Jump to content

Differentiating Civilizations: Persian


 Share

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, borg- said:

Tnx feedback!

My original idea is to have an aura in the icehouse that increases the amount of food from nearby animals and bushes, so it could be built in neutral. But I don't know if auras can affect gaia. With the aura, we can set the minimum distance equal to the aura.

What if they could serve as a meat only dropsite as well, and the aura serves for meat, maybe increase the food per animal by 1.25. 

An alternative to the aura would be that the icehouse gets .25 food for every 1 meat dropped off (losing less nutrients to rot perhaps). This would probably be more elegant than an aura, and then I guess you could just add the range limiter from towers.

However, we have to consider what impact this has on corrals. I guess it would still be reasonable, just a little stronger for pers than other civs.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, alre said:

consider that persians are already strong in late game. saving pop space and boosting corrals are both late game bonuses (additional to pop bonus).

Yes this is my worry, but to be fair, I would say persians are just competetive in the late game at the moment, and weak in early/middle game.

Is there a way for the aura to only apply to wild animals?

^I think this would make it a little more valuable in the early game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think keeping the ice houses like this is the best alternative at the moment.

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@borg-, how about when this ice house decision finalized, both our patches go forward as Persian differentiation? then we can test in the next RC maybe?

Yes it will be necessary for a good amount of people to test both patches.

I'm looking to improve the Persian architecture technology and maybe add one more unique technology, any suggestions guys?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For immortals it is difficult to balance the mix of archer / spearmen. They also used other weapons such as axes and swords. I think being able to switch from spear to ax and being able to destroy some buildings can be a lot of fun especially along with cyrus 2.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@borg- to make things easier for people to test, perhaps we could combine the mods. All you will have to do is download the raw diff files from phabricator: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4674

I really think the changes with the ax cavalry are valid, but I don't agree with the current proposal. It seems to solve one problem and create others. I still maintain my idea that having these units in phase 1 with armor, health and attack adjustments is the best choice. The idea would be to create a weak melee cavalry unit for phase 2 and 3 but efficient for phase 1. It could have similar damage to the spearmen cavalry, even lower, but maybe with a bonus against support units like trader, women and priests and maintaining their efficiency against constructions.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, borg- said:

The idea would be to create a weak melee cavalry unit for phase 2 and 3 but efficient for phase 1. It could have similar damage to the spearmen cavalry, even lower, but maybe with a bonus against support units like trader, women and priests and maintaining their efficiency against constructions.

if the axe cav are in p1 what will happen is 2v1 of persians and mauryas where the mauryas rush and the pers boom until 4-5 mins and then kill the cc with 25-35 axe cav. Why should the unit become useless in p2 and p3? does that somehow make it balanced?

merc cav are not very good late in p3 once other players have cav and/or fully massed CS armies, but does that make them balanced in p2? No of course.

I think @real_tabasco_sauce's unit is more versatile, more balanced, and less sensational than your idea for the unit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

if the axe cav are in p1 what will happen is 2v1 of persians and mauryas where the mauryas rush and the pers boom until 4-5 mins and then kill the cc with 25-35 axe cav. Why should the unit become useless in p2 and p3? does that somehow make it balanced?

merc cav are not very good late in p3 once other players have cav and/or fully massed CS armies, but does that make them balanced in p2? No of course.

I think @real_tabasco_sauce's unit is more versatile, more balanced, and less sensational than your idea for the unit.

 

Well we have a point, the ax cavalry must have as its main weapon its ability to destroy buildings, otherwise it is just another sword unit without any difference. For that he needs to be fast and efficient against buildings, but the patch makes him more powerful than he is now, greatly increasing his hack and crush dmg, so he would be fast and strong against units too. With the patch he's able to fight cavalry and run away without taking damage, and that's what I mean in creating other problems. We have to find a balance in being efficient against buildings, fast, but still weak in big fights. The most obvious and quick solution would be to decrease your hack damage.

 

Edited by borg-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, borg- said:

With the patch he's able to fight cavalry and run away without taking damage, and that's what I mean in creating other problems

It loses to any cavalry even plain javelin cavalry loses handily to spearmen despite costing 35 metal like skiritai spearcav can kill them very easily. So the main concern is its speed yes, I think @real_tabasco_sauce could tone it down a bit so that its easier to catch and trap them, but overall the unit is much more balanced than a p1 gimmick.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, borg- said:

We have to find a balance in being efficient against buildings, fast, but still weak in big fights. The most obvious and quick solution would be to decrease your hack damage.

My patch does all of these things. You must not have seen that the repeat rate is now 1.5 seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@borg- people want to test your patch and my patch (i think 7 people have tested mine). It will be easier to do them together if we really want more testing.

I don't think you have tried the buffed hyrcanian cav; wouldn't it be easier just to add them to your mod? To be honest, I would say what we have done so far is pretty polished and could be committed before the next RC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wowgetoffyourcellphone @Stan` is the upgrade structure still like this:

<Upgrade>
    <Immortals>
      <Entity>units/pers_champion_infantry_archer</Entity>
      <Tooltip>Upgrade to immortal archer.</Tooltip>
      <Time>8</Time>
    </Immortals>
  </Upgrade>

That's how i used it but it's broken now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, borg- said:

@wowgetoffyourcellphone @Stan` is the upgrade structure still like this:

<Upgrade>
    <Immortals>
      <Entity>units/pers_champion_infantry_archer</Entity>
      <Tooltip>Upgrade to immortal archer.</Tooltip>
      <Time>8</Time>
    </Immortals>
  </Upgrade>

That's how i used it but it's broken now.

Use the same format as the Sentry Tower upgrade. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, borg- said:

I still maintain my idea that having these units in phase 1 with armor, health and attack adjustments is the best choice. The idea would be to create a weak melee cavalry unit for phase 2 and 3 but efficient for phase 1.

@borg- I'm sorry, but I think very very few people agree with you here. Something that is a CC killer (houses, barracks etc) and then isn't good the rest of the game just doesn't sound fun to use and especially not to play against.

Please give my mod a try, maybe they sound OP on paper, but this is what it takes to really diversify units. I also don't want them to be a swordcav replica, so I made a unit that is very different in a number of ways to swordcav.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/06/2022 at 5:21 AM, LetswaveaBook said:

When I searched on the internet for Persian Ice houses, the idea of adding the to the game felt very good. The most logical bonus would be food related and I like the idea of a food trickle as it encourages to build more than a single one.

It seems natural to compare the cost of the ice house to a farmer. So for 5 farmers we have a cost of

250 food for training 5 women

100 wood for a field + 75 wood for building the housing for 5 women,

75 seconds construction time.

Without farming upgrades, they produce as much as 5 ice houses (as proposed) in the mod. But the cost of the Ice houses is 500 wood and 250 seconds build time. So fields seem preferable to me even if you lack all farming upgrades. Currently the main advantage of the building seems to be that it does not require population space. @borg- I am interested what your ideas are behind these numbers.

I think this is a better idea. If the cost and the gain per Ice house are higher, then instead of being spammed, each one brings a more noticeable impact.

My suggestion would be 100 wood+100 stone+50 seconds build time. So at the start of the game, you have a unique way of using your stone. If you have some leftover stone at the start, you can fully utilize it for ice houses, but it means you need to go to stone before getting the 3rd barracks. So that would give the interesting question on how many ice houses you build at the start of the game and how you combine it with your build order.

Farming gets more efficient as more eco technologies are being researched. The Ice house seems to lag behind more and more for every farming technology that gets researched. I think it would be fitting if the Persian Architecture tech also provided +20% resource tickle for ice houses (as well as a +20% territory boost).

My humble suggestion is that because Ice Houses could help to preserve food, that is to prevent wasted food, then they could rather give you a food collection rate bonus, rather than a fixed amount. Perhaps they would need a building space or number restriction too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, borg- said:

I really think the changes with the ax cavalry are valid, but I don't agree with the current proposal. It seems to solve one problem and create others. I still maintain my idea that having these units in phase 1 with armor, health and attack adjustments is the best choice. The idea would be to create a weak melee cavalry unit for phase 2 and 3 but efficient for phase 1. It could have similar damage to the spearmen cavalry, even lower, but maybe with a bonus against support units like trader, women and priests and maintaining their efficiency against constructions.

I actually like the idea of a lot more being available in P1, except if it's likely to use a blacksmith, then you will need P2 to build a blacksmith then everything that requires a blacksmith will become available, like swords :-p

Axes could be made a lot more roughly than swords and require less metal than a blade I think, you can use stone as well.

Edited by myou5e
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@borg- I'm sorry, but I think very very few people agree with you here. Something that is a CC killer (houses, barracks etc) and then isn't good the rest of the game just doesn't sound fun to use and especially not to play against.

Please give my mod a try, maybe they sound OP on paper, but this is what it takes to really diversify units. I also don't want them to be a swordcav replica, so I made a unit that is very different in a number of ways to swordcav.

I'm going to include your mod in this mod I'm making, can it be? So we can test all changes together.

12 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Use the same format as the Sentry Tower upgrade. 

Of course, I forgot about that, very tnx.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/06/2022 at 6:14 PM, borg- said:

For that he needs to be fast and efficient against buildings, but the patch makes him more powerful than he is now, greatly increasing his hack and crush dmg, so he would be fast and strong against units too. With the patch he's able to fight cavalry and run away without taking damage, and that's what I mean in creating other problems.

I played a multiplayer game with proposal @real_tabasco_sauce. That patch turn the axe cav into a formidable fighter. However in a mixed army, the axe cavalry is also one of the first units to die. So that tends to balance. I think the unit is not majorly imbalanced.

The speed is indeed a possible issue though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, borg- said:

- Immortal can switch bow / spearman

i haven't played this in multiplayer yet, but on paper this is very overpowered:

1. persians get 70 m range archers with the upgrade.

2. These units will be essentially impossible to counter: highly effective at range and extremely effective in melee fights, espcially against cav, which one would normally use to clean up archers.

 

if this unit retains weapon switching, its armor should be the armor of the archer, or somehwhere between archer armor and 8 hack 8 pierce spearman champ armor, and it should not change with switches between the two.

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...