==[Debate]== Should Mauryan and Persian population bonus should be removed

[Yekaterina]

As of now the population bonus of Mauryans still has not been removed from A25 svn, and it is well past the feature freeze. 

 

Motion: Should the population bonus of Mauryans and Persians be removed or reduced? Discuss. 

Some arguments:

• The Mauryan population bonus should be removed because they are already too OP. In early game the elephant gives them pop bonus, therefore the additional 20 extra soldiers makes the Mauryans too strong. 
• The population bonus is an unique feature of Mauryans and should be kept to distinguish it from the others. 
• Historically they could field large numbers of units. 
• Persians had weaker units but more population because of its large territory. 
• In the game Persians have a slow boom, so the later population bonus is not as significant. They are also susceptible to cavalry harassment in early game (especially in A25)

Options:

• Reduce the population bonus, e.g. down to 5%
• Remove it completely
• Leave it as it is

 

I have submitted a patch to remove it but it refused to build.  I will try again. 

 

@Stan` @chrstgtr @ValihrAnt @LetswaveaBook @Player of 0AD @Lion.Kanzen @BreakfastBurrito_007 @Gurken Khan @nani

[nani]

Leave it as it is

[soloooy0]

• Leave it as it is

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I think that for the Persians, if it is there, it should be easier to take advantage of but not necessarily as meaningful.  For the most part their infantry should be cheaper but weaker, making them the anvil with cavalry acting as the hammer.

I don't have much to say for the Maurya.

[Gurken Khan]

Remove the pop cap bonus for Mauryas and Persians. Maur are already op. Pers I guess halving it would be ok, too.

What I'm sour about is how crappy the wonders are currently. If they'd get the +10 pop cap by itself back and make the 'Glorious Expansion' tech more reasonable, I'd be fine with those pop cap bonuses, because you could close the gap at least relatively. Until then, I stick with my first line.

[Yekaterina]

26 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I think that for the Persians, if it is there, it should be easier to take advantage of but not necessarily as meaningful.  For the most part their infantry should be cheaper but weaker, making them the anvil with cavalry acting as the hammer.

I am thinking about decreasing the attack and armour of Persian infantry slightly (by 1.5%), but also deceasing their cost by a bit. This justifies the extra pop. 

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

55 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

I am thinking about decreasing the attack and armour of Persian infantry slightly (by 1.5%), but also deceasing their cost by a bit. This justifies the extra pop. 

Numbers like that sound kind of insubstantial.  Do you know how that marginal of a difference would translate into the game?  I don't mean to sound skeptical, but incremental changes like that seem kind of pointless.  My take would have been costing ten fewer resources at the cost of a 5% hitpoint reduction (Obviously the cheaper cost is a pretty massive economic boon, and I'm not sure if that specific stat nerf would be enough to compensate.).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

41 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Numbers like that sound kind of insubstantial.  Do you know how that marginal of a difference would translate into the game?  I don't mean to sound skeptical, but incremental changes like that seem kind of pointless.  My take would have been costing ten fewer resources at the cost of a 5% hitpoint reduction (Obviously the cheaper cost is a pretty massive economic boon, and I'm not sure if that specific stat nerf would be enough to compensate.).

In DE, Mauryan spearmen cost about half the resources and train time and half population (infantry are usually 2 pop, but Maur spearmen are 1 pop). Consequently, they gather half as fast, have 30% less attack, and have about 42% less health. So, it's so easy to mass them, but they melt like butter. The benefit is that with double the men, that gives the player perhaps some more tactical abilities, even if they're weak. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I think it would be my preference to give something else to other civs rather than take away from some unique aspects. I know it is not always possible balance-wise but it helps to get creative.

[LetswaveaBook]

@Yekaterina, I think it is nice that you provide arguments for both sides and list them. The point I adhere to most is

10 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

The population bonus is an unique feature of Mauryans and should be kept to distinguish it from the others. 

However it is true that Mauryas are strong. If we would nerf them I would prefer another suggestion: Worker elephant takes 3 population(& cost 200 food). This increases the opportunity cost since if you used to make 5 worker elephants, that soaks up +10 population. Also it means that at the start you have 13 population instead of 11, so you have less free space.

10 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

Persians had weaker units

I think this is something game designers like to think. However I am not fully convinced it is actually firmly rooted in history. Against the Lydians for example, the persians had fewer cavalry and famously used their baggage train camels and winning the battle on foot. Persian infantry lost a fair share of battles, but there were victories as well and we need to remember that losses could easily have other reasons than just weak infantry.

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

Didn't persians used wicker shields? Those look pretty much worse to an aspis or even a pelta to me.

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

In DE, Mauryan spearmen cost about half the resources and train time and half population (infantry are usually 2 pop, but Maur spearmen are 1 pop). Consequently, they gather half as fast, have 30% less attack, and have about 42% less health. So, it's so easy to mass them, but they melt like butter. The benefit is that with double the men, that gives the player perhaps some more tactical abilities, even if they're weak. 

Its the type of stat changed that should be implemented but I think we will never see them since tweaking every single pop count and cost in the game would be a nightmare.

I would just make their infantry weaker.

[Genava55]

An article I find good and interesting:

https://www.worldhistory.org/Persian_Warfare/

The idea of the inferiority of Persian arms is indeed something the ancients mentioned :

Herodotus,9,62: While he was still in the act of praying, the men of Tegea leapt out before the rest and charged the barbarians, and immediately after Pausanias' prayer the sacrifices of the Lacedaemonians became favorable. Now they too charged the Persians, and the Persians met them, throwing away their bows. [2] First they fought by the fence of shields, and when that was down, there was a fierce and long fight around the temple of Demeter itself, until they came to blows at close quarters. For the barbarians laid hold of the spears and broke them short. [3] Now the Persians were neither less valorous nor weaker, but they had no armor; moreover, since they were unskilled and no match for their adversaries in craft, they would rush out singly and in tens or in groups great or small, hurling themselves on the Spartans and so perishing.

[Player of 0AD]

Just remove the pop boni, but don't change the units.

Persians are not really vulnerable against early rushes because they have spearmen and archers. Javelin Cav can't hit their targets never ever but archers do.

So maybe there is a necessitiy to change units, now as i mention it: Increase precision

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I think this is something game designers like to think. However I am not fully convinced it is actually firmly rooted in history. Against the Lydians for example, the persians had fewer cavalry and famously used their baggage train camels and winning the battle on foot. Persian infantry lost a fair share of battles, but there were victories as well and we need to remember that losses could easily have other reasons than just weak infantry.

The point is that compared to other heavy infantry of say the Greeks or Romans, Persian infantry did not hold up very well.  There is a good reason that every major engagement against hoplites in the Persian Wars resulted in the Persians being defeated aside from Thermopylae, and we know how that went.  The victory against the Lydians was in part due to Cyrus deploying camels that neutralised much of the Lydian own cavalry.  This isn't to say that Persians had necessarily bad; Greeks just happened to be major outliers in how they fought.

The most obvious reason behind making them a wee bit inferior is that by the end of those wars, the Persians adapted their military in one major way: they heavily recruited Greek mercenaries, something that honestly should be reflected in their tech tree.

[Genava55]

16 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

This isn't to say that Persians had necessarily bad; Greeks just happened to be major outliers in how they fought

And they neutralized their main asset, archers. Persians were focusing on battling the enemies with rain of arrows but from the front mostly. Tacticaly, the Persians weren't quick to adapt. They had numerous light infantry and light cavalry but not used correctly against the Greeks.

[LetswaveaBook]

17 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

 This isn't to say that Persians had necessarily bad; Greeks just happened to be major outliers in how they fought.

I think this has to be considered? Are there any record that compare the troops of brennus, sacker of rome, to the Achaemenid Persians? My guess would be that also the Gauls were armed inferior.

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

https://www.worldhistory.org/Persian_Warfare/

This source speaks of civilizations met earlier and I believe the Phoenicians were among them. These civilizations were armored no better than the Persians. So would it be fair to assume that the Persians were as well armored as the Carthaginians, who were Phoenicians?

On other main faction to compare them to would be the Iberians, but I don't know anything about their style. Is it fair to say that the Persians were inferior to all these factions?

[Genava55]

4 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

This source speaks of civilizations met earlier and I believe the Phoenicians were among them. These civilizations were armored no better than the Persians. So would it be fair to assume that the Persians were as well armored as the Carthaginians, who were Phoenicians?

That's sophistry and a lack of knowledge about the Carthaginians, their past experience against the Greeks and the Etruscans and their adaptation during the Punic Wars. 

5 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

On other main faction to compare them to would be the Iberians, but I don't know anything about their style. Is it fair to say that the Persians were inferior to all these factions?

Iberians were highly valuated mercenaries, used by the Carthaginians with the Gauls in the front line and in the center to hold the unstoppable Roman infantry long enough to surround them by the sides.

12 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Are there any record that compare the troops of brennus, sacker of rome, to the Achaemenid Persians?

During the Theban–Spartan War of 378–362 BC:

Diodorus Siculus, 15, 70, 1: From Sicily, Celts and Iberians to the number of two thousand sailed to Corinth, for they had been sent by the tyrant Dionysius to fight in alliance with the Lacedaemonians, and had received pay for five months. The Greeks, in order to make trial of them, led them forth; and they proved their worth in hand-to-hand fighting and in battles and many both of the Boeotians and of their allies were slain by them. Accordingly, having won repute for superior dexterity and courage and rendered many kinds of service, they were given awards by the Lacedaemonians and sent back home at the close of the summer to Sicily.

[alre]

I don't think it's fair to say that persian infantry was inferior to any other, they were different, not inferior. Persians fielded light infantry, that is represented in the game by archers. Of course if archers meet heavy infantry in close combat, without possibility of retreating, they lose badly, so I don't think there is need to penalize them further (not only persian archers anyway). On the other hand, persian shield bearers should probably be differentiated from greek hoplites, having more pierce resistance, but less hand-to-hand proficiency. They could also be made faster, so that they can move along archers, as they historically did.

But I think we could have much more variety in melee soldiers stats in general.

Edited July 4, 2021 by alre

[Yekaterina]

1 minute ago, alre said:

don't think it's fair to say that persian infantry was inferior to any other, they were different, not inferior. Persians fielded light infantry, that is represented in the game by archers. Of course if archers meet heavy infantry in close combat, without possibility of retreating, they lose badly, so I don't think there is need to penalize them further. On the other hand, persian shield bearers should probably be differentiated from greek hoplites, having more pierce resistance, but less hand-to-hand proficiency. They could also be made faster, so that they can move along archers, as they historically did.

But I think we could have much more variety in melee soldiers stats in general.

Can you suggest some stats please?

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

11 minutes ago, alre said:

I don't think it's fair to say that persian infantry was inferior to any other, they were different, not inferior. Persians fielded light infantry, that is represented in the game by archers. Of course if archers meet heavy infantry in close combat, without possibility of retreating, they lose badly, so I don't think there is need to penalize them further (not only persian archers anyway). On the other hand, persian shield bearers should probably be differentiated from greek hoplites, having more pierce resistance, but less hand-to-hand proficiency. They could also be made faster, so that they can move along archers, as they historically did.

But I think we could have much more variety in melee soldiers stats in general.

Well I think persians can afford having slightly weaker meatshields because of archer of course but also because they have all cavary types, elephants and rams. 

[Genava55]

10 minutes ago, alre said:

I don't think it's fair to say that persian infantry was inferior to any other, they were different, not inferior. Persians fielded light infantry, that is represented in the game by archers. Of course if archers meet heavy infantry in close combat, without possibility of retreating, they lose badly, so I don't think there is need to penalize them further (not only persian archers anyway). On the other hand, persian shield bearers should probably be differentiated from greek hoplites, having more pierce resistance, but less hand-to-hand proficiency. They could also be made faster, so that they can move along archers, as they historically did.

This is true they were different and not inferior in general and per se. Persian infantrymen could have been polyvalent archers. But it makes them less suited for intense close-quarter and against a foe relying on aggressive charge or pushing through in a packed and dense formation.

Persian army wasn't weak, it lacked experience against a foe focusing on heavy infantry and it lacked adaptation. But actually the Persian army is quite diverse and well-managed army. Especially their supply line which was far better than the Greeks at the time of the Greco-Persian wars.

I agree they should have a better resistance against pierce damage since their shields seem to have been better suited for this. They also used their shield as fences.

[alre]

19 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

Can you suggest some stats please?

Ok maybe these could do:

• walk speed: 10.8 -> same as archers
• crush armor: 15 -> same as other melee infantry
• pierce armor: 10 -> same as pikes currently
• hack armor: 3 -> midway between archers (1) and spear/swordmen (5)
• damage: 1.5 hack + 1.5 pierce every 1 second -> the bare minimum to make them somehow a threat
• range: 3 m -> same as swordmen, less than spearmen (4 m)
• health, bonus against cav: unchanged.

So basically they would have the meatshied potential of what pikemen are currently in the game, but they would mealt very easily when confronting another melee fighter, as for the very bad hack armor (compared to pikes) and low damage output - I'm being conservative there because I don't like the whole concept of meatshield and I wouldn't like one to work too well.

 

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I could see that argument for the basic level but scaling off as they level up (and generally do not use more armour).  Hoplites wore armour that basically protected all of their vitals and probably would have had no major problem with arrows.  Javelins?  Maybe not.

Again, if the Persians wanted to use meatshields, they hired Greeks for that purpose.

[Yekaterina]

Persians have no mercenary units in A24. Maybe let them hire mercenary hoplites?

Back in A23 they had Kardaces skirmisher and Kardaces spearmen