Return of the K

[LetswaveaBook]

First of all, magically the most problematic OP units(There are 4 factions that have them) are identified and we shouldn't be pedantic because that is the main reason why nothing gets done in terms of balancing. So this might be a better idea for A27.

I was thinking about the Return of the Kennel.

War dogs are something what is among the most unique special units in the game and there is no units that even is close to it. Yet the unit slowly gets obsolete as players boost their military with upgrades. I would abstain from making increasing their fighting capabilities as I think it would sound weird if p3 war dogs would easily take out p1 units.

What I would suggest is allowing dogs to be trained at the stable. In addition, the kennel is a building which trains dogs faster than the stable, is available to Britons in p2, has a initial limit of 1 and makes the war dogs cheaper by 10% per kennel. In p3 the limit of kennels is raised to 3. So that would give Britons an extra unique building and (I suppose) we all ready have the art for it.

Lets not put good art to waste.

[AIEND]

I think dogs can be trained in corrals. Rejoining kennels is not a good option, they are too small to be easily selected by the mouse. Also occupies the group button.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

37 minutes ago, AIEND said:

they are too small to be easily selected by the mouse

? We have individual units that move and can be selected by the player. I don't see how it's too hard to select a building that does not move.

[faction02]

2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Yet the unit slowly gets obsolete as players boost their military with upgrades.... Yet the unit slowly gets obsolete as players boost their military with upgrades.

I have no strong opinion on the return of the kennel itself since it can allow for very flexible balancing strategies. I however don't agree with that part of your motivation. The dog function is simply evolving in the game, and they remain decent all along, including the late game.

 

Dogs have two big advantages: i)they do not take population space (by the way, kennels function used to be to restrict that advantage) and ii) they need only one type of resource. From my own taste, late game is when the dogs are at their best, they only take food that often become plentiful thanks to economic upgrades and battles leading to other resources shortages. A great way of spending spare food.

In P3, one might use them in an economical way. They would be good to raid fields or woodlines of a distracted player (simply need shift click attack move commands everywhere you expect enemy eco to be, if dogs are spread to run around, they can become a huge pain for the economy since they run faster than infantry). They also might be used to kill isolated units such as reinforcements or women during a push while the rest of the army keeps fighting/ecoing.

Dogs can also be used to exploit market prices since they need only one type of resource. If food become too cheap, just buy some and trade dogs for anything of value to the enemy. Dogs are also pretty good to keep building some extra military if you have yourself some resources shortages and food is too cheap to be sold. I will not discuss how dogs might ruin low wood maps since, anyway, mercenaries or elephants might do a pretty good job there too.

 

It is not rare to see people loosing games with plenty of spare food. I would explain the seemingly lack of dogs usage in late game by people not thinking about them or by a feeling that dogs would be too micro intensive rather than by a cost which is too high (some specialists might have used the technical term "nub" here). I feel that your proposition might lead dogs to be more used as trash units rather than some valuable assets. I would personally prefer them to get their strategical value reinforced. For example an increased vision in late game would make them much easier to be used as raiding units (or in a more technical vocabulary, "good for nubs"). That could also fit the idea that dogs are trained to track their target. 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by faction02

[Lion.Kanzen]

@Genava55

related to your knowledge.

[Genava55]

As I mentioned a long time ago, the society of the ancient Britons is very pastoral, although with some development of farming and grain storing but not as much as on the continent. Dogs probably lived close to humans. Numerous dog remains has been found in Danebury hillfort, suggesting the dogs lived there and had known various lives and conditions. Some dogs were treated with care, some dogs were weak and fragile, some dogs were tall and tough, some dogs were eaten and some dogs seem to have been neglected. So it seems that dogs were carefully chosen for specific purposes. It is probable that war dogs and hunting dogs were breed for the elites, not for the common-folk that would rely on different kinds of dogs to keep his herd.

In Irish history and myths, big dogs are generally valuated and are mentioned as related to important characters. They lived nearby their home or on their domain.

So a kennel is plausible because those war dogs would have been valuated, even if it is more probable they would have lived in the house or in the barn.

If the dogs are trained in the stable or/and in the corral it is also plausible. The kennel can have some benefits, even to search some dog oriented technologies.

I like the idea of @LetswaveaBookabout the kennel having a quicker recruitment. For the kennel build limit and discount by kennel, I don't know. I would prefer one or two technologies available.

Edited March 4, 2022 by Genava55

[Yekaterina]

I like this idea, dogs can be used as additional fighting units alongside your main army after you reach maximum pop. If you train them from the main stable, they will clog up the production queue so that you cannot reinforce in time with cavalry if your front line is taking casualties. It would be even better to have technologies related to train time and attack values of dogs. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 04/03/2022 at 1:26 PM, LetswaveaBook said:

What I would suggest is allowing dogs to be trained at the stable. In addition, the kennel is a building which trains dogs faster than the stable, is available to Britons in p2, has a initial limit of 1 and makes the war dogs cheaper by 10% per kennel. In p3 the limit of kennels is raised to 3. So that would give Britons an extra unique building and (I suppose) we all ready have the art for it.

 

Why not just have them trained from the Kennel? Why do you guys always want to push this redundancy theory of civ design?  

Edited March 9, 2022 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Yekaterina]

On 04/03/2022 at 6:26 PM, LetswaveaBook said:

First of all, magically the most problematic OP units(There are 4 factions that have them) are identified and we shouldn't be pedantic because that is the main reason why nothing gets done in terms of balancing. So this might be a better idea for A27.

I was thinking about the Return of the Kennel.

War dogs are something what is among the most unique special units in the game and there is no units that even is close to it. Yet the unit slowly gets obsolete as players boost their military with upgrades. I would abstain from making increasing their fighting capabilities as I think it would sound weird if p3 war dogs would easily take out p1 units.

What I would suggest is allowing dogs to be trained at the stable. In addition, the kennel is a building which trains dogs faster than the stable, is available to Britons in p2, has a initial limit of 1 and makes the war dogs cheaper by 10% per kennel. In p3 the limit of kennels is raised to 3. So that would give Britons an extra unique building and (I suppose) we all ready have the art for it.

Lets not put good art to waste.

Approved. 

If anyone dislikes the old model then leave it to KateGUI: I will make a larger model for the dog house. Maybe a Ptol house with Brit skin. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

Approved. 

If anyone dislikes the old model then leave it to KateGUI: I will make a larger model for the dog house. Maybe a Ptol house with Brit skin. 

Wait what? A Ptol house with a Britons skin? How did you come up with that idea?

Just use the current Kennel and add a little fenced in area around the front.

[AIEND]

48 分钟前，wowgetoffyourcellphone 说：

等什么？ 有英国人皮肤的 Ptol 房子？ 你是怎么想到这个主意的？

只需使用当前的狗窝并在前面的区域添加一点围栏。

Why fence? Aren't domestic dogs generally tied on a leash?

[Yekaterina]

5 minutes ago, AIEND said:

Why fence? Aren't domestic dogs generally tied on a leash?

he wants to make the model bigger -> easier to select

[AIEND]

1分钟前，叶卡捷琳娜说：

他想让模型更大 -> 更容易选择

But this way the dog house looks a lot like a corral. Isn't it more convenient to train the dog directly with a corral with a suitable size?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

35 minutes ago, AIEND said:

Why fence? Aren't domestic dogs generally tied on a leash?

It was only a suggestion so someone doesn't take a Ptolemy house and slap the Brit texture on it. lol

I am quite happy with just the Kennel as-is.

[LetswaveaBook]

10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Why not just have them trained from the Kennel? Why do you guys always want to push this redundancy theory of civ design?  

I don't see the connection with the redundancy theory. Could you elaborate on the theory?

Adding kennels will only diversify the Britons compared to their current state.

[Stan`]

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2533

[Carltonus]

15 minutes ago, Stan` said:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2533

Quoting @Nescio from above link, "[T]here is no evidence for Briton kennels", thus adding more weight for training them at the Corral or some other existing structure...

[Gurken Khan]

50 minutes ago, Carltonus said:

Quoting @Nescio from above link, "[T]here is no evidence for Briton kennels", thus adding more weight for training them at the Corral or some other existing structure...

Is there more evidence for the other structures or is it all artistic license? Barracks? Did they have standing troops and dedicated buildings for them? Stables? Did they build structures for the horses or were they kept outside and every rider took care of his own equipment? CCs?

[Stan`]

Probably not. But I suppose those buildings have a bigger gameplay impact than kennels.

If we had building sockets we could append them to buildings BFME2 style.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

47 minutes ago, Stan` said:

Probably not. But I suppose those buildings have a bigger gameplay impact than kennels.

If we had building sockets we could append them to buildings BFME2 style.

Now that would be cool.

[Gurken Khan]

46 minutes ago, Stan` said:

Probably not. But I suppose those buildings have a bigger gameplay impact than kennels.

I agree, but that would mean for me that we have even more freedom in our decision. Do we want a buy-in cost or not, do we want a dedicated building or not...

[Stan`]

9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Now that would be cool.

Hyrule does that, I think.

[Lion.Kanzen]

16 hours ago, Stan` said:

we had building sockets we could append them to buildings BFME2 style.

Many of us are excited about these additions. gives new possibilities.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

23 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I don't see the connection with the redundancy theory. Could you elaborate on the theory?

It was tongue in cheek, but references some folks' tendency to suggest training the same unit from multiple different buildings. I personally really dislike this kind of dilution and I think it's not good design. I made it a "feature" of my mod to do away with a lot of it by creating separate roles for all the units, keeping different types of units trainable in separate classes of buildings, etc.

The most recent example of redundancy theory was when we all chewed over the Han crossbowmen, some folks suggesting we train them from the CC, Barracks, and also the Archery Range (here they would be trained at a "higher rank"). I mean, that kind of thing is just too much. Muddling clear delineations. 

Edited March 10, 2022 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[LetswaveaBook]

On 10/03/2022 at 7:04 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It was tongue in cheek, but references some folks' tendency to suggest training the same unit from multiple different buildings.

My idea was that if you could use stables to train both dogs and cavalry, but if you want to specialize in dogs then you can build the kennel.

On 04/03/2022 at 9:54 PM, faction02 said:

From my own taste, late game is when the dogs are at their best, they only take food that often become plentiful thanks to economic upgrades and battles leading to other resources shortages. A great way of spending spare food.

I am leaning to think you are referring to a situation where food has very little value. If food has very little value then, dogs are a good deal. When food has very little value then saving little food cost is not impactful, so I don't consider that a strong argument against lower food cost for dogs. Also if food has little value to you, then I think you (or those who dump food at the market) have an inbalanced eco. I wouldn't consider it a natural state of the game that food has a low value later in the game. However it is certainly true that a good number of play the game as if it has a low value in p3. I think it is best to agree that for both sides have good reasons to view things differently.

I am not trying to convince you, but I hope that can view my reasoning as equally valid. I also view your reasoning as equally valid.

I assumed that we had good art for the kennel, but @Carltonus encouraged me to check it out. We have an older post on the forum that also shows the limitiations of the kennel

Personally, I would like the Britons to get something that makes them a little more unique. After this conversation I have doubts on whether adding kennels is a proper solution.

Edited March 12, 2022 by LetswaveaBook