==[TASK]== Handheld Battering Ram

[Lion.Kanzen]

39 minutes ago, alre said:

@Lion.Kanzen's post just triggered a fun thought: if you wanted to completely destroy a building, you would do it by hand, but if you wanted to conquer it, you may want to use a ram to get inside.

You would only weaken them in order to capture them, arson would be for trash buildings.

This is the case of CC. It shouldn't be easy to capture and it shouldn't be easy to destroy with a single battering ram.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

12 minutes ago, Fabius said:

but for Macedonia requires a workshop will weaken it for Macedonia as nearly all players will already have a barracks by default, better that everyone can build a workshop second age if they have this mini ram available.

If other civs can only make it from barracks while mace can from siege workshop this will help mace because they would have another p2 building option, one that is cheaper than a barracks and would not take up training time from other units. It would also mean they can make p3 rams with less delay than other civs. 

I think this option gives mace strategic ambiguity. If a player sees Enemy mace siege works in p2 they need to get ready for either p2 rams or p3 rams 1-2 mins later. This is a challenge to be sure.

[AIEND]

4 小时前，Fabius 说：

添加第 2 阶段 ram 并没有改变一半的游戏，我几乎不认为创建一个精简的 ram 模型很难。 和 Aiend 一起去那个。 第 2 阶段目前没有任何意义，除非您将雇佣骑兵作为迦太基。 我们需要在第 2 阶段的选项中更加多样化。 

 

Even if there is no new model it doesn't hinder the adjustment of the data, I suggest you try my mod, there is a battering ram in P2, it is cheaper, has lower HP and damage, and is easier to be destroyed by melee infantry.

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by AIEND

[real_tabasco_sauce]

5 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@alre I see your point about clubmen, it would be sad if they were useless. IMO we should reduce the crush armor of heavily armored units so clubs and axes can be effective against those classes of units. the idea was that these crushing weapons can cave in the armor. That way clubmen would better for taking out fringe buildings like houses towers, as well as battling other units, and p2 rams would be better for a fully fledged battle.

I don't think all civs should get this p2 ram. How about only add the p2 ram to few (like 1-3) civs? I think it would be weird if every civ got the p2 ram, making rams both ubiquitous (all civs have them) and redundant (all civs have 2 different rams). 

I think it would be really cool for this unit to serve as a mercenary for some civ. This would probably mean inverting the cost: wood -> metal and metal -> wood. Also this would require only 1 or 2 designs.

Here is an idea:

Maybe mace alone should be allowed to build the siege workshop in p2 and train the p2 ram, while a couple other civs can train the p2 ram in other buildings (could be military colony for seles, or maybe roman army camp for romans "auxillary seige unit", not for ptol because ptol already OPOPOPOP).

Edited April 27, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

5 hours ago, Fabius said:

making it come from barracks but for Macedonia requires a workshop will weaken it for Macedonia as nearly all players will already have a barracks by default,

how about either they train from the buildings I mentioned above for 2 non-mace civs. This should neatly solve these issues. Maybe also give them a different price, but this may not be necessary.

[Fabius]

10 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

If other civs can only make it from barracks while mace can from siege workshop this will help mace because they would have another p2 building option, one that is cheaper than a barracks and would not take up training time from other units. It would also mean they can make p3 rams with less delay than other civs. 

I think this option gives mace strategic ambiguity. If a player sees Enemy mace siege works in p2 they need to get ready for either p2 rams or p3 rams 1-2 mins later. This is a challenge to be sure.

Alrighty, that makes sense  

[alre]

there is another option: soldiers building rams on the field. wow has the code for it if I remember well.

[Fabius]

4 minutes ago, alre said:

there is another option: soldiers building rams on the field. wow has the code for it if I remember well.

I know he has code for field catapult construction, I seen it in DE and I would love to see it as a roman legionary bonus.

[Fabius]

25 minutes ago, Fabius said:

I know he has code for field catapult construction, I seen it in DE and I would love to see it as a roman legionary bonus.

In fact I would love to see the Onager as part of the main game in some capacity for Rome. alongside Centurions  

[Gurken Khan]

22 hours ago, Fabius said:

I don't see why everyone should not get a tree trunk hauled by a couple guys. It does not take a rocket scientist to tell a couple guys to pick up a random log and start smacking the local neighbor's door with it.

This.

Just a wild idea: order a couple of guys (2 or 4 inf) to batter (like a special formation); for the price of 100 wood and with a setup time you get a handheld battering ram. But: the ram takes damage while dealing damage; it should be good to take down a sentry tower and then be useless. The ~formation could be released at any time, it would be destroyed when the units are killed.

[Fabius]

23 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

This.

Just a wild idea: order a couple of guys (2 or 4 inf) to batter (like a special formation); for the price of 100 wood and with a setup time you get a handheld battering ram. But: the ram takes damage while dealing damage; it should be good to take down a sentry tower and then be useless. The ~formation could be released at any time, it would be destroyed when the units are killed.

I like wild ideas I do  

How hard would it be to code, what about art and how practical would it be game play wise?

[Stan`]

You could have an upgrade cost for units a bit higher and not require multiple ones. I don't think you can do a shared upgrade that way.

[Fabius]

10 minutes ago, Stan` said:

You could have an upgrade cost for units a bit higher and not require multiple ones. I don't think you can do a shared upgrade that way.

So basically just a stat upgrade? For rams?

[Stan`]

No I meant for all foot units to turn them into rams. You could also turn that handheld ram into a bigger ram

[Fabius]

5 minutes ago, Stan` said:

No I meant for all foot units to turn them into rams. You could also turn that handheld ram into a bigger ram

Ah I see, so essentially a button that merges a couple units into a ram? Or a single unit into a ram? And then a button with that unit to turn it into a better ram?

[Stan`]

Yeah.

I suppose we need a a special component for compound upgrade @Freagarach ?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

This.

Just a wild idea: order a couple of guys (2 or 4 inf) to batter (like a special formation); for the price of 100 wood and with a setup time you get a handheld battering ram. But: the ram takes damage while dealing damage; it should be good to take down a sentry tower and then be useless. The ~formation could be released at any time, it would be destroyed when the units are killed.

I'm not so sure. It's a nice idea, but I think it is best to stick to training siege units for the time being. If it is a plan to have siege units be buildable or otherwise field-constructed like in AoE4, then this would make sense. Wouldn't it be weird to have rams, siege towers and catapults trained in the siege workshop, and at the same time permit this formation based siege mechanism?

[Gurken Khan]

5 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Wouldn't it be weird to have rams, siege towers and catapults trained in the siege workshop, and at the same time permit this formation based siege mechanism?

I think it could be logically defended. I can see how a workshop is needed to assemble something with moving parts and aligned measurements; for picking up a tree trunk not so much.

[Fabius]

10 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

I think it could be logically defended. I can see how a workshop is needed to assemble something with moving parts and aligned measurements; for picking up a tree trunk not so much.

Definitely agree. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

12 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

I think it could be logically defended. I can see how a workshop is needed to assemble something with moving parts and aligned measurements; for picking up a tree trunk not so much.

No you are right. From a logical standpoint, it is fine. However in terms of gameplay it stands out in a rather awkward way. This is what I meant originally.

 

On another note, what if my 100 ptol pikemen with the pike hero's HP bonus all turn into rams? At the same time these 100 pikes are better off as pikes than as 25 rams. Then how do you balance it? only 2 units required? In that case 50 rams would be wild XD. Im honestly not so sure about it in general to be honest.

Edited April 27, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Fabius]

3 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

No you are right. From a logical standpoint, it is fine. However in terms of gameplay it stands out in a rather awkward way. This is what I meant originally.

 

On another note, what if my 100 ptol pikemen with the pike hero's HP bonus all turn into rams? At the same time these 100 pikes are better off as pikes than as 25 rams. Then how do you balance it? only 2 units required? In that case 50 rams would be wild XD. Im honestly not so sure about it in general to be honest.

Its a trade off, and you would not turn all your pikes into rams anyhow, that would be a grave error in judgment  

 

[Gurken Khan]

20 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Im honestly not so sure about it in general to be honest.

Me neither.

As stated it was a wild idea, to maybe broaden the approach a bit. Not sure if it would be wanted or could be implemented currently. And naturally it would need to be balanced.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

Me neither.

As stated it was a wild idea, to maybe broaden the approach a bit. Not sure if it would be wanted or could be implemented currently. And naturally it would need to be balanced.

yes, I just hope to avoid adding things that might end up like the bribing mechanic.

[Lion.Kanzen]

10 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

yes, I just hope to avoid adding things that might end up like the bribing mechanic.

Unusable?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

5 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Unusable?

not unusable, but just unimpactful and hard to balance. Sort of gimmicky you know?