Fixing Chinese Han

[Yekaterina]

2 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

1.2 multilier?

1.5x or 2x please. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

1.5x or 2x please. 

isn't that much 2x?

Isn't it easier to spam crossbow?

[alre]

don't make one civ OP, like A24 maurya. people hate that. 

don't waste the occasion of making crossbows unique. I proposed some time ago some stats for the automatic crossbows. they were legit melee killers.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

It does seems a little weird to have such a specific damage multiplier.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

19 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Yes if all civs got the archery range, we would need appropriate units for them. It would need an established role which would be the same in all civs, ie gameplay "framework."

 

I would love to just make the Range a standard building for all civs. If we can agree in principle to try to implement Ranges for A27, I am amenable to removing it for the Han for this (A26) alpha.

I am not partial to the idea of making a common citizen-soldier trainable from 3 different buildings. I am partial to differentiation, which is why I advocate for the Range's (eventual) inclusion. And the reason I was pro-Stables as well. But as I said, that can wait.

 

So, after reading this thread, I propose these changes:

 

1. Range

• Remove for this Alpha. Investigate adding it back for the next alpha.

2. Barracks

• Add the archer and crossbowman back.

3. Civic Center/Starting Units:  A unique mix.

• Spearman
• Crossbowman
• Sword Cavalry

4. Infantry/Cavalry Crossbowmen

• Stats a mix of Javelineer, Slinger, and Archer.
  • Attack Damage: 24 pierce
  • Repeat Time: 3 seconds
  • Range: 45 meters
  • Projectile
    • Speed: 80 m/s
    • Spread (accuracy): 3 meters
• Since it is "trash", it takes +50% more XP to promote to next rank and has 40 health instead of 50, but read on:
  • "Crossbow Training"
    • Village Phase
    • 200 wood, 200 metal (subject to change)
    • Researchable from either the Barracks or Stable (it affects both Infantry and Cavalry versions)
    • Reduces RepeatTime to 2 seconds
    • Reduces TrainTime by -20%
    • Unlocks Ranking Techs. These Techs make the Crossbowman less "trashy" over time:
      • Advanced Crossbowmen
        • Town Phase
      • Elite Crossbowmen
        • City Phase
• A new City Phase tech in the Forge
  • "Repeating Crossbows"
    • Reduces Repeat Time to 1 second
    • Reduces accuracy by 25%

5. Farms

• 60 Wood, 30 seconds
• 3 gatherers
• Do not forget that the Han Farming techs are more powerful than the standard Farming techs! The first one is available in Village Phase!

6. I want to get rid of the Champion Cavalry Crossbowman. They're supposed to be "trash", at least initially. They still have the 3 other champions (Archer, Swordsman, Cataphract) to choose from. Can keep the templates and actors in Atlas for scenarios. 

 

7. We need to discuss the Imperial Ministry and Ministers. But please discuss points 1-6 first.

 

We can add these changes very quickly if we can at least agree on these points.

 

[Yekaterina]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone I think your ideas are really good, please give me an hour to work out the exact values for each of these though. 

About that champion crossbow cav, I am still thinking about a machine gun unit: most ranged units in 0ad shoot too slowly, but some designs of crossbows (or equivalent hardware) could fire at extraordinary rates, although the damage and accuracy of each projectile is low. Machine gun units in 0ad would be unique and funny.  

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

7 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

most ranged units in 0ad shoot too slowly

Errrr, gonna have to disagree with you on this point. Ranged units in Empires Ascendant shoot ridiculously fast, firing a projectile every 1.25 seconds.

7 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

Machine gun units in 0ad would be unique and funny

That's what the "Repeating Crossbows" tech would be for.  Taking the crossbow firing rate from 3 seconds, to 2 seconds ("Crossbow Training"), and then down to 1 second with the "Repeating Crossbow" tech you see a a progression of faster firing rates as the game goes on.  

Edited February 22, 2022 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Yekaterina]

3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Errrr, gonna have to disagree with you on this point. Ranged units in Empires Ascendant shoot ridiculously fast, firing a projectile every 1.25 seconds.

I was thinking about 1 projectile per 0.5s  or even 0.25s  

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Nahh, we got rid of that with the Scythian Archer machine gun arms from previous alphas. 

[chrstgtr]

22 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Well, balancing a civ isn't just about ensuring your personal build order remains successful. If others can successfully use a p1 practice range, then that's a plus for the civ.

I would like if such buildings were a civ differentiator for 1-2 civs that have a lot of range units. Kind of like how stables were for Persia in a23 (and before). Making a global change like that, though, takes away doesn't actually improve diversity: it replaces something that is uniform with something else that still uniform but more restricting.  

just my two cents, but having a lot of extra buildings that limit what can do isn’t much fun. If those buildings come with some other benefits (ie it’s not just restricting because there are benefits that come with restrictions aka a trade off is created) and are unique (ie a civ differentiator) then maybe there is some potential 

[Lion.Kanzen]

in fact the average speed is quite a lot.

don't just shoot fast.

It takes time to target an enemy at long range. 3-4 seconds. 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

the crossbow takes less. but it should be less precise. 

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

11 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

in fact the average speed is quite a lot.

don't just shoot fast.

It takes time to target an enemy at long range. 3-4 seconds. 

 

Also, arms get tired. Firing every 1.25 seconds is possibly, but not for long.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I am also worried about making a single unit overly complicated, and I don't like how "trash" units fit for 0ad CS gameplay.

a unit that is cheap in p1 and p2 and then heavily upgradeable in p3 is a bit op and a bit over-specific to one unit.

50 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

"Repeating Crossbows"

• Reduces Repeat Time to 1 second
• Reduces accuracy by 25%

 

I like this a lot, but the other systems introduced just for crossbow to me are too much.

I agree with @chrstgtr that the archery range can be for han and maybe another civ that has a lot of ranged unit types.

Edited February 22, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

12 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I would like if such buildings were a civ differentiator for 1-2 civs that have a lot of range units. Kind of like how stables were for Persia in a23 (and before). Making a global change like that, though, takes away doesn't actually improve diversity: it replaces something that is uniform with something else that still uniform but more restricting.  

just my two cents, but having a lot of extra buildings that limit what can do isn’t much fun. If those buildings come with some other benefits (ie it’s not just restricting because there are benefits that come with restrictions aka a trade off is created) and are unique (ie a civ differentiator) then maybe there is some potential 

I appreciate that, but one can say that having any kind of building differentiation is "restrictive." But as long as it fits thematically, then gameplay can adjust. But we can chew over global Ranges later. We've already decided to remove the Range for this alpha.  

[Yekaterina]

I am really worried about 20 pierce per second after P3. That is more than a fully upgraded rank 3 javelin cavalry, and this thing has a range of 45m. The British champion chariot does 28.8 pierce per second and we still consider the unit very deadly (not as bad as iber cav) in spite of the heavy cost; a champion archer does 14 pierce per second. Maybe we should lower that number down to 12. 

Is there a particular reason why machine gun arms are bad? If we make the damage of each projectile sufficiently low then all will be fine. 

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

7 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I am also worried about making a single unit overly complicated, and I don't like how "trash" units fit for 0ad CS gameplay.

 

We want to be able to mass crossbows as the Han Chinese once did. To not make them OP in such masses, you have to weaken them somehow. "Trash" is just a shorthand for weakening them.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 minute ago, Yekaterina said:

I am really worried about 20 pierce per second after P3. That is more than a fully upgraded rank 3 javelin cavalry, and this thing has a range of 45m. The British champion chariot does 28.8 pierce per second and we still consider the unit very deadly (not as bad as iber cav) in spite of the heavy cost; a champion archer does 14 pierce per second. Maybe we should lower that number down to 12. 

 

Well, the 20 pierce per second would only come after upgrades. The "Repeating Crossbows" tech could also make them noticeably more expensive (also keep in mind that while the tech greatly increases firing rate, it also reduces accuracy by 25%). But maybe we can start at a lesser attack of 16. Don't want it to be too weak at the beginning though!

 

2 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

Is there a particular reason why machine gun arms are bad? If we make the damage of each projectile sufficiently low then all will be fine. 

Because it breaks immersion for a cheap sight gag. lol

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

17 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I agree with @chrstgtr that the archery range can be for han and maybe another civ that has a lot of ranged unit types.

 

32 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I would like if such buildings were a civ differentiator for 1-2 civs that have a lot of range units. Kind of like how stables were for Persia in a23 (and before).

Maybe the Han differentiation isn't between infantry and cavalry, but instead between melee and ranged. What do you think of that change? Still have the same number of citizen-soldier trainer buildings (barracks and range, instead of barracks and stable).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

19 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

I am really worried about 20 pierce per second after P3. That is more than a fully upgraded rank 3 javelin cavalry, and this thing has a range of 45m. The British champion chariot does 28.8 pierce per second and we still consider the unit very deadly (not as bad as iber cav) in spite of the heavy cost; a champion archer does 14 pierce per second. Maybe we should lower that number down to 12. 

 

What if we keep the 20. At 3s repeatrate, it's a little UP. Since they're UP, they don't cost metal, just food and wood. But after Crossbow Training and Repeating Crossbow, you're at 1s repreatrate, and Repeating Crossbows adds a 20 metal cost.

 

I'll drop the Advanced and Elite upgrades for now (will revisit in next alpha with a comprehensive proposal). @BreakfastBurrito_007

Edited February 22, 2022 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[chrstgtr]

27 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Maybe the Han differentiation isn't between infantry and cavalry, but instead between melee and ranged. What do you think of that change? Still have the same number of citizen-soldier trainer buildings (barracks and range, instead of barracks and stable).

I would also be interested in this (or the range as I say above). (Or either for Han and then bring the other to some other civ)

 

(really I was just never a fan of the stable being a global feature)

[chrstgtr]

48 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I appreciate that, but one can say that having any kind of building differentiation is "restrictive." But as long as it fits thematically, then gameplay can adjust. But we can chew over global Ranges later. We've already decided to remove the Range for this alpha.  

Fair. Restrictions have their place. I’m more just against Every. Single. Civ. looking exactly the same and then calling that an “innovative change” when really it is just a “change” that makes things more uniform and restrictive. Making something new while taking away something old leaves us with the same amount of stuff (no need to rehash the stable complaints of a24, but thats a good example of where we went from 2 buildings that can make cav to 1 building that can make cav. That doesn’t increase diversity)

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, chrstgtr said:

Fair. Restrictions have their place. I’m more just against Every. Single. Civ. looking exactly the same and then calling that an “innovative change” when really it is just a “change” that makes things more uniform and restrictive. Making something new while taking away something old leaves us with the same amount of stuff (no need to rehash the stable complaints of a24, but thats a good example of where we went from 2 buildings that can make cav to 1 building that can make cav. That doesn’t increase diversity)

and if a speed training bonus is given?

I say bring the champions back to the Fortress.

[chrstgtr]

4 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

and if a speed training bonus is given?

I say bring the champions back to the Fortress.

How many alphas until we’ve reversed all the changes and are at a23 with a couple unit stat adjustments?

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, chrstgtr said:

How many alphas until we’ve reversed all the changes and are at a23 with a couple unit stat adjustments?

you can still play a23.

 

some of the changes were very dramatic.

OP slingers again by the way?

the game will not be the same for the rest of the life.