Differentiating Civilizations: Persian

[borg-]

3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Justification? Were Persian women good archers? Lol

Use the Ice Houses from DE.

Archery was very common in Persia, it shouldn't be unusual to see women shooting. Your attack ingame should be as low as a dagger.

I will take a look to see how this ice house works.

[borg-]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

Some of these changes won’t be noticeable to the average player. And if this exercise is done for all civs then the traditional spear/archer/sword/skirm/etc. stats will become meaningless because too many civs will have one off special stat adjustments. I would want something that is easier to understand so each unit type is same across civs. Different unit types will be different even if they are similar (for example, pikes and spears are pretty similar to each other but we all understand how they are different). Making a system where a Persian spear is different from a Athens spear, which is different from a Brit spear, which is different from a Roman spear, will very quickly create a complicated system that can’t be easily understood. 
 

Also, what you describe is pretty similar to how pikes will function in the next alpha. The main difference will be that Persian spears will be faster. Not sure that makes sense historically because this will probably mean that Persia gets the best of pikes (armor) and spears (speed) which will give them one of the better inf melee units. That might be good, but it seems misplaced with Persia being the civ to get that

 

I’m a little concerned about this.

This will lead to more “cameling” rushes with the archer cav  

Can’t axe cav destroy CCs quickly (currently or as proposed)? That could be very difficult to counter in p1 which will lead to a lot of early GGs

 

Many games have similar units with minor status changes, this doesn't seem confusing, he's still a spearman.

Yes it resembles the pike and that can be a little bad, although historically this unit was like a tank that protected the back lines from artillery. They used their big shields for that, but they weren't that good at close combat.

Just jave and ax available in phase 1. I don't think it would be a problem to have archer cavalry at phase 2

Ax cavalry is not very effective at destroying buildings. My idea is to just move it to phase 1 to make it much more useful and just a few minor changes needed.

[Yekaterina]

21 hours ago, borg- said:

Persian women have a bow to defend themselves rather than the conventional dagger.

Good idea. Women in 0AD are too vulnerable to rushes so some self-defence capability would be appreceiated. 

21 hours ago, borg- said:

Archers are more accurate than other archers and advance in rank faster

This is too OP in my opinion

21 hours ago, borg- said:

Decreases the attack of citizen spearmen considerably, but increases armor pierce.

It might make balancing more difficult, but I would appreciate this if I was a Persian player. 

21 hours ago, borg- said:

All Persian cavalry are available in the CC, except champions.

I think this is perfect

21 hours ago, borg- said:

Can train ax cavalry in phase 1.

Might be too OP. 30 of them can hack down a CC very quickly so it leaves very little chance for the enemy. 

21 hours ago, borg- said:

Remove conscription and current unique training technology, add a new technology. All units cost an amount of gold but can be trained much faster.

That is an unique feature indeed, would love to try. 

21 hours ago, borg- said:

Cavalry health technology moved to phase 1.

 

Good, now the Persian player can kill everyone in phase one. 

21 hours ago, borg- said:

Immortals switch from spear to bow and arrow

Plausible and would be a good feature

21 hours ago, borg- said:

Market can train slaves.

Plausible, but I am not sure what role the slaves should take. I am also not sure if training slaves is politically correct. 

[borg-]

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

 

I wouldn't be a fan of moving all good stuff from p2 to p1. I would like it if p2 offered useful and unique advantages instead of being the roadblock on your way to p3 that it currently seems to be.

Only ax is moved to p1, the rest remains p2.

[LetswaveaBook]

8 minutes ago, Sevda said:

Might be too OP. 30 of them can hack down a CC very quickly so it leaves very little chance for the enemy. 

Before you claim that such a thing is easy to do, I recommend making a mod a trying it out.

[Yekaterina]

6 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Before you claim that such a thing is easy to do, I recommend making a mod a trying it out.

I have tried it in Vanilla A25 and it wasn't a very difficult play. Combining with borg's idea of moving all cavalry units to the civic centre, then if there is a lot of hunt on the map, you can almost continuously produce axe cavalry and you can mass 30 of them in less than 8 minutes. 

[soloooy0]

this is needed by all civ with car
charriots: they have nothing that differentiates them from the archer cav, but nothing should give them greater price, range, precision and that they are slower

elephants, all (even archers) should have a small attack in area, that do damage in 360º, even the builder elephant died

Edited June 3, 2022 by soloooy0

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@borg- I am worried about allowing too much crush damage in p1. In the early game, you could destroy barracks and houses, with extra capture and crush that would be even stronger. But then what is the use of the unit in late game?

I would say my mod differentiates axe cav much more to be honest. You should download it just to try.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@borg- @real_tabasco_sauce , 

@Sevda brought up a good point about them easily taking out a cc. I would say 40 would be necessary to easily take out the cc. However, there is more to the situation.

My main worry about having axe cav in p1 is that it would make 2v1 in p1 a game-ending scenario. Mauryans doing skirmcav and persians doing axecav against another player who does not have any hunt would be totally unfair. In order for a player to help their teammate against this in p1, they need cavalry, because infantry will be late and cav will raid around them and eventually kill cc. 

if the unit costed more like in @real_tabasco_sauce's mod, then it would at least require eco to mass up, so it would not be possible to quickly spam them out of cc and end the game in less than 5 minutes, with the help of a jav cav civ in 2v1. 

@borg-There is absolutely no way axecav could go in p1 and be as cheap as they are now (not even considering increased crush that has been proposed). Having an overpowered gimmick in p1 followed by the unit being useless afterward is frankly not good game design.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Having an overpowered gimmick in p1 followed by the unit being useless afterward is frankly not good game design.

 

huge agree right there

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@borg- @real_tabasco_sauce , 

@Sevda brought up a good point about them easily taking out a cc. I would say 40 would be necessary to easily take out the cc. However, there is more to the situation.

My main worry about having axe cav in p1 is that it would make 2v1 in p1 a game-ending scenario. Mauryans doing skirmcav and persians doing axecav against another player who does not have any hunt would be totally unfair. In order for a player to help their teammate against this in p1, they need cavalry, because infantry will be late and cav will raid around them and eventually kill cc. 

if the unit costed more like in @real_tabasco_sauce's mod, then it would at least require eco to mass up, so it would not be possible to quickly spam them out of cc and end the game in less than 5 minutes, with the help of a jav cav civ in 2v1. 

@borg-There is absolutely no way axecav could go in p1 and be as cheap as they are now (not even considering increased crush that has been proposed). Having an overpowered gimmick in p1 followed by the unit being useless afterward is frankly not good game design.

 

 

I already said this. And it doesn't even need to be a 2v1. One player can easily do it by themselves if they get slightly boosted.

It’s not hard to imagine a player getting boosted early and getting enough axe cav to destroy CCs at min 5 when there are hardly any men to defend. Putting all cav into p1 is very concerning. It would be like @Dizaka merc cav rushes this alpha except there would be cheaper, not have a phasing requirement, would come 3 minutes earlier when there are fewer defenders, and the result would be a loss of a CC, which would be gg for that player 

Edited June 4, 2022 by chrstgtr

[vinme]

On 03/06/2022 at 4:46 AM, borg- said:

EDIT.

As you all know, one of the biggest problems we are currently encountering in 0a.d is that all civilizations are very similar in gameplay. My goal in this topic is to discuss plans on how to make the Persian civilization more attractive to players and at the same time seek to differentiate from other civilizations. Why start with persia? because it is one of the least used civilizations. It is important to point out that the proposed changes must correspond with the current stage of development (no features not yet implemented), and I also ask that you do not deviate from the objective of the topic which is to focus on Persian civilization.

Well for starter, I'm going to list below some ideas of what I think would be interesting.

- Persian women have a bow to defend themselves rather than the conventional dagger.

- Archers are more accurate than other archers and advance in rank faster

- Decreases the attack of citizen spearmen considerably, but increases armor pierce.

- All Persian cavalry are available in the CC, except champions.

- Can train ax cavalry in phase 1.

- Remove conscription and current unique training technology, add a new technology. All units cost an amount of gold but can be trained much faster.

- Cavalry health technology moved to phase 1.

 

Verify possibilities:

- Immortals switch from spear to bow and arrow

- Market can train slaves.

 

Well, these are some of the ideas i have for persians, i would like your opinion.

i have recently started using persia, its not as weak as one would think, but very hard to play properly.

id advise perhaps p2 10% food tech.

make cc archer range tech cheaper maybe 300/150 over 400/200 food/metal.

decrease atack, increas armor of citizen spearmen? so just pikes? with no hack armor? thats a bad idea.

make the traintime -10% 300 food  for cav tech into 20% less traintime.

give better hero, instead of only cav hero, provide 15% move speed one maybe 15% dmg for cav.

bow women too extreme, would change game completely, i dont like it.

archer rank advance seems boring, given rn archers weak af,  unless you mean cav archers as well, then interesting.

accuracy boost for archers? maybe civ passive 10% less spread?

all persian cav from cc can be interesting, but changes game too much  still i feel, maybe all can come from special stable, that has limit of 2?(normal stables avalible also)

cav hp to p1? maybe  instead, do the "nisean war horse" tech p1, affects all mele cav,as long as you dont give swordcav to persia, this way could work, but make it expensive, 600-800 food perhaps. (20%+hp for mele cav but 10% more traintime) 

 

[vinme]

i changed my mind, 15% move speed for all 15% dmg for cav  hero, too op, then 20% dmg for cav hero wont be as viable. maybe 15% move speed for all, 10% dmg for cav?

that seems reasonable.

also removing the immortals tech debuff, of 10% less hp 50% less traintime.

[ChronA]

- Persian women have a bow to defend themselves rather than the conventional dagger.
Agree. I feel in general that civilians being melee instead of ranged in 0AD is a nonsensical Age-of-Empires-ism. Giving Persian women their civ's characteristic ranged weapon makes sense to me, and is unlikely to cause problems so long as their combat stats (i.e. the damage of their arrows and maybe their range) are not competitive-for-cost with proper CS archers. And they really should not be, because CS archers would be using proper war bows while civilians would only have hunting bows.

- Archers are more accurate than other archers and advance in rank faster
Slightly oppose. This is a good suggestion in concept, but as others have pointed out Archers are a recurrent problem unit for balance, and somewhere down the line someone will need to readjust them. Persians having a unique variant will make that person's life very slightly harder. That said, it might still be worth doing. This is one of the most "on-brand" buffs the Persians could get.

- Decreases the attack of citizen spearmen considerably, but increases armor pierce.
I think there is a much better way to do this:
Step 1. Decrease the Persian CS spearman's cost to say 50 Food 30 Wood (because their wicker shields did not require high quality lumber)
Step 2. Decrease their attack by 50% and reduce their hack armor from 5 to 3, but leave their HP and pierce armor unchanged
Step 3. For eco balance, drop their resource gather rate by 20% to compensate for being able to have more of them.
This would make the Persian spear line into a stronger pierce-tank role for cost as you suggested, but better fitting to the historical assessment that Persian infantry were inadequately armored compared to their Greek adversaries and compensated only by weight of numbers. It would also have some interesting late game implications. These spearmen would be slightly supply inefficient, so Persians would likely need to switch to champion Spearmen as they approached pop-cap. Persian CS infantry would also be much weaker to melee cavalry with this change. This might force them to compensate by focusing more on cavalry vs cavalry, which would be an interesting variation to the meta IMO. (It could also just make them completely non-viable vs cavalry, so be careful! That goes for your original variant too.)

- All Persian cavalry are available in the CC, except champions. + All Persian CS cav are available in P1.
I do not feel like I have a good grasp on the balance of factors for and against cavalry effectiveness in current 0AD, so I cannot predict how this would effect the meta. It seems like other people have concerns so I defer to them. Maybe just proceed with caution.
 

[vinme]

reduce cost of persian hall to 200 metal/200 stone and 200 buildtime, idk why its so expensive  for no reason whatsoever(rn 300 stone 200 metal 300 buildtime)

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

23 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

This is actually currently possible, just not with a tech. Do it by upgrading the barracks back and forth. Barracks trains food+wood versions of the units, while Royal Barracks train food+metal versions of the units. You can upgrade these buildings back and forth at will (for a cost or something).

No comments on this? 

DE does something similarly for the Macedonian barracks. 

[borg-]

On 04/06/2022 at 2:58 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

No comments on this? 

DE does something similarly for the Macedonian barracks. 

Yes, I also thought about that possibility, it is something to be taken into consideration. anyway, thanks.

I'll be doing the first patch soon, with the simplest changes that were generally better accepted.

[LetswaveaBook]

@Stan`@borg- It would be nice to add some features to Persians for the first release candidate. So I would like to get some indication on when and what is happening.

I think @real_tabasco_sauce has put forward a bold approach on differentiating the axe cavalry. My suggestion would be that @borg- creates a patch that does not conflict with @real_tabasco_sauce axe cavalry. I think it is fair to accept the proposal of @real_tabasco_sauce as an essential part of a community project is respecting the proposals of other people. I would like to ask borg- what his plans are for his patch on RC1.

Finally: Stan` can you give a deadline for patches to be shaped and accepted for the first release candidate?

[Stan`]

2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

g- It would be nice to add some features to Persians for the first release candidate. So I would like to get some indication on when and what is happening.

Was supposed to be today but the CI broke. Some patches can get in between RC1 and RC2 no problem. We still have some c++ changes that need to get in.

[Fabius]

Persia isn't my field of expertise, but I like this differentiation plan, I shall look forward to the Roman discussion  

[borg-]

The patch will have a different proposal for ax than @real_tabasco_saucedoes. One patch does not change the other.

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 hours ago, borg- said:

The patch will have a different proposal for ax than @real_tabasco_saucedoes. One patch does not change the other.

are we going for asymmetric civilizations / factions?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 hours ago, borg- said:

The patch will have a different proposal for ax than @real_tabasco_saucedoes. One patch does not change the other.

I think it is best to keep them separate, as one is unit balancing/differentiation and one is more civ differentiation.

One thing is for sure: we cannot allow axe cav in p1, buff or no buff. I like allowing spear and javelin cav in p1, maybe archer cav too, but definitely not axe cav.

[borg-]

12 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think it is best to keep them separate, as one is unit balancing/differentiation and one is more civ differentiation.

One thing is for sure: we cannot allow axe cav in p1, buff or no buff. I like allowing spear and javelin cav in p1, maybe archer cav too, but definitely not axe cav.

Based on what? We never made the proper tests to know if this unit could be for phase 1. Every unit can be played in phase 1, as long as it has the necessary adjustments. For ax, I think an increase in training time is enough. Overall it's a weak unit at age 2 and 3, which is why it would adapt better at p1.

[chrstgtr]

6 hours ago, borg- said:

Based on what? We never made the proper tests to know if this unit could be for phase 1. Every unit can be played in phase 1, as long as it has the necessary adjustments. For ax, I think an increase in training time is enough. Overall it's a weak unit at age 2 and 3, which is why it would adapt better at p1.

Based on that logic then you shouldn’t change anything since you haven’t done any tests. By my count, only 2 people (including you) have said they want this. Several have expressed concern. In fact, as many people have proposed an alternative of just giving Persia sword cav. 
 

Again, it’s not hard to imagine a player massing 15-20 of axe cav early in p1 and being able to wipe out an entire enemy’s men and CC. If men are wiped out then those 15-20 axe cav can destroy a CC and eliminate a player by the 8 min mark. It will be particularly possible because axe cav use metal, which isn’t in demand in p1 and can be easily donated by allies. To demonstrate how this is possible, Vali has shown how merc axe inf can destroy CCs in p2 despite requiring multiple special buildings and reaching p2. None of those obstacles will be required in this proposal. 
 

The proposal doesn't even sound like good game design. By your sown admission, axe cav aren’t good in p2 and p3. Axe cav are also designed to be good at taking down buildings. Why should we make a unit available in p1 that specializes in taking down buildings? Why should we make CCs vulnerable when they have the least units to defend themselves and players are least able to recover?

Edited June 8, 2022 by chrstgtr