Stan` Posted Tuesday at 16:37 Report Share Posted Tuesday at 16:37 Maybe they could pay for a specialization to unlock units. Could also be paired techs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real_tabasco_sauce Posted Tuesday at 16:42 Author Report Share Posted Tuesday at 16:42 (edited) 10 minutes ago, maroder said: I only see the problem that the Han have basically every unit type: Spear, Pike (Ji), Sword, Crossbow, Archer + all types of cav. Ok, I would say if something gets removed from these, it should be sword infantry. With the only ranged units being archers, crossbows, and archer cav, i think this is comparable to many civs. Since they already have swordcav, antiram should be no problem. Edited Tuesday at 16:43 by real_tabasco_sauce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted Tuesday at 16:44 Report Share Posted Tuesday at 16:44 (edited) @maroder they don't have javelin cav right? It is quite powerful to have both spear and sword cavalry, but I think not having javelin cav makes that less op. It is a good roster, but I think its ok. My main concern is the individual balance of particular units such as the Pike(Ji), crossbow and the champions. Kush are another civ that has all three of the main melee inf types, but they have only one ranged CS inf, the archer. Edited Tuesday at 16:46 by BreakfastBurrito_007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroder Posted Tuesday at 16:52 Report Share Posted Tuesday at 16:52 12 minutes ago, Stan` said: Maybe they could pay for a specialization to unlock units. Could also be paired techs. true, that could be fun. 6 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said: they don't have javelin cav right? It is quite powerful to have both spear and sword cavalry, but I think not having javelin cav makes that less op. they don't but I would say the crossbow cav is not that far off. 9 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said: Ok, I would say if something gets removed from these, it should be sword infantry. With the only ranged units being archers, crossbows, and archer cav, i think this is comparable to many civs. sounds ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreakfastBurrito_007 Posted Tuesday at 17:27 Report Share Posted Tuesday at 17:27 23 minutes ago, maroder said: they don't but I would say the crossbow cav is not that far off. Ah, I had hoped that one was getting booted, will it have the same range and damage as crossbow infantry? Given how powerful horse archers are, I am worried about how powerful crossbow cavalry would be if they had longer range than slingers and skirms, and were used similarly to how horse archers are use currently. Imagine how OP a horse archer rush would be if they could kill women in one hit? I understand that they are slower, at 14.4 m/s, but I still think non-archer infantry would have no way of countering them. I am very worried about this unit. @AIEND says they should get booted from the roster, and I think archer cavalry will be easier to balance too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevda Posted Tuesday at 19:50 Report Share Posted Tuesday at 19:50 İf you think their OPness is caused by range and mobility, you can limit them to P2 or later because everyone will have something to counter archer cav rush by P2, be it javelin cav, spear cav or archer infantry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alre Posted Tuesday at 22:17 Report Share Posted Tuesday at 22:17 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sevda said: İf you think their OPness is caused by range and mobility, you can limit them to P2 or later because everyone will have something to counter archer cav rush by P2, be it javelin cav, spear cav or archer infantry. ptole have horse archers in p1, that's not the point. and none of those counters is more common in p2 than in p1. if they are op in p1, they are op in p2 and 3 as well. Edited Tuesday at 22:18 by alre 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real_tabasco_sauce Posted Wednesday at 01:03 Author Report Share Posted Wednesday at 01:03 5 hours ago, Sevda said: İf you think their OPness is caused by range and mobility, you can limit them to P2 or later because everyone will have something to counter archer cav rush by P2, be it javelin cav, spear cav or archer infantry. I would say there are two reasons not to have this unit: One is that it is pretty unrealistic. two is that it doesnt fit with the other crossbow units well. Different range than champ cav crossbow, than champ crossbow (mace), and very different to the existing han CS crossbow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIEND Posted Wednesday at 06:34 Report Share Posted Wednesday at 06:34 13 小时前，BreakfastBurrito_007 说： 啊，我希望一个被引导，它的射程和伤害会和弩步兵一样吗？ 考虑到骑射手的强大，我担心如果弩骑兵的射程比投石手和小骑兵的射程更长，并且使用方式与目前骑射手的使用方式相似，他们会有多强大。 想象一下，如果他们可以一击杀死女性，那么弓箭手冲刺将是多么的 OP？ 我知道它们速度较慢，为 14.4 m/s，但我仍然认为非弓箭步兵无法对抗它们。 我很担心这个单位。 @AIEND 说他们应该从名册中除名，我认为弓箭手骑兵也会更容易平衡。 In reality, the crossbow cavalry is weaker than the archer cavalry, so there is no need to do it. I don't know why some people are obsessed with this unit. It is necessary to know that the Han Dynasty is played in the game, not the Qin Dynasty. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIEND Posted Wednesday at 06:42 Report Share Posted Wednesday at 06:42 14 小时前，maroder 说： 如果每个人都同意拥有这么多单位是个好主意：我很好。 我只看到汉族基本上每个单位类型的问题：长矛，长枪（吉），剑，弩，弓箭手+所有类型的骑士。 所以他们基本上可以轻松应对一切，这是一个巨大的优势。 再加上他们强大的生态，这对其他拥有较小名册的文明来说似乎有点不公平。 But the reality of the Han Dynasty is like this. If you feel that it is breaking the balance, then don't make this faction at all. Moreover, the variety of soldiers destroys the balance, and the game makes the advantages of swordsmen and sword cavalry too obvious, and I think they should be made less important. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroder Posted Wednesday at 09:46 Report Share Posted Wednesday at 09:46 How's the updated version? : https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4713 Also, anyone wants to accept: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4715 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4714 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4709 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted Wednesday at 21:39 Report Share Posted Wednesday at 21:39 On 20/06/2022 at 4:03 PM, Stan` said: What's wrong with the Ministry building @wowgetoffyourcellphone ? @AIEND didn't like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIEND Posted Wednesday at 22:56 Report Share Posted Wednesday at 22:56 1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said: @AIEND 不喜欢 Because in real history, the ministry building (Guanshu) and the civic center are one building. Or, if you are unwilling to give up any architectural models, then I suggest changing the current ministry building to the Imperial Palace (Weiyanggong) to represent the central government, and the civic center to the official hall (Guanshu) to represent the local government. The palace can train heroes and issue central decrees; the official hall can train local officials. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.