Balancing the Han

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Oh one last thing: han pikeman have 3 hack 4 pierce compared to regular pikes with 2 hack 3 pierce damage. They also get 2 fewer levels of hack and pierce armor than regular pikes.

It is not obvious from their name that they should have this difference, and also not clear why this difference exists. Maybe I missed something early on. If they are supposed to be different than pikeman, why not just call them halberdiers?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

How do we feel about having both CS and champion crossbow cav? It seems weird to have so many crossbow units, also with very different stats: 

for comparison: mace crossbow

40 pierce, 60 range, 9.6 walkspeed (champ inf costs).

Han Xbows:

CS infantry crossbow: 20 pierce, 45 range 9.6 walkspeed (40 wood cost, i guess the idea is the cost makes up for the units lower stats)

CS cavalry crossbow: 20 pierce, 50 range 14.4 walkspeed (40 wood cost too)

Champ cavalry crossbow: 40 pierce, 55 range, 14.4 walkspeed (champ cav cost)

 

Hero crossbow: 80 pierce, 65 range, 14.4 walkspeed

 

why should the range change so much between different crossbow types? I imagine the champ cavalry crossbows will be very strong, thankfully they can at least be caught using faster cavalry. Because of the champ unit being so special, I think the CS crossbowman cav should be removed.

what do you think of this @chrstgtr?

I think that hero could become the single most annoying unit in the game lol.

cav should be all 50 or 55 range, champ inf should be 60.

im ok with CS infantry crossbows having less range, but they should have 50 hp and slinger damage per second (with 50 food 50 wood cost).

^ ie no "trash" units, just normal citizen soldiers.

Edited June 19, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce
fix incorrect xbow stats.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

13 hours ago, AIEND said:

As a kind of memorial building, "paifang" was roughly formed in the Song Dynasty, before it was just the gate of an ordinary residential area. During the Han Dynasty, many of the current Chinese religions were immature, so there was a lack of buildings that could provide aura buffs.

 

Right, that's why I only called it a District Gateway, rather than a memorial structure. It's true that many of these things were undeveloped in the Han era.

Edited June 14, 2022 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone thoughts on the walkspeed aura?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 13/06/2022 at 12:06 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Farming upgrades are +25%instead of 20% (p1)

 

On 13/06/2022 at 1:58 PM, Stan` said:

Please also mind the recent commits. We removed the rice subtype. Han still have a grain gathering malus.

@Stan` was the grain gather rate upgrade changed back to 20% in those changes you mentioned here?

[Stan`]

4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

 

@Stan` was the grain gather rate upgrade changed back to 20% in those changes you mentioned here?

https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP26937#change-4iNpcYffl7qG

[real_tabasco_sauce]

7 hours ago, Stan` said:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP26937#change-4iNpcYffl7qG

Thank you! I guess they weren't. I think they should be 20% just like the other civs.

[Stan`]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Thank you! I guess they weren't. I think they should be 20% just like the other civs.

But they have smaller fields so more of them

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, Stan` said:

But they have smaller fields so more of them

right, and apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick here, but even if each field had 1 worker, (or if each field had 10 workers) wouldn't 20 percent faster worker rate be the same?

The upgrade modifies the worker's gather rate no?

Edited June 17, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Gurken Khan]

@real_tabasco_sauce AFAIK each subsequent worker on a rice paddy suffers a 10% penalty. So unit 1 has a 0.6 gather rate, 2 has 0.9x0.6 and 3 has 0.9x0.9x0.6. Might cancel the 25% vs 20% out. Why it is like that and who came up with that would be another question...

[real_tabasco_sauce]

58 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

So unit 1 has a 0.6 gather rate, 2 has 0.9x0.6 and 3 has 0.9x0.9x0.6.

This alone is a slight advantage for the han eco, since they do require farmers 4 and 5. (not that other civs "require" 5, but they have invested 100 wood for 5 spots, while han invest 60 wood for 3 spots.)

I maintain that 25% -> 20% is an important balance step.

Edited June 17, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 hours ago, Stan` said:

But they have smaller fields so more of them

Placeholder?

[Stan`]

19 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Placeholder?

No. But it seems that every attempt at features to differentiate the civ will result in them being removed for 

- a) balancing reasons

- b) historical reasons

- c) game engine not being ready

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, Stan` said:

game engine not being ready

Why?

PD: you think they are the Mesoamericans and corn can be made something different (btw)

[Stan`]

Just now, Lion.Kanzen said:

Why?

See #6560 (Han barracks/ stable champions tech) – Wildfire Games and the fact we removed the rice resource.

 

[Stan`]

I meant their features not the whole civ.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 minutes ago, Stan` said:

I meant their features not the whole civ.

I like the rice paddies, and I think they are a neat way to differentiate the Han. I was just saying that the upgrades are too strong amidst a number of other economic bonuses. Were the upgrades intended to be 25% as part of differentiation?

[Stan`]

Well I don't know all the reasonings behind everything All I know is so far no balance change was merged for rc2.

[maroder]

Alright, so here is some stuff for people to give their opinion on:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4708

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4715

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4714

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4713

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4709

[Gurken Khan]

37 minutes ago, maroder said:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4708

I think it's nice to have unique buildings, but if the Laozi Gate goes I'm fine with it.

39 minutes ago, maroder said:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4715

I'll leave that to the balancing experts. ;p

40 minutes ago, maroder said:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4714

I've not systematically tested it, but -25% seems pretty strong, so I guess the nerf is ok.

42 minutes ago, maroder said:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4713

Yeah, the roster was much bigger than those of other civs.

47 minutes ago, maroder said:

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4709

That hero nerf is fine, I guess.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@maroder thank you very much for putting these patches together.

1. I would say removing the laozi gate is the best solution, thank you.

2. As for the ministry upgrades, they might be better balanced now, but it seems weird (perhaps redundant, some would say boring) to have level 1 and 2. What if level 2 versions were removed, with the level 1 techs receiving middle-ground values and/or different phase requirements?

Since this building trains ministers, I think there should be some upgrades to the minister unit available. For example, I think some p3 upgrade that increases minister stats (aura range perhaps) would be possible.

^ if more time could be invested, maybe there could be 3 mutually exclusive upgrades (almost like a one time specialization trait), with one for aura range, one for economic traits and maybe one that increases their militaristic traits.

3.  I think the upgrade itself should be changed: having stacking upgrades is very powerful balance-wise. I like the hero's aura much more than the blanket buff for all CS units. How about @wowgetoffyourcellphone's suggestion:

On 13/06/2022 at 3:33 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

"Sun Tzu's Art of War" moved from the Fortress to the Academy:

• Old: "All Citizen-Soldiers −25% required promotion experience."
• New: "All Champions −10% train time and +10% health."

^or at least something to that effect. Another possibility would be something along the lines of the "immortals" tech from persians.

4. unit roster

I think crossbows should stay in p2, but be balanced around slingers stats. I am happy with the halberdier replacing the spearman.

The above improvements to infantry xbows (slinger damage per second, 50 hp, 50 food 50 wood cost) should accompany the removal of the crossbow training tech, or at least balancing it (not effecting champions -are they not already trained?-).

Good to remove the champ archer. I think if one of these champs is to be kept, it should be the champ crossbow cavalry (with appropriate range and accuracy nerfs).

I think if one other roster change is to be made, CS cavalry crossbows should be removed.

5. heroes:

I would say keep the -50% training experience. This is very strong, but with the above change to "art of war",  it should be balanced. In addition, this unit should be made a foot soldier so that CS cav cannot as easily reap the benefits of the aura.

IMO the xbow hero should be nerfed as follows: cavalry unit: 60 pierce, 55 meters (just like range of champion cav x bows) OR infantry unit: 60 pierce 60 meters (just like range of inf crossbows). 

Edited June 19, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think crossbows should stay in p2, but be balanced around slingers stats. I am happy with the halberdier replacing the spearman.

The above improvements to infantry xbows (slinger damage per second, 50 hp, 50 food 50 wood cost) should accompany the removal of the crossbow training tech, or at least balancing it (not effecting champions -are they not already trained?-).

 

In any case, the crossbow unit should not be "trash" with low stats and low cost. A civ with bad CS infantry and OP cavalry and chamions will be impossible to balance and I would call it a flawed design strategy for that civ. I think the crossbow training tech is a way to accomodate that design, so if that design is changed like I suggest, then the upgrade should be removed or changed to not influence damage per second. No matter what happens to crossbow training, it should not apply to champions.

The main issue with Han is that they have no high damage short range unit like slinger or javelin, other civs have javelin cavalry which can be used to overcome those limitations, Han do not have that.

I would suggest making the CS crossbow into a "repeating crossbow" type unit. I am no historian, but on wikipedia glance I saw no shortage of mentions of repeating crossbows in China at various time periods from 400-800 BC and onward. Majority of those weapons seem to be hand held

Possible stats of repeating crossbow:

-50 food 40 wood 10 metal

-40 range, 8.5 pierce damage, .75 repeat rate (unless this makes performance problems), and very low accuracy. This means that the have damage per second of 11.3 compared to 12.8 for skirmisher and 9.2 for slinger.

This unit would fill in some gaps for Han infantry and allow other areas like champions or cavalry to be balanced without making the civ overall more vulnerable.

Edited June 19, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007
forgot to capitalize China

[Lion.Kanzen]

11 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

. I would say removing the laozi gate is the best solution, thank you.

Yes.

[maroder]

On 14/06/2022 at 8:46 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

How do we feel about having both CS and champion crossbow cav? It seems weird to have so many crossbow units, also with very different stats: 

for comparison: mace crossbow

40 pierce, 60 range, 9.6 walkspeed (champ inf costs).

Han Xbows:

CS infantry crossbow: 20 pierce, 45 range 9.6 walkspeed (40 wood cost, i guess the idea is the cost makes up for the units lower stats)

CS cavalry crossbow: 20 pierce, 50 range 14.4 walkspeed (40 wood cost too)

Champ cavalry crossbow: 40 pierce, 55 range, 14.4 walkspeed (champ cav cost)

I would say the different stats between mace and han are ok, because they used different crossbow designs.

I would rather not give them exactly slinger stats, but keep their repeat time as it is now and bump their damage up to 30 and remove the -10 health.

yeah, the camp should go.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

22 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Possible stats of repeating crossbow:

-50 food 40 wood 10 metal

-40 range, 8.5 pierce damage, .75 repeat rate (unless this makes performance problems), and very low accuracy. This means that the have damage per second of 11.3 compared to 12.8 for skirmisher and 9.2 for slinger.

This unit would fill in some gaps for Han infantry and allow other areas like champions or cavalry to be balanced without making the civ overall more vulnerable.

@maroder that change would be assuming crossbow training is removed. Even if it is not removed, then 10 pierce/second would be greater than the slinger dps which is 9.2 pierce/second, so I would argue for a range reduction to 40 meters to accompany your change, or perhaps an accuracy disadvantage compared to slingers. The unfortunate result will be that the unit will play very similar to slingers (but with some key differences), despite seeming so unique. 

@real_tabasco_sauce told me he would be willing to work on a repeat crossbow concept mod similar to the quote above as a potential long term solution, however his computer right now is busted. I think a repeat crossbow is the best way to achieve a uniquely played ranged infantry unit for the Han.

Another thing to look at is the Han champions and heroes, but I have heard there were already changes in this area.

There has been some concern about p1 swordcav for Han. I don't think it will be the end of the world because javelin cavalry, spear cavalry and home infantry will be ok at countering them. It is possible that a fast rush: (no stable, no barracks, cav from cc to chickens, attack before 2 minutes) will be quite OP for Han, so I might suggest that swordcav can only come from the stable and not cc. I have only seen a few swordcav rushes in the RC, and none have been chicken-based like we see sometimes in a25, so it is something I will look out for in future RC multiplayer tests.