colony is as fast at producing mercenaries 2 times and researching expertise in war).

•Misc: archers have 2.5 spread and Persian axe cavalry in p1. I also reduced the metal cost of p2/p3 eco and blacksmith techs to make them more accessible and to provide more metal to the players.

I did test the mod in 1v1s and it seems that for Carthage and Kush, you can get about 20 mercenaries out before minute 10. From my tests, I tend to conclude that these changes allow you to get sufficient numbers of mercenaries to deal a really good blow as at this point the opponent seems to have 40-50 citizen soldier scatter around his base. What I tested was a strategy where you only produce 1 barracks and aim click p2 when you have 80 to 110 units. Once you are in p2, you can produce a lot of mercenaries very fast. Then you research expertise in war, which gives coupled with the +10% attack/health bonus some very strong units. I suppose it really allows for a deadly early p2 attack when you opponent is late to p2.

(Also I played a 4v4 last night from the pocket position as Britons. I rushed the opposing flank with cavalry and 12 slingers which was effective and it seems show that passive pockets could get to see their allies destroyed. I have to remark that one player was 1700+ and the receiving end was mid 1300s)

Each of these modded mercenary civilizations will affect the meta in different ways. I would like if there would be some players that try these features in player vs player. Any test results would be appreciated.

 

mercenary_mod.zip 45 kB · 0 downloads

we should do a single mod. in this way the set of solutions is tested.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

WOW this looks like a great mod! 

@Dizaka@LetswaveaBook

I think we ought to make a TG later today and try it out!

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I have taken a quick look at the mod and there are some issues I noticed.

1. mercs are still too weak for their metal cost. I think they should start at rank 2. If they come out at rank 1 after such a long time to train them and being expensive, then they are still underpowered. 
2. No upgrade to enable mercs. I know that you did not say it would be in the mod, but if you add it I think it should be 250 food, 100 wood, 100 metal. 
3. Mercs' utility in p1 hinges on them being able to beat CS. So I think it is important to be able to train them quickly even from the beginning, rather, the time delay could be found from the research time for the "enable mercs" upgrade. If the mercenaries train fast, then the time the barracks isn't making eco units is reduced, I think that 48s for inf and 64s for cav is too much, I think training the same speed as CS is preferable in p1 and then the "expertise in war" should reduce train time from there. 

 

 

[LetswaveaBook]

4 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I have taken a quick look at the mod and there are some issues I noticed.

1. mercs are still too weak for their metal cost. I think they should start at rank 2. If they come out at rank 1 after such a long time to train them and being expensive, then they are still underpowered. 
2. No upgrade to enable mercs. I know that you did not say it would be in the mod, but if you add it I think it should be 250 food, 100 wood, 100 metal. 
3. Mercs' utility in p1 hinges on them being able to beat CS. So I think it is important to be able to train them quickly even from the beginning, rather, the time delay could be found from the research time for the "enable mercs" upgrade. If the mercenaries train fast, then the time the barracks isn't making eco units is reduced, I think that 48s for inf and 64s for cav is too much, I think training the same speed as CS is preferable in p1 and then the "expertise in war" should reduce train time from there. 

 

Thanks for your observations. I think we misunderstood each other. There are a few things I want to highlight.

•Mercenaires need 48seconds to train in p1 for infantry and 64 for cavalry. In p2 these times get reduced to 2 seconds and 2.66.

So that means once you reach p2, you can train them very fast. In p1, you can train some of them and because of their low numbers, they are only useful for scouting or finding unprotected women or building foundations.

I dislike the idea of an upgrade to enable them. I think such an upgrade would be counter productive. First we want to make them more useful and after that we limit them by introducing a technology. I think it is better to put them in p2. Here p2 is the technology required to train them fast.

For your final observation I have to notice that the barracks can´t train mercenaries in p1. They are available in the stable(Macedonians), Iberian Embassy and the blemmye camp.

The strategy I wanted to enable is the following:

A strategy where you only start with 1 barracks and aim click p2 when you have 80 to 110 units. Once you are in p2, you can produce a lot of mercenaries very fast. Then you research expertise in war. Which gives you an army of advanced mercenaries ready to attack.

[alre]

why wouldn't you use cs for the scouting and building foundations? why even train mercs in phase 1 then?

[maroder]

@LetswaveaBook I like thew general idea, but I think it is a little bit to complicated. This extreme reduction in training time between p1 and p2 seems not logic to me. My thoughts for mercs (trainable from p1 or p2) is this:

• High metal cost (maybe 60 for infantry and 80 for cav  or even more) - This should prevent spam in p1
• advanced rank from the beginning - You should get something for your investment
• no (or very little training time) - to differentiate them from CS
• Once you build the embassy, you can train them from every barrack - Works as an entry cost and to not be restricted by the number of embassy

[LetswaveaBook]

1 minute ago, maroder said:

High metal cost (maybe 60 for infantry and 80 for cav  or even more) - This should prevent spam in p1

High metal cost means spam in p1. If a cavalry merc cost 80 metal and 40 food. Then you mine 20 metal and get 4 cavalry mercenaries for 160 food. If you add some citizen cavalry to that, you will be able to get a very good army. When your opponent only has a few citizen soldiers, 4 extra mercenaries can really make a difference.

 

4 minutes ago, maroder said:

advanced rank from the beginning - You should get something for your investment

You did not invest anything substantial. You mined some metal. That is all. Also, advance rank is probably more powerful than you think. I like the advanced rank being locked behind a slight cost.

 

4 minutes ago, maroder said:

Once you build the embassy, you can train them from every barrack - Works as an entry cost and to not be restricted by the number of embassy

If the embassy trains mercenaries very fast, then why bother training them from barracks?

[maroder]

2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

High metal cost means spam in p1.

 

2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

You did not invest anything substantial. You mined some metal. That is all.

Disagree. The metal mining rate is much lower than the wood gathering rate, so if you want to mine enough metal to make a p1 merc rush, that should clearly put you to an eco disadvantage, as your CS are busy mining metal and not gathering wood. Also, as mercs don't help you with your eco either it still means that this is a risky strategy.

 

2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

When your opponent only has a few citizen soldiers, 4 extra mercenaries can really make a difference.

Yes, mercenaries can make a big difference, but if your opponent only has a few CS at the point you show up with the mercs, than he made wrong choices and probably should have scouted more.

Regarding advanced rank: yeah, would also be ok as a p2 tech.

About the embassy: True. If it is indeed so fast, then it wouldn't make a difference.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@LetswaveaBook The main reason for the upgrade to enable mercs was to prevent the metal spam. If you want mercs you should have to put some people on metal. I feel this is a better solution than the super long training time, because the time goes from the time to wait for training to the time waiting to get enough metal. If the upgrade costs 200 metal, then you must divert some wood/food eco to get mercs. 

Another thing: for this p1 merc option to be viable, mercenaries should be rank 2 by default. I feel this is the only way to justify getting them in p1, since without it they are just too expensive and no better than standard CS. "expertise in war" could make them train faster available in p2, train time goes from 1xCS to .5xCS. A merc rush should be able to defeat someone who just has a mix of women and CS in their base. I think women sniping is a bit shallow as the only way to rush, and it would be nice if a well planned merc rush could also threaten larger groups of CS unless they have gone to the expense to build plenty of defenses.

I would say that it would be cool if mercs were rank 3 by default and priced similarly to skiritai, except with a cost shifted to metal a bit: -10 wood +5 metal -10 food +5 metal. Cavalry add 30 food and 10 metal to this. If this is available in p1, then players will need to be make protections while booming on CS.

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

10 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

A strategy where you only start with 1 barracks and aim click p2 when you have 80 to 110 units. Once you are in p2, you can produce a lot of mercenaries very fast. Then you research expertise in war. Which gives you an army of advanced mercenaries ready to attack.

I think it is better to avoid designing mercenaries in p1 and p2 to lend themselves to one type of merc rush strategy. If we can give a versatile, powerful, but that goes against the booming (wood/food) instinct, then it can be used in a great number of strategies during p1, p2, and beyond.

[LetswaveaBook]

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

The main reason for the upgrade to enable mercs was to prevent the metal spam. If you want mercs you should have to put some people on metal. I feel this is a better solution than the super long training time, because the time goes from the time to wait for training to the time waiting to get enough metal. If the upgrade costs 200 metal, then you must divert some wood/food eco to get mercs. 

Another thing: for this p1 merc option to be viable, mercenaries should be rank 2 by default. I feel this is the only way to justify getting them in p1, since without it they are just too expensive and no better than standard CS. "expertise in war" could make them train faster available in p2, train time goes from 1xCS to .5xCS. A merc rush should be able to defeat someone who just has a mix of women and CS in their base. I think women sniping is a bit shallow as the only way to rush, and it would be nice if a well planned merc rush could also threaten larger groups of CS unless they have gone to the expense to build plenty of defenses.

I would say that it would be cool if mercs were rank 3 by default and priced similarly to skiritai, except with a cost shifted to metal a bit: -10 wood +5 metal -10 food +5 metal. Cavalry add 30 food and 10 metal to this. If this is available in p1, then players will need to be make protections while booming on CS.

The main reason why I am not in favor of a tech is the following. Suppose you get to p2 and there is such a tech, you are still limited by the tech. So they are only viable if you make the tech. If you limit them to p2, then it gets useful for nearly everyone, since everyone gets to p2.

The second thing I wanted to point out is that I did not aim mercenaries to be viable in p1. I wanted to make them a good option in p2. I think by making them faster to train and cheaper expertise in war, they should be viable as a CS replacement. Only testing can really show if they are viable under these conditions.

[nani]

Another issue with mercs is that for ranged marcenaries the cost vs hp ratio is very high and we all know that in alpha 24 being under a tower or a civic center can kill many units is a split of a second making any kind of rush with skirmish or archers that have 50 hp a suicide move and a waste of metal.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

 

@LetswaveaBookWell the point of the discussion was to explore the civ diversification/strategy diversification benefits of having mercenaries in p1. Right now (with the mod) they are only in p1 in an un-usable state because they are simply more expensive, non-economic citizen soldiers. I feel the enabling tech does not limit merc usage later in the game either, as one's ability to foot the bill for the metal cost only increases with time/phase/population (until availability runs out).

On 29/05/2021 at 1:43 AM, LetswaveaBook said:

I did test the mod in 1v1s and it seems that for Carthage and Kush, you can get about 20 mercenaries out before minute 10. From my tests, I tend to conclude that these changes allow you to get sufficient numbers of mercenaries to deal a really good blow as at this point the opponent seems to have 40-50 citizen soldier scatter around his base. What I tested was a strategy where you only produce 1 barracks and aim click p2 when you have 80 to 110 units. Once you are in p2, you can produce a lot of mercenaries very fast. Then you research expertise in war, which gives coupled with the +10% attack/health bonus some very strong units. I suppose it really allows for a deadly early p2 attack when you opponent is late to p2.

What is your main reason not to allow mercenaries in p1?

Does anyone agree with me that mercs should be rank 3 and cost similar to skiritai but shifted to metal somewhat, and also available at all ages after a 300 metal upgrade from barracks?

This is a much simpler setup than previous proposals. 300 metal upgrade because in p1 you should still have to mine some metal to get your first mercs.

I feel that this would bring a true turtle/boom/rush balance spectrum to 0ad. In a 23 we had boom and a little bit of rush. In a24 we have just boom. In a25 we could have rush or boom or turtle and everything in between. Having this diversity is much better than enabling one merc strategy (the p2 rush with mercs).

Edited May 30, 2021 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[ChronA]

38 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I feel that this would bring a true turtle/boom/rush balance spectrum to 0ad. In a 23 we had boom and a little bit of rush. In a24 we have just boom. In a25 we could have rush or boom or turtle and everything in between.

I would not consider the problem of the missing rush solved until rushing is viable for almost all civs, and not just those few with access to mercs. Unless the plan is to give every civ P1 access to mercs or champions as a tool to enable rushing, any effort you put in now to balance this will only be a stop-gap. It will all have to be redone from scratch eventually, as part of the general overhaul of unit roles and relationships that it will take to bring this game into a semblance of polish. That's not to say the effort would be wasted, but this is a bandage on a cut that needs stiches.

[LetswaveaBook]

1 hour ago, ChronA said:

I would not consider the problem of the missing rush solved until rushing is viable for almost all civs, and not just those few with access to mercs.

True, but a mercenary rush might be a good option to diversify civs. Civilizations have different units and that inherently makes that some rushes are available to some civilizations while others are not. I think the aim should be to create different rush options and the mercenary rush can be one of them.

I also played a game against Yekaterina, who played just as if it was a normal game (also thanks to Yekaterina for trying the mod). I had a very good starting berries, with two fruit trees close to them. I was playing Seleucids against Ptolemies and at minute 10:30 I had allready a military colony at her door and 25 advanced mercenary archers were getting their first kills. On the flip side, she collected 16815 resources while I had 14000 at that point. The game ended in p2 with a successful mercenary rush.

2021-05-30_0005.zip

@BreakfastBurrito_007, I understand that I am moving the conversation towards a p2 mercenary rush. If you prefer to stick to the p1 mercenary idea, I would be able to move the p2 mercenary rush to a different topic, such that your ideas of a p1 mercenary rush can be heard. My main question is why not make the required tech be p2?

Edited May 30, 2021 by LetswaveaBook

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

1 hour ago, ChronA said:

I would not consider the problem of the missing rush solved until rushing is viable for almost all civs, and not just those few with access to mercs. Unless the plan is to give every civ P1 access to mercs or champions as a tool to enable rushing, any effort you put in now to balance this will only be a stop-gap. It will all have to be redone from scratch eventually, as part of the general overhaul of unit roles and relationships that it will take to bring this game into a semblance of polish. That's not to say the effort would be wasted, but this is a bandage on a cut that needs stiches.

It is true. There are not really that many civs that have mercenaries, and this could create more problems than it solves. I suppose, in the meantime rushing is going to be between cavalry and women like always. At least we have some ideas for some changes, we will see how mercenaries are in a25 but my expectation is that they will still be bad. At the moment, mercenaries are awkward primarily because of the high cost that is not justified by their power. I would look to the skiritai commandos for a basis for the cost of mercs, they are positively regarded by most 0ad players and I think they are the only good example of a unit that accurately falls between champion and CS.

[LienRag]

What about having some Civilizations getting (either from start or through a tech) the ability to hire mercenaries on promised pay ?

These mercenaries would cost metal upkeep (if they don't get paid they risk to stage a revolt or swithc side), limited while they're idle, higher when moving/building, and more important when fighting (maybe with higher costs when wounded).
I'm thinking of 1 metal per second when fighting ?

Their fixed cost would be set somewhere on the trading or diplomacy panel, with a button "pay the mercenaries".

It would not be possible to hire new mercenaries as long as the debt to the first ones is not settled (even the dead). There could even be some heroes still able to hire mercenaries while a certain amount of debt is still owed, so as to vary the gameplay.

Once paid, these mercenaries could either leave the map or be re-hired (probably at a lower cost).

The amount of mercenaries that could be hired on a promised pay will be fixed either by the Civilization, by a Tech level or by buildings, or by random - or timed - events  (they'll need to be hired all at the same moment, since it's not possible to hire mercenaries while the debt to older mercenaries is not settled).

With timed or random events, it's even possible to allow multiple players to compete to hire the same group of mercenaries (by a blind auction mechanism on a limited period of time, let's say 10 seconds).

 

Needs good balancing to allow early rush while not making these early rushes impossible to counter, obviously.

[Jofursloft]

2 hours ago, LienRag said:

I'm thinking of 1 metal per second when fighting ?

I really like the idea but 1 metal per second is huge. It means that if you have 20 mercenaries that's 1200 metal per minute! 

Maybe 0,3/4 could be a good cost. 

[LienRag]

21 minutes ago, Jofursloft said:

I really like the idea but 1 metal per second is huge. It means that if you have 20 mercenaries that's 1200 metal per minute! 

Maybe 0,3/4 could be a good cost. 

Do they fight for 1 full minute ?

Anyway I'm not the balancer-in-chief, the number I gave was just an indication, it certainly can be changed.