Jump to content

[Gameplay] Enable Practice Ranges for all civs [Patch Created]


Recommended Posts

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4448

 

So, I made a patch that adds the Practice Range (aka "Archery Range") as a buildable structure. 

This patch:

  • Enables Practice Ranges for all civs, which train Ranged Infantry
  • Adjusts costs for the Barracks, Range, and Stable to compensate for the new building
  • Recreates the relevant technologies from the Barracks over to the Range
  • Moves Archery Tradition to the Range (and Hoplite Tradition to the Barracks, as a mirror)
  • Some other minor things

 

Please playtest with multiple civs.

Look for and critique:

  • Fun
  • Design
  • Balance
  • Bugs
Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Some civs have more ranged units than others so ranged barracks will be more profitable for some than others. It would be a shame for the Romans to build a barrack which can only train 1 type of unit from it, meanwhile, Macedonians can benefit a lot more. My idea would be a more moderate approach:

do add the ranged barrack, but also allow training ranged inf from default barracks. The ranged barrack has a train time bonus (e.g. takes 5 seconds to train an unit in ranged barracked compared to 8 seconds in default barrack)

Also, please make the ranged barrack smaller: currently the model is a bit too large imo. Maybe the size of a normal barrack would be appropriate. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

Some civs have more ranged units than others

Every civ has more everything than others. The problem still remains in A25b, where barracks of one civ train more units than the barracks of another civ. Same goes for Stables.

16 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

do add the ranged barrack, but also allow training ranged inf from default barracks

What would the point be then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romans:

Practice Range

  • Skirmisher
  • NEW: Balearic Slinger (merc) or Roman Slinger ("Funditore")

 

Mauryas:

Practice Range

  • Archer
  • NEW: Deccan Tribal Levy (javelineer)

 

Persians:

Barracks

  • Sparabara Spearman
  • NEW: Hill Tribesman (merc axeman) or Mercenary Greek Hoplite

 

Seleucids:

Practice Range

  • Arab Skirmisher
  • NEW: Thureophoros Heavy Skirmisher (merc)

 

Spartans:

Practice Range

  • Helot Skirmisher
  • NEW: Helot Slinger

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

NEW: Balearic Slinger (merc) or Roman Slinger ("Funditore")

10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

NEW: Helot Slinger

Very nice, Romans and Spartans are quite limited in range at the moment. 

 

10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

NEW: Deccan Tribal Levy (javelineer)

Nice one as well, but maybe make it a merc unit? Otherwise Mauryans would be too OP again. 

10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

NEW: Hill Tribesman (merc axeman) or Mercenary Greek Hoplite

A great civ like the Persians can't do without swords or mercs. Approved. 

10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

NEW: Thureophoros Heavy Skirmisher (merc)

OK as a champion unit. There are no infantry skirmisher champions so this will increase diversity without causing OP problems (if you keep the stats low)

 

Generally, when adding units a structures, rather make them weak than OP. If they are weak then no one will use them and hence no one will ever complain about balancing. For example, Macedonian champion crossbowmen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

NEW: Thureophoros Heavy Skirmisher (merc)

Won't it be too powerful for the Seleucids to have both champion pikemen and champion skirmishers?

Otherwise, I like the idea.

Edited by Nullus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nullus said:

Won't it be too powerful for the Seleucids to have both champion pikemen and champion skirmishers?

In my opinion, if the stats are moderate or weak then that's fine. Most people use champion swordsmen instead; if you want both champion pikemen and champion skirmishers, that costs too much

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
On 02/02/2022 at 3:56 AM, Yekaterina said:

do add the ranged barrack, but also allow training ranged inf from default barracks

What would the point be then?

The range would allow the researching of upgrades for ranged units. It could also be made to produce ranged units a little bit faster than a standard barracks. Or for something really wild, maybe ranges and stables could produce thematically appropriate units at promotion level 2! (Admittedly that would require new icons, so it's a bit of a tall order, plus veteran units are so powerful the balance implications would be significant.)  

28 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

What about the name? If the building is not for practice but for production maybe something like Ranged Barrack would be better?

Maybe "Target Range"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll address some general points:

1. The name: I only named them "Practice Range" because that's what they were already called in trunk. I'd prefer to call them "Archery Range," which sounds better to me (I am aware that some civs don't have archers; the name still sounds better).

2. The purpose in my mind of having different types of training buildings is for differentiation along those types. To have instances where archers can be trained by the CC, Barracks, and Archery Range ruins the differentiating aspect of what is trying to be achieved here. I hate hate hate dilution. Focusing ranged infantry onto the Archery Range and melee infantry onto the Barracks is differentiation along type or class of units and the focus of this diff. Hopefully this is a convincing argument. :) 

 

4 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

Nice one as well, but maybe make it a merc unit? Otherwise Mauryans would be too OP again. 

The Deccan Tribal Levy could be a merc, or we could just make it a trash unit that doesn't promote above basic rank (my preference, since it is a simple levy unit rather than a battle hardened mercenary).

 

4 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

A great civ like the Persians can't do without swords or mercs. Approved. 

The Persians could get both units. The Hill Tribesman and the Mercenary Hoplite. Tribesman could be available in Town, while Mercenary Hoplite goes to City. Or just give them one.

 

4 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

OK as a champion unit. There are no infantry skirmisher champions so this will increase diversity without causing OP problems (if you keep the stats low)

Seleucids have a good range of Champion options already. Best to keep it as a merc unit. 

 

4 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

Generally, when adding units a structures, rather make them weak than OP. If they are weak then no one will use them and hence no one will ever complain about balancing. For example, Macedonian champion crossbowmen...

As far as being OP or not, most additional units would just have standard stats, unless, like the Deccan Tribal Levy, we want to do something special with it like make it a trash unit by design.

 

The Gastraphetes I would give to Carthage, Seleucia, and Egypt as well, but give them a small training limit, like 5 or 10. But that's a different discussion. 

  • Like 1
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...