suggestions Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 27.

[Freagarach]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

unless the ships comes automatically with a turreted catapult

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3811

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

53 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3811

So, yes, this is nice. Heavy Warships can come with catapults already turreted. In my suggestion, these would be smaller than normal catapults to fit on "bireme" sized Quinqeremes. Garrisoning troops onboard can still add to arrow count if we want.

[Fabius]

7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

So, yes, this is nice. Heavy Warships can come with catapults already turreted. In my suggestion, these would be smaller than normal catapults to fit on "bireme" sized Quinqeremes. Garrisoning troops onboard can still add to arrow count if we want.

One could use smaller catapult stats as well, with how much damage catapults are now throwing out there is a lot of leeway to work with.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

The only problem with that patch as-is, is that the catapult doesn't die when the ship does. lol IMHO, turreted units should die when the turret dies. That includes walls and any other structure we might add it to (fortress for example).

[Freagarach]

5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The only problem with that patch as-is, is that the catapult doesn't die when the ship does. lol IMHO, turreted units should die when the turret dies. That includes walls and any other structure we might add it to (fortress for example).

Well, that is the idea. ^^ So I'm not sure what is broken, but I'll have to check (sometime).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, Freagarach said:

Well, that is the idea. ^^ So I'm not sure what is broken, but I'll have to check (sometime).

A turreted unit on a wall just ungarrisons when the wall is destroyed. I personally think they should die. Depends what others want I guess.  

[Stan`]

Wasn't there a turret flag for that ? Don't remember.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, Stan` said:

Wasn't there a turret flag for that ? Don't remember.

Maybe? Perhaps that's what's missing. Where does it go? Health? 

[Fabius]

So I have an idea to put forward. And I did a little research prior to ensure this would be historically reasonable, which it seems to be.

So the idea is for a Roman unique tech that references the spoils of the Punic Wars and allows them to train a very limited number of war elephants, roughly 5 I am thinking, maybe more if you deem it fit.

My brief research brought up their use in the Grecian conquests and the use of captured Carthaginian elephants after the Punic wars, so I think this is reasonable overall  

[AIEND]

4 小时前，Fabius 说：

所以我有一个想法要提出。 我之前做了一些研究，以确保这在历史上是合理的，这似乎是。

所以这个想法是针对罗马独特的技术，它参考了布匿战争的战利品，并允许他们训练数量非常有限的战象，我想大约是 5 头，如果你认为合适的话可能会更多。

我的简短研究提出了它们在希腊征服中的使用以及布匿战争后捕获的迦太基大象的使用，所以我认为总体上这是合理的  

In this case, the Romans should also have chariots that can throw incendiary javelins. In the war between Rome and Epirus, the Romans used chariots to fight the war elephant of Pyrrhus

[Fabius]

4 minutes ago, AIEND said:

In this case, the Romans should also have chariots that can throw incendiary javelins. In the war between Rome and Epirus, the Romans used chariots to fight the war elephant of Pyrrhus

Interesting idea, but that would basically just be fire cav, also I think they did it for just one battle which failed spectacularly and after that tried other things. Roman Elephants can be justified far more than chariots from my perspective.

[vinme]

Bing back SLAVES. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, vinme said:

Bing back SLAVES. 

Have you tried Delenda Est? What do you think about the Slaves implementation? 

 

5 hours ago, Fabius said:

So I have an idea to put forward. And I did a little research prior to ensure this would be historically reasonable, which it seems to be.

So the idea is for a Roman unique tech that references the spoils of the Punic Wars and allows them to train a very limited number of war elephants, roughly 5 I am thinking, maybe more if you deem it fit.

My brief research brought up their use in the Grecian conquests and the use of captured Carthaginian elephants after the Punic wars, so I think this is reasonable overall  

A tech which unlocks War Elephants for the Romans would be cool. Train them at the Fortress with a match limit. Maybe 5 or 10? The Romans indeed used War Elephants about a half-dozen times (a couple times against their own in civil wars).

[vinme]

no i have not tried delenda Est.

[vinme]

is there a way to make a triangle, behind enemy, that prevents your ranged unit from shooting behind the said enemy? how demanding would this be computationally? i mean lets say 30 degree triangle, i guess for 400 units ud need something like 400*400 calculations  times 2. point being no sniping, giving mele real value.

[Nobbi]

17 hours ago, Fabius said:

So I have an idea to put forward. And I did a little research prior to ensure this would be historically reasonable, which it seems to be.

So the idea is for a Roman unique tech that references the spoils of the Punic Wars and allows them to train a very limited number of war elephants, roughly 5 I am thinking, maybe more if you deem it fit.

My brief research brought up their use in the Grecian conquests and the use of captured Carthaginian elephants after the Punic wars, so I think this is reasonable overall  

Well, its cool to have more siege options available. But I don't worry about the Romans. They already got rams and catapults. I worry more about CIVs wich just have rams. They really could need some alternatives for scenarios where you need siege.

[Fabius]

14 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

A tech which unlocks War Elephants for the Romans would be cool. Train them at the Fortress with a match limit. Maybe 5 or 10? The Romans indeed used War Elephants about a half-dozen times (a couple times against their own in civil wars).

Match limit as in only 5 per match? I was thinking more 5 on the field at any one time rather, much like you have in DE with merc limits.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

On 1/5/2022 at 11:08 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

A turreted unit on a wall just ungarrisons when the wall is destroyed. I personally think they should die. Depends what others want I guess.  

It would not be too hard to ungarrison them in time. From gameplay standpoint it’s not a big deal to have to degarrison the walls. Sounds good.

Edited May 4, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[alre]

7 hours ago, vinme said:

is there a way to make a triangle, behind enemy, that prevents your ranged unit from shooting behind the said enemy? how demanding would this be computationally? i mean lets say 30 degree triangle, i guess for 400 units ud need something like 400*400 calculations  times 2. point being no sniping, giving mele real value.

depends on which particular cases of the current version of the game you want to avoid, in which a unit is targeting another that is past the nearest enemy.

On 02/05/2022 at 1:02 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The only problem with that patch as-is, is that the catapult doesn't die when the ship does. lol IMHO, turreted units should die when the turret dies. That includes walls and any other structure we might add it to (fortress for example).

why break the consistency with garrisoned units?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

12 minutes ago, alre said:

why break the consistency with garrisoned units?

i guess garrisoned units get out when the building is weak enough. I have actually never tested this: do units in wall turrets never leave untill the wall is destroyed?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 10/04/2022 at 10:19 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Since they seem to be a "light" cavalry, I think it would be cool if they could become a more costly, more powerful rank 3 unit like skiritai. Specifically, this should be the fastest cavalry in the game, keeping the light armor, but additional hack dmg. The specifics of these could be honed obviously for balance, but I think a fast and light, high damage unit would be exciting.

Hyrcannian cav stats:                                                                    base swordcav stats:

dps: 6.9h   0.27 to 0.8 crush depending on the unit                   dps: 8.6666h

armor: 3 hack, 2 pierce                                                                 armor: 3 hack, 4 pierce

all else is the same

^it is clear that hyrcannian cav are garbage and currently only fulfill the role of a hilarious troll CC snipe, which usually does not work. They are also good antiram, so thats the only reason players use these.

 

Instead, further differentiate them from swords and let them stand out as a unique unit. How about these unit stats for hyrcannian cav?

elite rank

cost: 100f 40w 35m

17.7 hack every 1.5 sec, increase crush to 3 (net crush dps will be reduced to 1.5 from 3 due to repeat reduction, so its not a bs CC sniper). I think they should have a little more prepare time than swordcav.

17.7 comes from swordcav dps * 1.364 (skiri buff vs normal swords) * 1.5 sec, the new attack rate.

armor is unified with swordcav 3.0H and 3.0P (from 3 hack 2 pierce) compared to CS swordcav at 3.0H and 4.0 pierce.

Mainly, instead of armor (compared to skiritai), speed goes up to 20 from 18. 

HP would be the same as any rank 3 swordcav (276 hp)

In essence, this is a rank 3 swordcav where instead of the armor increase of 2 p and 2h, it gets speed, and where the repeat time is slower (because its an axe)

If you think this sounds OP, consider that they would still have very low armor compared to rank 3 swords which have 5h, 6p.

 

If people dislike this idea, then at least give them more dps than swordcav to account for their weakness.

[Fabius]

8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Hyrcannian cav stats:                                                                    base swordcav stats:

dps: 6.9h   0.27 to 0.8 crush depending on the unit                   dps: 8.6666h

armor: 3 hack, 2 pierce                                                                 armor: 3 hack, 4 pierce

all else is the same

^it is clear that hyrcannian cav are garbage and currently only fulfill the role of a hilarious troll CC snipe, which usually does not work. They are also good antiram, so thats the only reason players use these.

 

Instead, further differentiate them from swords and let them stand out as a unique unit. How about these unit stats for hyrcannian cav?

elite rank

cost: 100f 40w 35m

17.7 hack every 1.5 sec, increase crush to 3 (net crush dps will be reduced to 1.5 from 3 due to repeat reduction, so its not a bs CC sniper). I think they should have a little more prepare time than swordcav.

17.7 comes from swordcav dps * 1.364 (skiri buff vs normal swords) * 1.5 sec, the new attack rate.

armor is unified with swordcav 3.0H and 3.0P (from 3 hack 2 pierce) compared to CS swordcav at 3.0H and 4.0 pierce.

Mainly, instead of armor (compared to skiritai), speed goes up to 20 from 18. 

HP would be the same as any rank 3 swordcav (276 hp)

In essence, this is a rank 3 swordcav where instead of the armor increase of 2 p and 2h, it gets speed, and where the repeat time is slower (because its an axe)

If you think this sounds OP, consider that they would still have very low armor compared to rank 3 swords which have 5h, 6p.

 

If people dislike this idea, then at least give them more dps than swordcav to account for their weakness.

Sounds like a reasonable idea  

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@real_tabasco_sauce 

I agree hyrcanian cavs are garbage

I like skiritai commandos and their price and power kind of between champion and CS. They are strong, but never impossible to deal with. I would like to see some other units in other civs potentially have this stat relationship. Perhaps even some champions for some civs could be made cheaper but worse.

I think even if we can't agree on the particular stats you came up with, giving hrycanians more dps than swordcav to account for their very weak pierce armor would be great change.

[asterix]

@Stan` something like this would be nice to have 

 

[DIYARAKUZA]

I almost didn't post this, but I changed my mind.

Introducing a new resource? This could be something showing the strength, sophistication and influence of the player's civilization. You gain it by training new and better units, building, expanding territory and completing researches. You lose it when enemies destroy your buildings, kill your units and when you lose territory. A certain amount of this resource can be a requirement for defensive structures such as walls, towers and fortresses as well as special buildings and wonders and even heroes and special units.

Different factions can have different requirements of this resource to unlock features so it will allow diversification between factions. Cultural aspects of each faction can be included as gameplay elements which grant this new resource to players.

@Lion.Kanzen has mentioned earlier about factions having more of their cultural elements but there may be difficulty in determining functional purpose of such cultural elements in the game. I believe introducing a new resource could be a good framework to integrate them meaningfully.