Jump to content

Extra benefits of phase advancements.


LetswaveaBook
 Share

Recommended Posts

Currently it seems to me that advancing to phase 2&3 is more the result of a strong economy than a strategy choice . It would seem desirable to me if advancing to phase 2&3 was more of a strategy choice than the result of a strong economy. Currently going to the next phase to early can be very dangerous if you lack the economy to support it and spam units. As in another topic, I would like to encourage early aggression and strategies that do not mainly focus on getting max pop with max upgrades asap.

The idea for this topic is to give a few extra benefits to reaching the next phase:

Benefit 1: CCs and defensive structures get +2 pierce attack upon reaching the next phase.

The current pierce attack for the CCs seems fine to me in p1, but later on it feels less usable once the enemy gets more troops and more armor upgrades. This would keep the p1 balance as it currently is. This also synergyzes well with a few things, namely the extra capture point regen upon reaching the next phases and the fact that anyone that reaches the next phase has dropped in population compared to those staying in the previous phases. So with a little extra attack for defenses it is easier to defend once the next phase is researched. One of A25 complaints is that defenses are to weak. Defenses have been not only weakened since A24, but armor upgrades against them has become more accessible and a 3rd level has been added. For a fully garrisoned sentry tower, +2 pierce attack is almost equivalent to getting the sentries upgrade.

Benefit 2: CCs get -0.1 batch training time upon reaching the next phase.

The idea for this is that phasing up does not necessary should put you massively behind on production capacity behind anyone who stays in earlier phases and builds extra barracks. If you are in p1, and produce batches of 10 women, that takes 56.8 seconds. With this chance that would be 45.1 seconds upon reaching p2. That is not extremely significant, but it helps the player that has advanced in phase to catch up in population. Also it is something that helps to put emphasis on building new CCs rather than barracks spamm. In phase 3, a CC would produce 10 units in 39 seconds, while a barracks produces for comparison 5 units in 36 seconds.

 

I hope these changes would encourage more active strategies and personally I don't really see a downside to them. It might be argued that it would give extra advantage to player that reach p3 first, but on the other hand I would argue that if you fall behind these changes give you the option to "afford" p3 earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thumb down.

first, I think it's bad for transparency to add side effects to phasing, as they are not obvious to players, this was already acknowledged in the past.

also, there already are strategies and players that pass to p2 early, as others that wait to the last minute. having a choice is what we always wanted, so things are not that bad already. I share the feeling that p2 could be made better, but these perks seem like making the choice of phasing less relevant, not more.

finally, p3 is already very convinient for the blacksmith upgrades alone, let alone heroes and all the rest, I think p3 should be nerfed, not buffed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like these ideas. I think growing an economy and military should not be a zerg to max upgrades and max population. I think CC's training speed increasing with age could also make it easier to recover from raids to farming eco. I like the arrow damage increase with each phase as well. 

@LetswaveaBook To be honest, I could see how these could improve the game a lot. Do you think more powerful, but non-economic bonuses would help too?

@alre P3 is "OP" right now primarily due to the economy+ P3 combination that allows p3 upgrades to be bought. I think @LetswaveaBook is trying to give advantages to P2 and P3 that don't require the big economy that we have always seen with P3. Later upgrades require bigger costs, which makes it harder to exchange eco growth for early advancement. We need to introduce bonuses to p2 and p3 that don't require a strong economy to exploit, and I think adding these bonuses is a good way to start.

 

Edited by BreakfastBurrito_007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, alre said:

finally, p3 is already very convinient for the blacksmith upgrades alone, let alone heroes and all the rest, I think p3 should be nerfed, not buffed.

I think it is not p3 which is very convenient, but I think booming is the very convenient thing. It is not like you often see people advancing with only 1 barracks.

25 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Do you think more powerful, but non-economic bonuses would help too?

I think they could, which is why I started the conversation about the blacksmith.

27 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

We need to introduce bonuses to p2 and p3 that don't require a strong economy to exploit, and I think adding these bonuses is a good way to start.

Batch training mainly benefits those who train large batches, which means you need to be able to afford the batch. However the CC is lucky to be able to train women, which can be afforded in larger batches. However if you just have a few in the batch, then some extra batch speed does not hurt either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I think it is not p3 which is very convenient, but I think booming is the very convenient thing. It is not like you often see people advancing with only 1 barracks.

I guess it could be done with fertility festival. It's not very convenient in the current release, but it can be buffed. In any case, building a strong economy and a large population is part of the game and you are not really proposing something alternative.

3 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

like what things.To be specific.

like third level techs in the forge. I would advocate halving their effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/11/2021 at 11:13 PM, alre said:

you are not really proposing something alternative.

There are some alternatives that I was hinting on or at least thinking about, but I did not mention them explicitly.

On 22/11/2021 at 7:21 PM, LetswaveaBook said:

As in another topic, I would like to encourage early aggression and strategies that do not mainly focus on getting max pop with max upgrades asap.

Those strategies would be something like a mercenary rush(which does only rely on the OPness of mercs). Or strategies like what aslan did in some team games(which I posted in LetswaveaBook TG replay dump on the forum), namely getting p2 around 70 pop and then going for cavalry archers with 4 stables. Also Vali has played against me as gauls twice and did some strategies where he used an early p2 for extending his rush with fanatics or sword cavalry (which both worked due to my mistakes). Personally I tried some strategies with Mauryas where you go p2 with around 60-70 population and then go for elephant archers, which turns out not to be a very good strategy. These strategies focus on something else that building 3 barracks and spamming units.

If we have the regular boom, with 3 barracks then getting better batch training at the CC is not that impressive. If instead you had no or only a single barracks then the faster batch training compares entirely different. For the 3 barracks player the change would mean something like +4.5% production capacity for CS infantry and for the play with no barracks it would mean +17% for CS infantry. It is not over the top, but it is something that helps.

On 22/11/2021 at 7:40 PM, alre said:

first, I think it's bad for transparency to add side effects to phasing, as they are not obvious to players, this was already acknowledged in the past.

That is a valid concern, but it can be shown in the structure tree. If you want to play competitively, I think it is fair if players are expected to get some knowledge. For casual players I guess the change makes little difference.

I will also clarify an underlying argument, maybe it is fair to discuss this underlying argument. I think (nearly) every faction should get something in p2 that helps with being aggressive before reaching 100 pop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can say that we want to "buff p2", and that there are 3 ways to go for it:

1_ add some extra perks to p2, like you are proposing here, which lessen the burden of phasing

2_ directly lessen the burden of phasing (resource cost)

3_ add new options to p2, accessible to every and each faction, that give more value to it.

If we agree on the general direction, we can discuss the way.

Because of the 'side effects' argument, I would prefer option 2 to option 1. Anyway, I'm not sure of how p2 should cost, but I would also like it to have more value than now (option 3). I reckon now that this is what you had in mind when you proposed buffing horse breeding tech. I agree with that proposal and its intention. I could also see a new tech added in p2 that gives a meaningful buff to infantry, therefore allowing new and different strategies still.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/11/2021 at 1:21 PM, LetswaveaBook said:

The idea for this topic is to give a few extra benefits to reaching the next phase:

 

We previously had benefits of advancing. It was extra health to units. It was a casualty of a24's mass feature cuts. To be blunt, it was something that a lot of people disagreed with and it was something that was (almost) immediately identified as a mistake when a24 came out. But we simply forgot to add it back in for a25. There were lots of other changes that made its omission less troubling for a25, but I think it would be nice to put this back in. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/11/2021 at 8:32 PM, alre said:

I think we can say that we want to "buff p2"

I am happy to believe this is the case.

On 25/11/2021 at 8:32 PM, alre said:

and that there are 3 ways to go for it:

1_ add some extra perks to p2, like you are proposing here, which lessen the burden of phasing

2_ directly lessen the burden of phasing (resource cost)

3_ add new options to p2, accessible to every and each faction, that give more value to it.

What I think these options do not describe, is what kind of advantages there should be. I tend to think as bonuses a generic(or flat) if they help with any strategy and I think as bonuses as specific(or strategic) if they help with particular strategies.  Extra health for all soldiers upon again up is what I would a generic bonus.

 

The issue with generic advantages is that if you see that the attacker uses p2 for his strategy, then as a counter measure the defender can simply research p2 for himself to gain the same bonuses. I would prefer that the defender instead of mirroring the opponent, he would need to think more about what really fits his strategy. If there is a specific bonus, such a faster production at the CC then if you have 3 barracks you don't actually get a lot by the extra production speed as you have sufficient production speed. If the cavalry would get more HP by the breeding technology, then the defender can't simply counter that by mirroring the opponent.

 

So I think specific bonuses give more diverse gameplay.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, alre said:

totally agree. I don't think extra production at the cc is really a specific bonus though, it's just a bonus that doesn't scale.

But its a bonus that goes with strategies that can't simply be countered by also going p2, in that sense it is specific. A player who wishes to reap the benefits of an early attack can go p2 early knowing the benefits that it gives to their strategy, but their enemy does not get as much benefit out of faster cc production because they would already have 1-3 barracks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, alre said:

I don't think extra production at the cc is really a specific bonus though, it's just a bonus that doesn't scale.

It is indeed not the very best example, but it has a few merits. The not scaling is one and the CC allows for a unit that can be trained in larger batches and can't be trained at the barracks: women. So an early p2 player could use that to boost his eco with women, while the standard player is booming with infantry.

16 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

But its a bonus that goes with strategies that can't simply be countered by also going p2, in that sense it is specific. A player who wishes to reap the benefits of an early attack can go p2 early knowing the benefits that it gives to their strategy, but their enemy does not get as much benefit out of faster cc production because they would already have 1-3 barracks.

That is exactly the idea.

Also, there is another benefit of faster working CCs, it makes having extra CCs more important, which is something the game could improve on IMHO. An extra CC in 1v1s is currently very risky as p3 is often the better option.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 22/11/2021 at 7:14 PM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

There are many civs that have terrible team bonuses, so there are opportunities to create fun new ones. I think a good option to help p2 action would be a team bonus that gives faster and cheaper phase research, maybe half as expensive and half as long.

The comment of @BreakfastBurrito_007 gave me an idea for another possibilty, to level the gap different team bonusses and power up phase 2.

Namely: Team bonusses do not affect any player that is in p1.

Currently I feel like the Iberian team makes a very large difference and that difference is to big for a well-balanced games. Many team bonusses are unaffected by this as those bonusses only apply to things in later phases. So only Iberian, Ptolemese, Roman, Selecid (in nomad), Spartan team bonusses are affected. Ptolemies would probably need a new team bonus in that case.

A counter argument is that it reduces diversity, though I think 3 out of 5 affected factions are allready diverse enough. Another counter arguement is that because it affects so few factions, it does not solve a larger problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 06/12/2021 at 6:29 PM, LetswaveaBook said:

Team bonusses do not affect any player that is in p1.

That is actually a great sugestion. I was thinking about giving each civ a specific tech or unit in p2 that would make it more desirable (like carthage has it's mercs), but this actually does the trick. Although most bonuses aren't really useful in p1 anyway, so this will disproportionaly affect those civs which have bonuses that do play a role in p1 (like the ptolomies).

On 06/12/2021 at 6:29 PM, LetswaveaBook said:

A counter argument is that it reduces diversity,

it does only in p1, so not really. Delaying a tech or bonus isn't an actual reduction in diversity. What it does do is balance the playing field in p1, when most civs only have their base units and buildings.  This way p2 becomes more interesting, instead of being just a stepping stone to p3.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------//-------------------------------------------------------------------

Another sugestion i would make is to give a small experience boost to all units trained in later phases. Not enough to advance them in level in p2, but significant to the point where it might play a role (so like 50 to 75 exp in p2 and full level 2 in p3). Since it won't affect previously built units, it won't encourage mass production and then advancenment. On the other hand, it will make the small experience gained by garrisoning barracks more usefulness, since the gap it has to fill is smaller.

But this is just an idea.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...