Jump to content

Differentiating Civilizations: Persian


 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

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.

How did he behave against buildings?
There are some technical problems with the idea. If we eventually add ax cavalry to other civilizations, we will have a completely different p3 vs p3 unit, this gets a little weird. What do you guys think about just adding more armor like the swordman and a little more crush damage, I think the armor would be enough to make it a little more effective in battles mainly small fights and crush effective enough against buildings also in late game.

We can also add a specialized tech for pers ax cavalry where we can increase some of its attributes like crush damage, speed or increase its training rank to rank 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, borg- said:

If we eventually add ax cavalry to other civilizations, we will have a completely different p3 vs p3 unit, this gets a little weird.

Don't worry @borg-: in the patch, I modified the axecav parent (general axecav, not necessarily Persians) to keep the same speed, armor and crush damage, but increase hack. These units have swordcav hack damage per second, but with a repeat time of 1.5 compared to 0.75. Their armor remains weak, but they have crush damage to make up for having less armor (compared to swordcav).

In other words, I buffed regular axe cav too, and only hyrcanian cav get to train at rank 3 and are faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, borg- said:

How did he behave against buildings?

In play testing, the persian axe cav could destroy buildings as well, if not better than currently, but they are weak to fully garrisoned buildings.

In other words, the axe cav player must be very careful not to lose them if they would like do destroy defended buildings.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

eu não joguei isso no multiplayer ainda, mas no papel isso é muito dominado:

1. Os persas recebem arqueiros de alcance de 70 m com a atualização.

2. Essas unidades serão essencialmente impossíveis de combater: altamente eficazes à distância e extremamente eficazes em lutas corpo a corpo, especialmente contra cav, que normalmente se usaria para limpar arqueiros.

 

se esta unidade mantiver a troca de armas, sua armadura deve ser a armadura do arqueiro, ou algo entre a armadura do arqueiro e a armadura do campeão do lanceiro 8 hack 8 perfurar lanceiro, e não deve mudar com as trocas entre os dois.

As he uses shield when he is separmen, I think it's natural that he has more armor, but I agree that the current armor is high for this type of unit. I'll see some numbers for that. Making it a little slower in its movement can be interesting too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Any more ideas for units, bonuses, auras, technologies etc..? If not, I will close the patch and go up to phabricator.

We can get some ideas from here: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Persians

I think spearmen infantry can cost 40 food 60 wood and decrease your training time to 9. If possible in defense mode your armor pierce increases from 5 to 10, and maybe an armor pierce aura for ranged units. If not already possible, increase your pierce armor by 3 and decrease your hack armor by 2 and attack by 10%.

Edited by borg-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just a comment one one aspect: I like the idea of having citizen with bow, but is there any historical justification for that?

If we were talking about a nomadic civ then probably yes, but for the Persians specifically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, maroder said:

just a comment one one aspect: I like the idea of having citizen with bow, but is there any historical justification for that?

If we were talking about a nomadic civ then probably yes, but for the Persians specifically?

fun and difference civ :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dakara said:

fun and difference civ :) 

yeah, I agree with civ differentiation, but if there is no historic background, the question for me is: Can't we find something fun for the persians that actually is based on history and keep the civilian bows for a civ where that is historically more correct?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, maroder said:

just a comment one one aspect: I like the idea of having citizen with bow, but is there any historical justification for that?

If we were talking about a nomadic civ then probably yes, but for the Persians specifically?

You will probably not find anything about Persian women warriors with high skill in archery, who changed the course of battles, but as the bow and arrow was very common in ancient Persia, it should not be uncommon to see some women knowing how to shoot.

Anyway, any new fun idea is welcome.

Edited by borg-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, borg- said:

Anyway, any new fun idea is welcome.

agreed (unfortunately can't think of a better idea right now)

I just have the feeling that if we only do it for the perisan women that might be a bit misleading historically and we will probably have people complaining about this and saying that we should remove it again.

(off topic: Might be an option to think about the two-gendered citizens again)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herodotus, in his account written in the 5th century BC. of the Persians who inhabited Pontus, reports that young Persians, between the ages of five and twenty, learned three things: "to ride a horse, to shoot with a bow and arrow, and to speak the truth."[65]

Well, it doesn't specify if they were men and/or women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 小时前,maroder 说:

同意(不幸的是,现在想不出更好的主意)

我只是觉得,如果我们只为波斯女性这样做,这在历史上可能有点误导,我们可能会有人抱怨这一点,并说我们应该再次删除它。

(题外话:可能是再次考虑两性公民的一种选择)

Even if you join the male and female civilians, I do not recommend letting civilians use bows and arrows to fight soldiers, because bows and arrows are just hunting tools for civilians, not weapons, otherwise why don't they use logging axes, pickaxes, and hoes to fight?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AIEND said:

Even if you join the male and female civilians, I do not recommend letting civilians use bows and arrows to fight soldiers, because bows and arrows are just hunting tools for civilians, not weapons, otherwise why don't they use logging axes, pickaxes, and hoes to fight?

Well, if you follow this logic, the dagger only serves to kill animals and not fight.

Civilians in theory shouldn't fight, but they do, so the weapon they use doesn't matter as long as it has a historical background, and the Persians apparently do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, borg- said:

好吧,如果你按照这个逻辑,匕首只是用来杀死动物而不是战斗。

平民理论上不应该打架,但他们会打架,所以他们使用的武器并不重要,只要它有历史背景,波斯人显然就是这样做的。

Daggers are a special case, because daggers were tools that people would carry with them when they went out, whether it was for self-defense or for cutting food. This has not changed in the Middle Ages, just like people in modern times will carry their mobile phones with them when they go out.

And even if they didn't carry a dagger, they would pick up roadside branches and use them as clubs, or pick up stones from the ground and throw them at the enemy.

Edited by AIEND
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, borg- said:

Well, if you follow this logic, the dagger only serves to kill animals and not fight.

Civilians in theory shouldn't fight, but they do, so the weapon they use doesn't matter as long as it has a historical background, and the Persians apparently do.

they don't, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, AIEND said:

Os punhais são um caso especial, porque os punhais eram ferramentas que as pessoas carregavam consigo quando saíam, fosse para autodefesa ou para cortar alimentos. Isso não mudou na Idade Média, assim como as pessoas nos tempos modernos carregam seus telefones celulares com eles quando saem.

E mesmo que não carregassem uma adaga, eles pegavam galhos à beira da estrada e os usavam como porretes, ou pegavam pedras do chão e as jogavam no inimigo.

To defend in small conflicts but not against enemy armies, so it doesn't make sense to be used against soldiers either.

If necessary, to defend oneself against an aggressor is worth any weapon in hand. Just because we don't have a Persian army of women doesn't mean they never used a sword, spear or bow and arrow to defend themselves.

This is the same as saying that Persian women cannot ride horses because we have no army of Persian women on horseback. If Persian education provided for horseback riding and learning archery, then isn't that enough for this little game change?

Edited by borg-
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...