Wow's new unit countering ideas

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

8 minutes ago, AIEND said:

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.

Well there are mercenaries and champions for that. As well as cavalry. There are actually no melee units that do crush that have the full CS infantry economic capability. The only "eco unit" that does crush is slinger. 

I actually don't know how much work it would take to add "siege" damage to differentiate it from "crush" damage. I do know that there is currently no reason to differentiate the two because there are no issues that arise from them being the same damage type. I would accept such a complication if there was any need.

Edited April 20, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[real_tabasco_sauce]

6 minutes ago, AIEND said:

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.

yes, I agree. I think they should still do damage to buildings however, in large enough groups like they currently do. I see no problem with both of these at the same time.

Lower crush damage for armored units seems valid.

[Outis]

5 minutes ago, AIEND said:

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.

Can we mitigate this by giving siege units a low base damage and a large bonus damage to buildings?

I think mace and axe units being effective against wooden siege units is a good idea actually.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

6 minutes ago, AIEND said:

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.

If we add a damage type, it should be "siege" as @Lion.Kanzen mentioned earlier. This could allow crush damage to take more interesting balancing roles. Although to be perfectly honest, this is still equally possible without the new damage type.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone should the balance changes you suggest go all together or be considered individually? For example, I really support the siege tower change, but not the rock-paper-scissors counters.

[AIEND]

6 分钟前，BreakfastBurrito_007 说：

我实际上不知道增加“围攻”伤害以将其与“粉碎”伤害区分开来需要多少工作。 我确实知道目前没有理由区分这两者，因为它们是相同的伤害类型不会引起任何问题。 如果有任何需要，我会接受这样的复杂情况。

It only took me half an hour to add a new damage type to the mod, and most of the time, you just need to copy/paste repeatedly between various templates.

The new damage types allow us to be more flexible when designing stats. For example, we can completely use the "smash" type of slinger's damage, and let the maceman's damage be completely "thump" type. Don't worry that this value will be too high to affect buildings and siege weapons.

[Fabius]

8 minutes ago, Outis said:

Can we mitigate this by giving siege units a low base damage and a large bonus damage to buildings?

I think mace and axe units being effective against wooden siege units is a good idea actually.

Mace units maybe not, real maces are not the monstrous chunks of metal you see in fantasy, they are actually rather small. An axe yes, this I definitely agree should have bonus damage against siege and wood. The hyrecanian cavalry could greatly benefit from this. So could Kushite axemen.

[AIEND]

19 分钟前，Outis 说：

我们可以通过给予攻城单位较低的基础伤害和对建筑物的大量额外伤害来缓解这种情况吗？

我认为钉头锤和斧头单位对木制攻城单位有效实际上是一个好主意。

If you have used maces and tomahawk, you will find that they are specially designed to attack people and are not as heavy as hammers and axes which are professional tools. It's no better for demolishing buildings or siege machines than a sword.
In reality, maceman and axeman attack siege machines in the same way as other melee infantry - killing their operators.

Edited April 20, 2022 by AIEND

[Fabius]

3 minutes ago, AIEND said:

It only took me half an hour to add a new damage type to the mod, and most of the time, you just need to copy/paste repeatedly between various templates.

The new damage types allow us to be more flexible when designing stats. For example, we can completely use the "smash" type of slinger's damage, and let the maceman's damage be completely "thump" type. Don't worry that this value will be too high to affect buildings and siege weapons.

With all respect there are only really three ways to inflict damage, pierce, hack/slash and bludgeon/crush, if you want to add permutations of those you would need to add resistances for them which means things get complicated quickly. Your best option is to use damage modifiers. Its simple and allows for alterations using the existing foundations without bloating things.

[Fabius]

Just now, AIEND said:

If you have used maces and poleaxes, you will find that they are specially designed to attack people and are not as heavy as hammers and axes which are professional tools. It's no better for demolishing buildings or siege machines than a sword.
In reality, maceman and axeman attack siege machines in the same way as other melee infantry - killing their operators.

Fair point, I would argue axes should have a stronger bonus since they can comfortably threaten both man and machine at once

[AIEND]

6 分钟前，Fabius 说：

恕我直言，实际上只有三种方法可以造成伤害，刺穿、砍/砍和大棒/粉碎，如果你想添加那些你需要为它们添加阻力的排列，这意味着事情会很快变得复杂。 你最好的选择是使用伤害修正。 它很简单，允许使用现有的基础进行更改而不会膨胀。

It's true that the problem can be solved without adding a new damage type, but it's no less of a change than adding a new damage type, see discussion here.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by AIEND

[AIEND]

6 分钟前，Fabius 说：

公平点，我认为斧头应该有更强的奖励，因为它们可以轻松地同时威胁人和机器

I don't think tomahawks have an advantage over swords when it comes to destroying sturdy machines (they're not firewood in your backyard) to be worth our attention.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 minute ago, AIEND said:

It's true that the problem can be solved without adding a new damage type, but it's no less of a change than adding a new damage type, see discussion here.

Right, so the new damage type would be largely unnecessary. I appreciate that you are experimenting with mods, but this change seems to be a terminology change rather than an enhancement.

 

7 minutes ago, Fabius said:

Fair point, I would argue axes should have a stronger bonus since they can comfortably threaten both man and machine at once

I think it would be cool if axe units (hyrcannian cav) had much more hack than swords, but also a slower repeat time.

[AIEND]

1 分钟前，real_tabasco_sauce 说：

是的，所以新的伤害类型在很大程度上是不必要的。 我很欣赏您正在尝试使用 mod，但这种更改似乎是术语更改而不是增强。

If people don't insist that slingers and macemans have crush damage, and spearmen have pierc damage, the problem is easy to solve.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 minute ago, AIEND said:

the problem is easy to solve

Thats exactly it. Very few people consider this a gameplay problem. Only a realism problem.

[AIEND]

4 分钟前，real_tabasco_sauce 说：

我认为如果 ax 单位（hyrcnian cav）的 hack 比剑多得多，而且重复时间也更慢，那会很酷。

So, should axeman have higher or lower DPS than swordsmen? 15 damage/3 seconds and 10 damage/2 seconds are no different.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 minute ago, AIEND said:

So, should axeman have higher or lower DPS than swordsmen? 15 damage/3 seconds and 10 damage/2 seconds are no different.

I would say maybe a little higher dps, but less armor. perhaps even more speed?

Even if they had the same dps, the axemen would do more damage in one hit, with implications as a raiding unit.

[Fabius]

8 minutes ago, AIEND said:

I don't think tomahawks have an advantage over swords when it comes to destroying sturdy machines (they're not firewood in your backyard) to be worth our attention.

The force exerted by an axe stroke versus that of a sword stroke is significantly different, an axe head will generate much more damage than a sword stroke will. It comes down to the design of each. An axe head is designed to generate high cutting damage in a small area, a sword will generate cutting power over a much broader area but has much less weight concentration. 

[Outis]

2 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Even if they had the same dps, the axemen would do more damage in one hit, with implications as a raiding unit.

This also has the effect of dealing higher damage to armored units than faster attacks with same dps .

[AIEND]

1 分钟前，Fabius 说：

斧头所施加的力与剑所施加的力有很大不同，斧头所产生的伤害比剑所产生的伤害要大得多。 这取决于每个人的设计。 斧头的设计目的是在小范围内产生高切割伤害，剑会在更广泛的区域内产生切割力，但重量集中度要小得多。 

I understand this, but the tomahawk itself is lightweight, which makes it not very prominent in terms of stress concentration. In fact, most peoples use tomahawks because the sword is too expensive, not because of the outstanding features of the tomahawk.

[Outis]

3 minutes ago, Fabius said:

The force exerted by an axe stroke versus that of a sword stroke is significantly different, an axe head will generate much more damage than a sword stroke will. It comes down to the design of each. An axe head is designed to generate high cutting damage in a small area, a sword will generate cutting power over a much broader area but has much less weight concentration. 

One more thing to consider: swords are more likely to break or bend with a powerful hit. A swordsman will be hesitant to hit a siege engine with full force. An axe will not be out of action after such an attack. An axeman is more likely to decommision a siege engine.

[AIEND]

6 分钟前，real_tabasco_sauce 说：

我想说可能dps高一点，但护甲少一点。 也许更快？

即使他们有相同的 dps，斧兵一击也会造成更多伤害，这意味着作为一个突袭单位。

Lowering the melee defense in exchange for higher DPS would work, because the battle axe is not as convenient for blocking as a sword, but the question is is the higher damage real? Like I said earlier, the tomahawk is more about being cheap than having any other advantages over the sword.

[AIEND]

2 分钟前，Outis 说：

还有一件事要考虑：剑在强力击打时更有可能折断或弯曲。 剑客会犹豫是否全力击中攻城车。 在这样的攻击之后，斧头不会失去作用。 斧兵更有可能使攻城引擎退役。

In reality, however, neither the swordsman nor the axeman would attack the siege  with their weapons, they would simply kill the operator or set it on fire.

Edited April 20, 2022 by AIEND

[real_tabasco_sauce]

3 minutes ago, AIEND said:

In reality, however, neither the swordsman nor the axeman would attack the siege  with their weapons, they would simply kill the operator or set it on fire.

yes, but there is an amount of abstraction required for a game to be fun. This is something we must accept as part of a videogame. Even if 0ad were a simulator, some sacrifices to realism would be made. I encourage you to play multiplayer, as these gameplay balances will make more sense there.

[AIEND]

1 分钟前，real_tabasco_sauce 说：

是的，但是要让游戏变得有趣，需要大量的抽象。 作为电子游戏的一部分，我们必须接受这一点。 即使 0ad 是一个模拟器，也会牺牲一些真实感。 我鼓励你玩多人游戏，因为这些游戏平衡在那里会更有意义。

I don't think it's about balance, it's just people wanting to add interesting settings based on their historical imagination. But what I'm trying to say is that it's more fun to design based on reality rather than imagination, for example I suggested adding arson earlier.