suggestions Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 27.

[Lion.Kanzen]

9 hours ago, Fabius said:

Maybe 5 or 10

7-8. is a good number.

[Yekaterina]

16 hours ago, Fabius said:

Jumping back to this, what about instead of melee elephants it gives ranged elephants? We don't have a champion elephant archer yet, and a ranged elephant might be more beneficial to Rome than a melee elephant. One would have to create a model from scratch though, we only have Indian elephant archer models currently

My recommendation is let Romans train elephant from captured elephant stables. This makes sense from a historical point of view, and makes gameplay more interesting for the Romans (reminds me of Britons capturing catapults in A23). 

In order to achieve this, copy an elephant template into the Roman units folder but don't add the structure.

[Fabius]

1 hour ago, Sevda said:

My recommendation is let Romans train elephant from captured elephant stables. This makes sense from a historical point of view, and makes gameplay more interesting for the Romans (reminds me of Britons capturing catapults in A23). 

In order to achieve this, copy an elephant template into the Roman units folder but don't add the structure.

It is a nice idea, the issue is that it is very situational to the point of never going to be used, if you capture someones elephant stable you have probably already won the game, and they can also delete their stable before you capture it. I don't want an ultra situational gimmick like capturing Carthaginian merc buildings is. If I go into a game I want something I know is going to be an actual option for me to play around with.

[Yekaterina]

Just now, Fabius said:

if you capture someones elephant stable you have probably already won the game,

Not necessarily. Many players build their elephant stable very close to the front line, so it is easy for you to distract the enemy then send a team of cavalry to capture it. They are easy to capture. I have done it many times in team games and none of the human players could react and delete their elephant stable in time. 

I do agree that it's difficult to get your hands on one, but I think Romans producing native elephants is neither historically accurate nor good for balance. 

If I remember correctly, in A24, some people suggested a mercenary building for the Romans to recruit a more diverse range of troops. That might be useful, but we need to discuss this with the balaning advisors. 

 

 

[Fabius]

57 minutes ago, Sevda said:

Not necessarily. Many players build their elephant stable very close to the front line, so it is easy for you to distract the enemy then send a team of cavalry to capture it. They are easy to capture. I have done it many times in team games and none of the human players could react and delete their elephant stable in time. 

I do agree that it's difficult to get your hands on one, but I think Romans producing native elephants is neither historically accurate nor good for balance. 

If I remember correctly, in A24, some people suggested a mercenary building for the Romans to recruit a more diverse range of troops. That might be useful, but we need to discuss this with the balaning advisors. 

 

 

Rome captured a lot of war elephants from Carthage and used them in later wars against the Greeks and even their early civil wars. This is why I said it should be a technology with a title that references the Punic Wars and allows a limited training number. Lion.Kanzen is suggesting 7-8 I believe.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I have to agree with @Sevda on this one about capturing ele stables. IMO being limited to 7-8 is either a gimmick, or has no effect because most games people only ever get about 7-8 eles anyway.

eles from captured ele stable might change the way romans attack and put their siege camps.

imagine you put a siege camp next to enemy ele stable and keep ele stable captured long enough to make Roman eles.

I think this would be a fine mechanic. Perhaps not always being relevant, but it would certainly be a potentially powerful option for romans.

[Fabius]

24 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I have to agree with @Sevda on this one about capturing ele stables. IMO being limited to 7-8 is either a gimmick, or has no effect because most games people only ever get about 7-8 eles anyway.

eles from captured ele stable might change the way romans attack and put their siege camps.

imagine you put a siege camp next to enemy ele stable and keep ele stable captured long enough to make Roman eles.

I think this would be a fine mechanic. Perhaps not always being relevant, but it would certainly be a potentially powerful option for romans.

No it won't, it has nothing to do with siege camps. And attacking will always be to destroy civic centers or cripple eco. Wasting troops to hold an elephant stable is pointless and dangerous. Especially as you cannot garrison it with anything other than elephants.

Potentiality is a bad way to design a feature. Either its there to use or it isn't. I am not going to factor something into my strategies that either wont be there to begin with(a civ without elephants) or probably wont be relevant if I happen to get it.

Its a highly situational feature at best, a dangerous distraction at worst. Just look at the Carthaginian merc buildings, how many people go out of their way to capture them for the chance at training mercs, or even know that it exists as a feature.

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 hours ago, Sevda said:

My recommendation is let Romans train elephant from captured elephant stables. This makes sense from a historical point of view, and makes gameplay more interesting for the Romans (reminds me of Britons capturing catapults in A23). 

In order to achieve this, copy an elephant template into the Roman units folder but don't add the structure.

that's a good idea, I wanted to do something similar with the Mayans in some mod. Capture stables to use horses.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

18 minutes ago, Fabius said:

Just look at the Carthaginian merc buildings, how many people go out of their way to capture them for the chance at training mercs, or even know that it exists as a feature.

I have done and always seek to do this against Carthage. I usually want my own cav first which is hard to get, but this is due to those mercs being op.

Playing and winning the game is highly situational and the best moves are not often planned long in advance.

[Fabius]

20 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I have done and always seek to do this against Carthage. I usually want my own cav first which is hard to get, but this is due to those mercs being op.

Playing and winning the game is highly situational and the best moves are not often planned long in advance.

I see, very well I concede your point. 

[Fabius]

In summary then of Roman feature discussions

Move castrum to P2. 

Allow for training of elephants from captured elephant stables. What about the distinction between Indian and African elephants, would that be included? 

Add a nice elephant character with a triarii on top with a pike  

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

1 minute ago, Fabius said:

In summary then of Roman feature discussions

Move castrum to P2. 

Allow for training of elephants from captured elephant stables. What about the distinction between Indian and African elephants, would that be included? 

Add a nice elephant character with a triarii on top with a pike  

I think african eles make more sense since they are closer to rome. But I think it would be cooler if there was capability to train african or asian eles depending on the civ that the stables are captured from.

[Fabius]

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I think african eles make more sense since they are closer to rome. But I think it would be cooler if there was capability to train african or asian eles depending on the civ that the stables are captured from.

Yes I agree, it would make sense that you would get the civ specific elephant. As far as models go would one create a unique roman elephant model or use existing ones? I would really like to see a unique roman one, the current in game Roman aesthetic is very eye catching.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

perhaps it could be a super expensive mercenary?

[The Shark]

Hey iam new here i have two suggestions:).

 

1.Add epirus as a new faction ,i know they are very similar to Macedon but hey they were under Pyrrhos  a big player.:)

2.I dont know will you guys add a marian reform tech for the Romans ?:)

 

The Shark

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 17/04/2022 at 11:00 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

This was in another discussion, but it should go here too:

Economy score rework:

Economy score = resources gathered resources spent

 

separate statistic in summary screen:

Value ratio = military score / economy score

(shows player skill, if some units are super OP like merc cav, player unit composition, overall effectiveness)

 

Also, the latter value would show how impactful a rush is in the early game with the same weight (since an early game ratio and a late game ratio are still each ratios)

Thoughts on this change?

Ok I thought some more about this metric and now I am convinced the best measure for effectiveness could be this:

average (or integral) over gametime (0, end gametime] of value ratio (where value ratio = military score/ resources spent).

^the main advantage is that this would still account for players with high value ratios early in the game (ie early rushes)

It would be similar to how average K/D ratio gives a better idea than end-of-game K/D ratio see red below:

Edited May 22, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 12/05/2022 at 1:18 PM, The Shark said:

1.Add epirus as a new faction ,i know they are very similar to Macedon but hey they were under Pyrrhos  a big player.:)

it takes time to add new factions.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

merc cav are OP in a25 and I predict they will still be OP in a26, just less so. I don't think the merc-rush strategy should become weak, I just think there should be more options to counter it besides 1: rush before enemy makes mercs 2: make your own cav both of which are situational and are not always useful to protect against merc cav.

I think the solution comes down to walls, we need to improve walls ease of placement so that they are used not to irritatingly slow down the game, but to be placed skillfully in anticipation of harassment. The suggestions here are not to make walls/palisades stronger overall, but to allow them to better fill their purpose.

• increase ease of placement of stone walls/palisades. This could be done by tolerating some overlap of structures or resources. Since stone walls can't be placed out of territory, perhaps they could be built through forests deleting the trees upon wall completion.
• decreasing hp of stone walls by around 500-1000. The changes would probably make stone walls more common, and the hp decrease is to prevent this from slowing down gameplay
• giving melee cavalry .5x counter versus palisades. This gives a defending player more time to bring in infantry, but does not make palisades stronger versus infantry and rams; units that don't have the same raiding capability that palisades are intended to protect against.
• increase turret positions of stone walls to 16. This is a more practical amount that might make a difference in a battle.

tell me what you think please.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[smiley]

27 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Since stone walls can't be placed out of territory, perhaps they could be built through forests deleting the trees upon wall completion.

An alternative is increasing cavalry obstruction so that dense forests would not be accessible.

A speed modifier could also be a thing for forests. Maybe with a group aura or something that kicks in when n trees are in r radius of each other or something.

Edited May 22, 2022 by smiley

[Lion.Kanzen]

33 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

merc cav are OP in a25 and I predict they will still be OP in a26, just less so. I don't think the merc-rush strategy should become weak, I just think there should be more options to counter it besides 1: rush before enemy makes mercs 2: make your own cav both of which are situational and are not always useful to protect against merc cav.

I think the solution comes down to walls, we need to improve walls ease of placement so that they are used not to irritatingly slow down the game, but to be placed skillfully in anticipation of harassment. The suggestions here are not to make walls/palisades stronger overall, but to allow them to better fill their purpose

Yes, we must open a ticket for this.

@Freagarach

Edited May 22, 2022 by Lion.Kanzen

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

14 minutes ago, smiley said:

An alternative is increasing cavalry obstruction so that dense forests would not be accessible.

A speed modifier could also be a thing for forests. Maybe with a group aura or something that kicks in when n trees are in r radius of each other or something.

I think this would just lead to frustration since you can't always decide whether units go into forests. It also does not have the level of control that the wall improvements I outlined could offer.

It is also worth noting that forests are already slower for units to travel through and this means that cavalry caught in them will take more losses as they try to escape defenders or approach a target.

 

Edited May 22, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 minutes ago, smiley said:

alternative is increasing cavalry obstruction so that dense forests would not be accessible

Same with chariots.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

42 minutes ago, smiley said:

An alternative is increasing cavalry obstruction so that dense forests would not be accessible.

A speed modifier could also be a thing for forests. Maybe with a group aura or something that kicks in when n trees are in r radius of each other or something.

I think acceleration may effectively do this. I don't have svn tho.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

• increase ease of placement of stone walls/palisades. This could be done by tolerating some overlap of structures or resources. Since stone walls can't be placed out of territory, perhaps they could be built through forests deleting the trees upon wall completion.
• decreasing hp of stone walls by around 500-1000. The changes would probably make stone walls more common, and the hp decrease is to prevent this from slowing down gameplay
• giving melee cavalry .5x counter versus palisades. This gives a defending player more time to bring in infantry, but does not make palisades stronger versus infantry and rams; units that don't have the same raiding capability that palisades are intended to protect against.
• increase turret positions of stone walls to 16. This is a more practical amount that might make a difference in a battle.

I like all of these. Gates HP should also be decreased by the same amount

[Lion.Kanzen]

14 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I don't have svn tho.

Why?