Wow's new unit countering ideas

[AIEND]

4 分钟前，wowgetoffyourcellphone 说：

我相信他的观点是少数。 但也有一些被称为“中型”的单位，他们同时扮演近战和小规模冲突的角色，例如：Thureophoros。

It should be said that it was his publication of this book in 1987 that influenced the popular online opinion, and in fact Age of Empires 3 applied this set of standards.
But I don't recommend this division, because his point of view implies an idea that armor is related to function, for example, shooters are usually forced to use shooting weapons because they don't have armor.
But in reality, on the one hand, because of the hot weather, warriors in Southeast Asia would choose not to wear shirts and armor and use swords to fight.
The Mongolian, Safavid, and Chinese Cataphracts also made archery a top-priority attack.
The division between light and heavy is largely outdated these days, and the Total War game is a prime example.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Call it melee and ranged, I don't care. It's only a thought exercise. My point was to just simplify cav and inf into melee (heavy in my first example) and ranged (light), 4 classes, and then balance from there instead of the current 10+ classes.  

[AIEND]

刚刚，wowgetoffyourcellphone 说道：

叫它近战和远程，我不在乎。 这只是一个思想练习。 我的观点是将 cav 和 inf 简化为近战（在我的第一个示例中很重）和远程（轻），4 个职业，然后从那里平衡而不是当前的 10+ 个职业。  

Melee infantry may not be too convenient to be regarded as one type, but at least it can be divided into infantry with long weapons and infantry with short weapons.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Indeed, polearms could have the "snare" effect that makes their enemies move a little slower for a brief time. An effect not given by swords or shorter spears.

[AIEND]

32 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

事实上，长柄武器可能会产生“圈套”效应，让他们的敌人在短时间内移动得慢一点。剑或短矛所没有的效果。

What is the principle of the deceleration effect?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

27 minutes ago, AIEND said:

What is the principle of the deceleration effect?

Just conceptual for now. I have not decided on the actual effect. However, it would use the "status effect" feature, the same feature used for poison and fire.

[maroder]

5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Indeed, polearms could have the "snare" effect that makes their enemies move a little slower for a brief time. An effect not given by swords or shorter spears.

I just watched this video about why aoe2 is more popular than aoe3 and one reason discussed is the worse unit motion in aoe3 particular through a snare effect. Not sure if it is the same as you had in mind but something to consider.

@5:40

 

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

In that example, the snare effects the entire formation. I think in 0 A.D. it'll only affect the target unit. It would also only be a pikeman thing.

[AIEND]

7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

现在只是概念性的。 我还没有决定实际效果。 但是，它将使用“状态效果”功能，与毒药和火药使用的功能相同。

I mean, why add this? Why do polearms have this effect?

[AIEND]

I do not recommend defining a swordsman as a "soldier who is more adept at melee combat", generally speaking, swordsmen are not opponents of spearmen, whether in formation or one-on-one combat.
Spearmen usually also wear a sword as a backup weapon. Swordsmen are largely "soldiers who can't use spears proficiently but can only use swords", and in reality they are generally able to use more dispersed formations and more flexible Soldiers", swordsmen should run faster than spearmen, thus flanking the enemy and threatening their ranged infantry.
The prejudice that swordsmen are more powerful than spearmen usually comes from the Middle Ages, when swordsmen were often knights who chose to dismount to fight, these warriors were not powerful because they used swords, but because they were more trained and better armored .

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

43 minutes ago, AIEND said:

I do not recommend defining a swordsman as a "soldier who is more adept at melee combat", generally speaking, swordsmen are not opponents of spearmen, whether in formation or one-on-one combat.
Spearmen usually also wear a sword as a backup weapon. Swordsmen are largely "soldiers who can't use spears proficiently but can only use swords", and in reality they are generally able to use more dispersed formations and more flexible Soldiers", swordsmen should run faster than spearmen, thus flanking the enemy and threatening their ranged infantry.
The prejudice that swordsmen are more powerful than spearmen usually comes from the Middle Ages, when swordsmen were often knights who chose to dismount to fight, these warriors were not powerful because they used swords, but because they were more trained and better armored .

I don't think thats what swordsmen were defined as in this discussion. In a25, there are situations where swords are better and where spears are better. The shorter sword is more maneuverable and it makes sense that it has a higher attack rate. Before tactics and formations are considered, which varied from place to place and time to time, it makes sense that a swordsman has a higher damage output than spearman. In one era and place it may be that spears were the more elite weapon, but the game is not modeled after one era and one place.

[AIEND]

18 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

我认为这不是本次讨论中剑士的定义。 在a25中，存在剑更好，矛更好的情况。 较短的剑更具机动性，它具有更高的攻击率是有道理的。 在考虑战术和阵型（因地而异、时而异）之前，剑客的伤害输出高于矛兵是有道理的。 在一个时代和一个地方，长矛可能是更精英的武器，但游戏并不是以一个时代和一个地方为蓝本的。

Infantry Sword

Counter Unit

Attack: High

Armor: Low

Speed: High

Bonus vs. Melee Infantry

Countered by: Infantry Archer, Infantry Sword

——————————————————————

This is clearly mentioned in the topic, just like that question about cavalry, here is not talking about weapons, but about soldiers, spearmen do not only have spears, but master both spears and swords, and swordsmen are actually degraded The swordsman's attack is higher than the spearman's is not reasonable in any sense, the meaning of their existence is to be flexible and easier to train, and the armor is cheaper.
The result of abnormal thinking is the Greek and Spartan swordsmen in the game.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by AIEND

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I agree that a bonus against infantry is not needed in this case as there is already the damage advantage that swords have.

31 minutes ago, AIEND said:

The result of abnormal thinking

Perhaps it is because people want to have a game and not a historical military simulation. I would not denigrate the people who have worked on the game far longer than you and who made those decisions about units. You are also quick to assume anyone with a differing opinion holds that opinion because of some mental deficiency.

You seem to be ok that soldiers are born out of the barracks, so I don't see why this makes you so upset. Gameplay can't be reduced to waves of spearmen poking each other to death just because it is more realistic.

 @wowgetoffyourcellphoneI look forward to testing these changes if I can.

Edited April 18, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007
Ah, as Lion.Kansen suggested it might be a translation induced change

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

because of some mental deficiency.

You must remember that, he expresses himself in his language and that he is from a different culture.

 

[AIEND]

32 分钟前，BreakfastBurrito_007 说：

因为他们有一些智力缺陷。

It has nothing to do with intelligence or something. If I express it in Chinese, this is what it says——我认为这是有违现实的认识，而且基于此的设计不会让游戏更有趣。与其单纯给剑盾手对其他步兵的加成，应当让它作为一种灵活的步兵，去包抄敌人的侧翼、攻击敌人的远程步兵，这样战斗会更加动态，更考验玩家的操作——而这正是指挥战斗的乐趣所在。

并且这样的设计也不是没有先例可循，帝国时代3里有一个“轻步兵”标签，被给予少林寺的藤牌手（Rattan Shield）和阿兹特克的土狼游击兵（Coyote Runner），这些步兵擅长攻击弓箭手、炮兵，但又会被长枪手克制。

Edited April 18, 2022 by AIEND

[Outis]

Thank you @wowgetoffyourcellphone for starting this thread . I like most ideas and have a few proposals to enhance them:

Aura and mixin ideas are excellent.

I think we can differentiate spear and pike infantry, especially when in formations. Locked shields and massed pikes auras from Delenda Est are great ideas to make them work with formations.

On 18/04/2022 at 12:57 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

IMHO, clubs/axes would be the same class as Swordsmen, but with a bonus vs. Structures

Clubs and axes being more effective against stone structures than swords and spears is not very intuitive. And they steal the part from siege . May I suggest to make clubs and axes more effective against armored units? For example ignore all or a percentage of armor? Justification: clubs and axes apply a more severe blow than swords and spears, and break the bones of the enemy even when stopped by heavy armor.

On 18/04/2022 at 1:51 AM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

The thing is, javelineers usually never range the horse archers. Javelineer inf are already highly effective at beating horse archers without the counter if the horse archers don't run away. This is a good example of a situation where counters don't provide a benefit to gameplay.

I agree with this. My proposal: do not have a hard counter vs cavalry archer, but make archer attacks against them more accurate. Justification: a rider with horse is a bigger target than an infantryman and easier to hit. This way, an exchange between infantry archers and cavalry archers favors the infantry, and there is no range problem. Civilizations without infantry archers still have to chase cavalry archers with melee cavalry. I really want to keep the kiting effect here; cavalry archers should be devastating if they can outrange the enemy.

On 18/04/2022 at 1:39 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Im not sure about slingers, and the number of auras involved in these changes.

I cannot see why slingers should be more effective against a particular unit line. My proposal: make them more effective against armored units, as slinger bullets have a crush effect like clubs or axes.

On 18/04/2022 at 1:39 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Also, why do swordcav counter cavalry? I would have thought spearcav would fulfill this role, with swordcav being strong against infantry.

I agree with this one. I think sword cavalry is difficult to place...

Edited April 20, 2022 by Outis
Forgot "not"

[Lion.Kanzen]

How much would the initial bonus be?

[AIEND]

21 小时前，Outis 说：

棍棒和斧头比剑和长矛更有效地对付石头结构并不是很直观。 他们从围攻中偷走了一部分 . 我可以建议使棍棒和斧头对装甲单位更有效吗？ 例如忽略全部或一部分护甲？ 理由：棍棒和斧头比剑和矛更猛烈的打击，即使被重甲阻止，也能打断敌人的骨头。

Mace and axe should really be more effective against armored units, I feel like this needs to specifically add new damage types and make armored units less resistant to this damage.

21 小时前，Outis 说：

我同意这一点。 我的建议：对骑兵弓箭手不要硬反制，而是让弓箭手对他们的攻击更准确。 理由：骑马的人比步兵的目标更大，更容易被击中。 这样一来，步兵弓箭手和骑兵弓箭手之间的交换有利于步兵，不存在射程问题。 没有步兵弓箭手的文明，还是要用近战骑兵追骑弓箭手。 我真的很想在这里保持风筝效果； 如果骑兵弓箭手可以超越敌人，他们应该是毁灭性的。

Indeed, you should try to use long-range infantry to counter the horse archers, such as giving more faction slingers, and making the horse archers and slingers have the same range.

21 小时前，Outis 说：

我不明白为什么投石手应该对特定的单位线更有效。 我的建议：让它们更有效地对抗装甲单位，因为投掷子弹像棍棒或斧头一样具有粉碎效果。

If we want to achieve this effect, we may have to add new damage types. Or we just think of him as a cheaper ranged infantry that can outnumber the enemy archers (I think there should be different costs between different types of soldiers).

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

7 minutes ago, AIEND said:

Mace and axe should really be more effective against armored units, I feel like this needs to specifically add new damage types and make armored units less resistant to this damage.

Perhaps to achieve this we don't need new damage types, but can just reduce crush armor of units that have high hack and pierce armor like pikemen, and reduce crush armor a little less for units like sword and spear inf and cav. 

We would need to keep in mind the effect of this on the effectiveness of slingers, catapults, and elephants. 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[AIEND]

刚才，BreakfastBurrito_007 说：

也许为了实现这一点，我们不需要新的伤害类型，但可以只减少像长枪兵这样的高砍破和穿刺盔甲单位的挤压护甲，而对剑和长矛 inf 和 cav 等单位的挤压护甲减少一点。

 

I'm still not in favor of having soldiers and siege weapons share the same damage type.
Another way is to have maceman and axeman inflict a "stun" side effect on the enemy every once in a while.

[Outis]

12 minutes ago, AIEND said:

Or we just think of him as a cheaper ranged infantry that can outnumber the enemy archers (I think there should be different costs between different types of soldiers).

We need to be careful about this because citizen soldiers are also workers. If some factions have cheaper workers, this may break things.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

7 minutes ago, AIEND said:

I'm still not in favor of having soldiers and siege weapons share the same damage type.
Another way is to have maceman and axeman inflict a "stun" side effect on the enemy every once in a while

what in-game problem does this lead to? Is there any unit that is OP because it shares siege damage? is there any siege unit that is bad because it shares the damage type?

[AIEND]

2 分钟前，Outis 说：

我们需要注意这一点，因为公民士兵也是工人。 如果某些派系有更便宜的工人，这可能会破坏事情。

I think the solution is to reduce the soldier's ability to work to some extent, adding citizens of both genders who can do all their jobs, because I noticed that many players are too focused on the economic function of the soldier and forget that their main task is as a warrior.

[AIEND]

1 分钟前，BreakfastBurrito_007 说：

这会导致什么游戏内问题？ 是否有任何单位是 OP，因为它共享攻城伤害？ 是否有任何攻城单位因为共享伤害类型而很糟糕？

Because our purpose is to hope that these soldiers can better fight against armored units, rather than causing large damage to buildings and siege weapons at the same time.

[AIEND]

3 分钟前，BreakfastBurrito_007 说：

这会导致什么游戏内问题？ 是否有任何单位是 OP，因为它共享攻城伤害？ 是否有任何攻城单位因为共享伤害类型而很糟糕？

I'm wondering why you're so resistant to adding more damage types, I think it's groundwork that should be done to perfect the game, and it doesn't take too much time.