suggestions Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 27.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

For alpha 25, archer elephants were given 2 population per elephant and this makes them really bad in a cost/power relationship.

I think the 2 population should stay, but they should be given a fire rate bonus for each rank up.

This would be a good way to represent the extra archers that visually appear on rank-up. Considering this would be a substantial buff, perhaps it makes sense to add some XP to rank ups, but this could be determined in testing.

rank 1: 1 second

rank 2: .5 second

rank 3: .333 second

This would mean that extended battles with a few elephant archers would yield dividends in the long term, but big masses would get killed and not be as effective.

rank 3 elephants would also be something for an enemy to prioritize in battle, so a mauryans player would want to keep them alive.

From a balancing and realism perspective, I think it makes good sense and offers a functionally unique unit.

[Fabius]

20 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

For alpha 25, archer elephants were given 2 population per elephant and this makes them really bad in a cost/power relationship.

I think the 2 population should stay, but they should be given a fire rate bonus for each rank up.

This would be a good way to represent the extra archers that visually appear on rank-up. Considering this would be a substantial buff, perhaps it makes sense to add some XP to rank ups, but this could be determined in testing.

rank 1: 1 second

rank 2: .5 second

rank 3: .333 second

This would mean that extended battles with a few elephant archers would yield dividends in the long term, but big masses would get killed and not be as effective.

rank 3 elephants would also be something for an enemy to prioritize in battle, so a mauryans player would want to keep them alive.

From a balancing and realism perspective, I think it makes good sense and offers a functionally unique unit.

Sounds good overall  

I would be inclined to go for increments of 0.25 rather, so rank 1 is 1s, rank 2 is 0.75s and rank 3 is 0.5s. But there is also merit in starting where you have suggested and then if it is found to be to strong then drop it down to the figures I have suggested.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

3 minutes ago, Fabius said:

Sounds good overall  

I would be inclined to go for increments of 0.25 rather, so rank 1 is 1s, rank 2 is 0.75s and rank 3 is 0.5s. But there is also merit in starting where you have suggested and then if it is found to be to strong then drop it down to the figures I have suggested.

The goal would be to make them competetive with skirmisher dps which is more reasonable for the cost and population space. On second thoughts your values are probably better.

[AIEND]

1小时前，BreakfastBurrito_007 说：

对于 alpha 25，射手大象每头大象有 2 个种群，这使得它们在成本/功率关系中非常糟糕。

我认为这 2 个人应该留下来，但他们应该在每个等级上获得射速加成。

这将是一种很好的方式来表示在视觉上出现在排名中的额外弓箭手。 考虑到这将是一个巨大的增益，也许添加一些 XP 来提升排名是有意义的，但这可以在测试中确定。

等级 1：1 秒

等级 2：0.5 秒

排名 3：0.333 秒

这意味着与少数大象弓箭手的长期战斗从长远来看会产生红利，但大量群众会被杀死并且没有那么有效。

等级 3 的大象也是敌人在战斗中优先考虑的东西，因此孔雀族玩家希望让它们存活。

从平衡和现实主义的角度来看，我认为它很有意义，并提供了一个功能独特的单元。

I would like the Elephant Archer to be merged with the Armored Elephant into one unit, which means the Armored Elephant has a "turret".

[Fabius]

14 hours ago, AIEND said:

I would like the Elephant Archer to be merged with the Armored Elephant into one unit, which means the Armored Elephant has a "turret".

It would be a nice idea, but unfortunately i believe there is an issue with turret mechanics currently. I was interested in having wall turrets for catapults and it was mentioned the code was unable to support that. Whether things have changed since then I do not know, one would have to ask the coding team.

That being said the other issue is that it is not really efficient as you either have to manually control the archer or have it on auto pilot, neither are particularly useful in the long run.

[Fabius]

Just now, Fabius said:

It would be a nice idea, but unfortunately i believe there is an issue with turret mechanics currently. I was interested in having wall turrets for catapults and it was mentioned the code was unable to support that. Whether things have changed since then I do not know, one would have to ask the coding team.

That being said the other issue is that it is not really efficient as you either have to manually control the archer or have it on auto pilot, neither are particularly useful in the long run.

Case in point, one glaring weakness of siege towers is a target rich environment. 

[AIEND]

1 小时前，Fabius 说：

这是个好主意，但不幸的是，我认为目前炮塔机制存在问题。 我对为弹射器安装壁式炮塔很感兴趣，有人提到代码无法支持这一点。 从那以后事情是否发生了变化我不知道，一个人不得不问编码团队。

话虽如此，另一个问题是它效率不高，因为您要么必须手动控制弓箭手，要么将其置于自动驾驶仪上，从长远来看，两者都不是特别有用。

In fact, it doesn't matter even if the archer shoots the target randomly, because it is mainly a melee armored elephant rather than a long-range unit. The existence of the turret is on the one hand to make the Indian war elephant more in line with history, on the other hand, it is a weak enhancement. The elephant can have a certain amount of power to fight back against the harassment of units such as horse archers.

[Fabius]

24 minutes ago, AIEND said:

In fact, it doesn't matter even if the archer shoots the target randomly, because it is mainly a melee armored elephant rather than a long-range unit. The existence of the turret is on the one hand to make the Indian war elephant more in line with history, on the other hand, it is a weak enhancement. The elephant can have a certain amount of power to fight back against the harassment of units such as horse archers.

A fair point, I would advocate for the tower mechanism, with the added caveat of focusing organic units over buildings

[AIEND]

Would it be better to remove the damage bonus from spearmen and pikeman to cavalry and replace it with melee cavalry's damage reduction to spearmen and pikeman?

I don't want to follow the Empire era definition and define spearmen and pikeman as "restrained cavalry" units, in this design spearmen and pikeman are trash soldiers, while in my opinion they are the main force of infantry, swordsmen are theoretically melee combat Can't beat them either.
In addition, according to the basic point of view in Asia, the best weapon to restrain cavalry is the bow and arrow.

[Fabius]

21 minutes ago, AIEND said:

Would it be better to remove the damage bonus from spearmen and pikeman to cavalry and replace it with melee cavalry's damage reduction to spearmen and pikeman?

I don't want to follow the Empire era definition and define spearmen and pikeman as "restrained cavalry" units, in this design spearmen and pikeman are trash soldiers, while in my opinion they are the main force of infantry, swordsmen are theoretically melee combat Can't beat them either.
In addition, according to the basic point of view in Asia, the best weapon to restrain cavalry is the bow and arrow.

That is an interesting observation, definitely a different setup, I rather like it, how exactly would it work?

[AIEND]

1 小时前，Fabius 说：

这是一个有趣的观察，绝对是不同的设置，我更喜欢它，它究竟是如何工作的？

In our eyes, the confrontation between infantry and cavalry is the firepower of the infantry against the mobility of the cavalry.
Melee infantry is relatively passive against cavalry, cavalry can choose whether to attack infantry, but infantry usually cannot.
Infantry with long weapons and shields can better resist cavalry attacks, but this resistance is because cavalry cannot kill them well, not because they can kill cavalry well. Because the melee infantry generally did not dare to take the risk of spreading out and chasing the cavalry.
On the other hand, an archer is equivalent to a pikeman holding a 100-meter-long pike to the cavalry. Even if the cavalry wants to charge the archer, he must ensure that he is not destroyed by the arrow rain first. In this process, the cavalry is passive.
Because if the cavalry doesn't rush to the pikeman, the pike can't poke it, and the cavalry has the option to leave the battle at any time. But even if the cavalry did not approach the archer, the arrows would still fly towards him.
Projection weapons such as bows and arrows are compressing the cavalry's range of activities with their range, which weakens the cavalry's greatest tactical advantage, that is, the choice of contact or no contact, and the power to contact when and where.
Of course, the premise of this advantage is that the firepower must be dense enough for infantry archers to do it. The nomads sometimes let the cavalry maneuver near the enemy, and then dismount to shoot arrows. This mobile infantry archer on horseback further compresses the flexibility advantage of the cavalry.
Therefore, the archers are not unilaterally restrained by the cavalry, but a dynamic confrontation relationship of mutual restraint. The cavalry should take advantage of their mobility and approach the archers unexpectedly and quickly, while the archers should give full play to their range to compress the cavalry's battlefield activity space and prevent the cavalry from approaching.

The change I propose is actually to simulate this dynamic confrontation in reality.

[Fabius]

2 hours ago, AIEND said:

In our eyes, the confrontation between infantry and cavalry is the firepower of the infantry against the mobility of the cavalry.
Melee infantry is relatively passive against cavalry, cavalry can choose whether to attack infantry, but infantry usually cannot.
Infantry with long weapons and shields can better resist cavalry attacks, but this resistance is because cavalry cannot kill them well, not because they can kill cavalry well. Because the melee infantry generally did not dare to take the risk of spreading out and chasing the cavalry.
On the other hand, an archer is equivalent to a pikeman holding a 100-meter-long pike to the cavalry. Even if the cavalry wants to charge the archer, he must ensure that he is not destroyed by the arrow rain first. In this process, the cavalry is passive.
Because if the cavalry doesn't rush to the pikeman, the pike can't poke it, and the cavalry has the option to leave the battle at any time. But even if the cavalry did not approach the archer, the arrows would still fly towards him.
Projection weapons such as bows and arrows are compressing the cavalry's range of activities with their range, which weakens the cavalry's greatest tactical advantage, that is, the choice of contact or no contact, and the power to contact when and where.
Of course, the premise of this advantage is that the firepower must be dense enough for infantry archers to do it. The nomads sometimes let the cavalry maneuver near the enemy, and then dismount to shoot arrows. This mobile infantry archer on horseback further compresses the flexibility advantage of the cavalry.
Therefore, the archers are not unilaterally restrained by the cavalry, but a dynamic confrontation relationship of mutual restraint. The cavalry should take advantage of their mobility and approach the archers unexpectedly and quickly, while the archers should give full play to their range to compress the cavalry's battlefield activity space and prevent the cavalry from approaching.

The change I propose is actually to simulate this dynamic confrontation in reality.

Very interesting, so in terms of practical gameplay how do you envision that playing out?

[AIEND]

4 小时前，Fabius 说：

非常有趣，那么就实际游戏玩法而言，您如何设想这种玩法？

In addition to removing the damage bonus of spearmen and pikeman to cavalry, and adding the damage reduction of cavalry to spearmen and pikeman, it is also necessary to add the damage bonus of melee cavalry to ranged units, and increase the damage and HP of archers.
Before I tested in the mod, a small number of cavalry (10) charged directly to most archers (25), and when they were all recruits, the cavalry only killed 6 archers and were eliminated.
The impact would be much better if the cavalry attacked from the side and behind while the infantry on both sides was engaged, or if part of the cataphract was used to take the bow fire at the front of the cavalry line. And compared with pure melee cavalry, adding a part of javelin and archer cavalry has better killing effect on archers.
Overall, more experimentation is required, I'll refine these settings in the mod and get someone to test it.

[Nobbi]

Seeing researched techs in statistic would also be OP.

[Fabius]

So I have been thinking, and I am going to suggest raising the health of stone walls. Right now they are useless except to deter raiding. However I also think gates should be kept at a weak level. This way you leave the obvious weaknesses of walls open while also allowing defending players to better control the flow of an assault on their town. I do not think the stone cost should be altered or the build time. 

[Fabius]

1 minute ago, Fabius said:

So I have been thinking, and I am going to suggest raising the health of stone walls. Right now they are useless except to deter raiding. However I also think gates should be kept at a weak level. This way you leave the obvious weaknesses of walls open while also allowing defending players to better control the flow of an assault on their town. I do not think the stone cost should be altered or the build time. 

To clarify on the gate weakness I mean that the weakness of gates be further emphasized than they currently are.

[AIEND]

1 小时前，Fabius 说：

为了澄清门的弱点，我的意思是比现在更强调门的弱点。

It would be more interesting if we added arson, the stone walls are basically not afraid of fire, but the city gate is another matter.

[Fabius]

5 minutes ago, AIEND said:

It would be more interesting if we added arson, the stone walls are basically not afraid of fire, but the city gate is another matter.

At this stage we need better defenses not more ways to destroy stuff. Gates will die easily enough to siege, the point is to give the defender more control over his position than he currently has by giving him better tools. The workman is only ever as good as his tools or so they say.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 minute ago, Fabius said:

At this stage we need better defenses not more ways to destroy stuff. Gates will die easily enough to siege, the point is to give the defender more control over his position than he currently has by giving him better tools. The workman is only ever as good as his tools or so they say.

Yeah no need for arson, but I think it would be good to increase wall HP (say + 20 percent or so) so that gates are more valuable targets and so that stone walls have a little more value in the late game.

[AIEND]

7 分钟前，Fabius 说：

在这个阶段，我们需要更好的防御而不是更多的方法来破坏东西。 盖茨很容易被围攻而死，关键是通过给他更好的工具，让防守者比现在更好地控制自己的位置。 工人的好坏取决于他的工具或他们所说的那样。

If we need better defense, we need to strengthen the tower.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@Fabius @real_tabasco_sauce

I think the biggest deterrent to making walls is how hard it is to make them sealed.

What if walls deleted trees that would obstruct them so that you could build them across forests?

I see many players building stone walls up to forests and these can simply be walked around by raiding units.

I think another thing that makes cavalry so OP is the infeasibility of walls and palisades in multiplayer.

[Fabius]

22 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Yeah no need for arson, but I think it would be good to increase wall HP (say + 20 percent or so) so that gates are more valuable targets and so that stone walls have a little more value in the late game.

I would suggest 25% or even 30% as a start, if that is found to be to much we can drop it down.

22 minutes ago, AIEND said:

If we need better defense, we need to strengthen the tower.

We need better passive and active defenses overall

[Fabius]

21 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@Fabius @real_tabasco_sauce

I think the biggest deterrent to making walls is how hard it is to make them sealed.

What if walls deleted trees that would obstruct them so that you could build them across forests?

I see many players building stone walls up to forests and these can simply be walked around by raiding units.

I think another thing that makes cavalry so OP is the infeasibility of walls and palisades in multiplayer.

Gaps in walls while problematic aren't a big issue when you can quite literally go through walls with little effort.

I am against deleting trees because this can be abused by Rome to delete an opponents forests. Also forests are good impediments to rams and elephants which is why forests in front of walls are good.

Yes and that is largely because walls lack meaningful impact to the battlefield.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Tower buffs should be very carefully tested so that it is not too OP to tower rush. Currently towers are fine IMO. '

 

We do not want overall strong defenses. What this looks like in multiplayer is A24, where the entire map gets built up if the game is not ended by rushes. It is extremely terrible gameplay.

Think about it: If defenses increase the likelihood of your victory too much in a given battle, then 0ad becomes a battle of defenses where both sides just stare at each other in a game of chicken.

Currently, fighting under an enemy tower, fort, or temple makes things a little harder but the battle is certainly winnable provided you have better micro, better unit composition/upgrades, or more units. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[AIEND]

4 分钟前，Fabius 说：

当你可以毫不费力地穿过墙壁时，墙壁上的缝隙虽然有问题，但并不是一个大问题。

我反对删除树木，因为这可能会被罗马滥用来删除对手的森林。 森林也是公羊和大象的良好障碍，这就是为什么墙前的森林是好的。

是的，这主要是因为墙壁对战场缺乏有意义的影响。

The problem with stone walls is that they need to be built in territory, which means you need to wrap your town in a full circle to be safe, but it's stupid, because on the one hand it limits the development of the town, and at the same time there is a lot of narrow terrain on the map , only a narrow section of wall is needed to block the road.