Jump to content

Differentiating Civilizations: Persian


 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, borg- said:

Based on what?

Currently the main practical use for these units is to destroy buildings, basically like highly mobile clubmen. In team games, one could easily mass 20+ fairly quickly and destroy enemy houses, barracks, and even the CC. It would be overpowered beyond belief, and balancing them from that point (trainable in p1, even worse from CC) would make them a gimmick:

balancing them at the p1 level means they would be an OP troll unit for the first 5-10 mins and then completely useless (except for anti ram) in the late game.

The patch I proposed gives them a more interesting, versatile, impactful, and balanced role.

@borg-Most people seem to like your other propositions for persians, can you let axe cav stay in p2?

edit: sorry for redundancy, I didn't see @chrstgtr's post.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do other's agree my patch (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4674) should be considered separately?

I think it makes sense: D4674 is already complete and functional, just needing to be accepted. It also seems to be moderately popular: as of right now, 50% of voters supported the patch, and 43% of voters supported a more simple buff (to the axe cav parent class).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Outros concordam que meu patch ( https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4674 ) deve ser considerado separadamente?

Acho que faz sentido: o D4674 já está completo e funcional, só precisando ser aceito. Também parece ser moderadamente popular: a partir de agora, 50% dos eleitores apoiaram o patch e 43% dos eleitores apoiaram um buff mais simples (para a classe pai axe cav).

I don't think you understand how this works. I'm not a leader or anything, I'm just gathering information from various players to try to create a patch that is accepted by the majority. You can have as many patches as you want separately. It's okay to have multiple options.

@Stan`I'm having problems with the checkout. I'm able to download only 5 mbs then the speed drops to 0 and nothing else happens.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Com base nessa lógica, você não deve alterar nada, pois não fez nenhum teste. Pelas minhas contas, apenas 2 pessoas (incluindo você) disseram que querem isso. Vários manifestaram preocupação. De fato, como muitas pessoas propuseram uma alternativa de apenas dar cav da espada à Pérsia. 
 

Novamente, não é difícil imaginar um jogador acumulando 15-20 de axe cav no início do p1 e sendo capaz de acabar com os homens e CC de um inimigo inteiro. Se os homens forem eliminados, esses 15-20 machados podem destruir um CC e eliminar um jogador na marca de 8 minutos. Será particularmente possível porque axe cav usa metal, que não está em demanda em p1 e pode ser facilmente doado por aliados. Para demonstrar como isso é possível, Vali mostrou como merc axe inf pode destruir CCs em p2, apesar de exigir várias construções especiais e atingir p2. Nenhum desses obstáculos será exigido nesta proposta. 
 

A proposta nem parece um bom design de jogo. Por sua própria admissão, axe cav não é bom em p2 e p3. Axe cav também são projetados para serem bons em derrubar edifícios. Por que devemos disponibilizar em p1 uma unidade especializada em demolir prédios? Por que devemos tornar os CCs vulneráveis quando eles têm menos unidades para se defender e os jogadores são menos capazes de se recuperar?

I can agree that it can be op on p1, but it's not enough to stay in the imagination, things need to be tested. That's how it works and will continue to work. If that's the case I'll remove the idea of ax p1 with no problem, but I totally refuse to put a spade knight in its place. We need to evolve, not run backwards. We have a unit with great potential, let's work on it instead of regressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, borg- said:

I can agree that it can be op on p1, but it's not enough to stay in the imagination, things need to be tested. That's how it works and will continue to work. If that's the case I'll remove the idea of ax p1 with no problem, but I totally refuse to put a spade knight in its place. We need to evolve, not run backwards. We have a unit with great potential, let's work on it instead of regressing.

As I’ve said before, Persia can easily have both sword and axe cav. In my opinion it should have both. 
 

Replacement isn’t evolution. It’s just creating something different than before. And, different can be better or worse. 

Edited by chrstgtr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, borg- said:

If that's the case I'll remove the idea of ax p1 with no problem, but I totally refuse to put a spade knight in its place.

Have you tested my mod? (or the patch?) I feel like moving axe cav as is to p1 is plainly inferior to my solution, but I am fine with testing axecav in p1.

3 hours ago, borg- said:

We have a unit with great potential, let's work on it instead of regressing.

^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, borg- said:

I'm not a leader or anything, I'm just gathering information from various players to try to create a patch that is accepted by the majority.

yes, I understand. To be honest, I don't think axe cav p1 is accepted by the majority, but I can't say for sure.

 

The reason I asked about considering the two patches separately is because nobody has accepted or given any other feedback on mine. I assumed people would want to see your patch before mine gets accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm already finishing the patch. What do you think of these two ideas:

- persia starts with 2 horses but -2 women;

- persia stable slowly restores the health of the cavalry (like cc)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, borg- said:

- persia starts with 2 horses but -2 women;

 

If you want to do something like that, I would just give one extra horse (like how kush gets a healer at the start) and keep the starting 4 women. Unless there is good hunt, the proposal will really slow down Persia's boom, which is already slow. For reference, a simple test shows that the proposal will result cause to already being 20 seconds slower at 20 pop (and that one extra cav unit will be a drag on the boom). With the proposal, I suspect no one would ever play Persia in team games because they would be too slow. 

In other words, 4 starting women and 1 cav can make an extra cav unit and still be about 20 seconds faster by the 20 pop mark. So 4 starting women is always superior. If there isn't extra hunt (i.e., no need to make a second cav unit, then 4 starting women will become much, much faster

Edited by chrstgtr
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/06/2022 at 12:20 AM, borg- said:

I can agree that it can be op on p1, but it's not enough to stay in the imagination, things need to be tested. That's how it works and will continue to work. If that's the case I'll remove the idea of ax p1 with no problem, but I totally refuse to put a spade knight in its place. We need to evolve, not run backwards. We have a unit with great potential, let's work on it instead of regressing.

Yeah u right test it the best idea. I don't think a people spam this unit in P1 can win because no military tech in P1 for example

Can be good but not op , lets start 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

For reference, a simple test shows that the proposal will result cause to already being 20 seconds slower at 20 pop (and that one extra cav unit will be a drag on the boom). With the proposal, I suspect no one would ever play Persia in team games because they would be too slow. 

@chrstgtr, I have an inconvenient truth for you:

Either there is no such simple test to show the time difference at which the Persian player reaches 20 population, or you are incapable to perform this simple test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you start with 4 infantry, 2 women en 2 cavalry, then you can recruit 3 batches of 4 women and reach 20 population after 73 seconds.

For the regular start, you recruit two batches of 4 women and a batch of 3 and reach 20 population at 68 seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With an additional horse you would be able to collect twice as much food and therefore train more women, reducing training time considerably. But for that to happen you need to change the start putting everyone on the wood, continuing home early. It's this kind of change I hope to have

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, borg- said:

With an additional horse you would be able to collect twice as much food and therefore train more women, reducing training time considerably. But for that to happen you need to change the start putting everyone on the wood, continuing home early. It's this kind of change I hope to have

 

2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

If you start with 4 infantry, 2 women en 2 cavalry, then you can recruit 3 batches of 4 women and reach 20 population after 73 seconds.

For the regular start, you recruit two batches of 4 women and a batch of 3 and reach 20 population at 68 seconds.

What do you do after you run out of chicken and there is no extra hunt? The standard four women is much, much faster because it is already has women on berries and already has the berry tech with no wasted units. It is how you are set up for the future. The regular build gets you there faster with no waste and waste and there is no drag moving forward. The regular build also gives you the flexibility to build an extra cav unit at the start and not be any slower because of it. This starting configuration is just going to be slower. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

What do you do after you run out of chicken and there is no extra hunt? The standard four women is much, much faster because it is already has women on berries and already has the berry tech with no wasted units. It is how you are set up for the future. The regular build gets you there faster with no waste and waste and there is no drag moving forward. The regular build also gives you the flexibility to build an extra cav unit at the start and not be any slower because of it. This starting configuration is just going to be slower. 

I don't know if it is going to be slower in every situation. If you have extra hunt or berries, then in a 1v1, you recruiting some cavalry for rushing and defending against rushes feels to me as a must. In those cases, the suggested start does not seem disadvantageous to me.

In the situation where there is no extra hunt or berries, i agree that the regular start looks better. But the biggest disadvantage seems to be on nomad starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I don't know if it is going to be slower in every situation. If you have extra hunt or berries, then in a 1v1, you recruiting some cavalry for rushing and defending against rushes feels to me as a must. In those cases, the suggested start does not seem disadvantageous to me.

In the situation where there is no extra hunt or berries, i agree that the regular start looks better. But the biggest disadvantage seems to be on nomad starts.

I already said I'm talking about team games. In team games, 2 cav isn’t enough to do an effective rush, especially if you are in the pocket. No one, especially pockets, will fear a rush just because there is a Persia on the enemy team. 
 

If there are extra berries, you’ll definitely be faster with a normal start. If there are no extra hunt/berries, you’re faster with a normal start. If hunt is hard to get (because it is spread out, limited, and/or far from the CC) then you’re better with a normal start. In a situation where there is good, easy hunt then you’ll be basically the same speed unless you want to rush, I’m which case you’ll be slightly faster. 
 

My point is: the proposal takes a slow civ and the makes it slower in the majority of situations. This does not mean that you can’t have two cav at the start, though. If you want two cav units at the start, you can easily modify the proposal to give an extra cav unit at the start (like how Maurya has an ele and Kush has a healer). This alternative will open up other build orders and doesn’t risk making Persia’s boom very slow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

My point is: the proposal takes a slow civ and the makes it slower in the majority of situations. This does not mean that you can’t have two cav at the start, though. If you want two cav units at the start, you can easily modify the proposal to give an extra cav unit at the start (like how Maurya has an ele and Kush has a healer). This alternative will open up other build orders and doesn’t risk making Persia’s boom very slow. 

Giving just one extra cav without penalties would be a big advantage over other civilizations. Perhaps removing one spearmen then in place of two women might make it more balanced. having two starting horses can make you aggressive at the beginning of the game but having one less soldier can be a big disadvantage to defend yourself.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, borg- said:

Giving just one extra cav without penalties would be a big advantage over other civilizations.

I don't think an extra cav will be that big of a deal in team games, but you're probably right for 1v1s. 

28 minutes ago, borg- said:

Perhaps removing one spearmen then in place of two women might make it more balanced. having two starting horses can make you aggressive at the beginning of the game but having one less soldier can be a big disadvantage to defend yourself.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean Persia would start with 2 cav, 1 spear, 2 archers, and 4 women? I tested that a little bit and it seems fine at first glance. It does seem like it will create some unique build orders, which I think is your goal and would be nice. It also creates a nice defense tradeoff like you mention. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, borg- said:

How do I put cavalry count two? The game is crashing for me when i add the amount. How do I add amount to skirmishers maps?

 


        

You do that in the civ.json irc. For skirmish maps you need to do it manually on every single map.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

First patch is complete.

 

- Women defend themselves with bow. They can also hunt wild animals with bow.

Attack: 2
Distance: 48
Attack Rate: 1250

 

- -10% batch training time for cavalry each phase advance. 

 

- CC train all cavalry except champions.

The cavalry training requirement phase does not change.

 

- Apadana stone cost reduced to 200 stone from 300. Food trickle and wood removed. Now gains metal and stone only at a rate of 1.0/1 sec from 0.75/2.

 

- Add Icehouse.

Cant garrison

Built in own/neutral territory. Village Phase

Build time: 50sec

Cost: 100 wood

Food trickle 1/2sec. Building limit 30

 

- Immortals technology no more health penalty.

 

- Barracks and stable batch training time technology are removed for balancing.

 

Well I would like as many people to test it for good feedback.

Tnx.

pers0.1.patch

Edited by borg-
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...