Balancing the Han

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@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 June 21, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[maroder]

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.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

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.

[Yekaterina]

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.

[alre]

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 June 21, 2022 by alre

[real_tabasco_sauce]

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.

[AIEND]

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.

[AIEND]

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.

[maroder]

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

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 20/06/2022 at 4:03 PM, Stan` said:

What's wrong with the Ministry building @wowgetoffyourcellphone ?

@AIEND didn't like it

[AIEND]

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.

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 30/06/2022 at 11:42 AM, maroder said:

Last thing open for the Han is the roster restructure: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4713

would be nice if some more people would look at/ accept it. I also read the maybe the minister should only cost 1 pop instead of two (not sure how many people feel that way).

And then there is @borg-'s Persia overhaul: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4724

which should also be accepted/ checked by much more people before including it right before string freeze.

@maroder's roster patch needs an additional reviewer. Maybe @chrstgtr @borg- @LetswaveaBook interested.

Edited July 11, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[LetswaveaBook]

I think that cavalry crossbowmen were an oddity in the Han army and better be removed.

Maybe ask our historians about that.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

8 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I think that cavalry crossbowmen were an oddity in the Han army and better be removed.

Maybe ask our historians about that.

This was a difficult discussion. @AIEND was against crossbow cavalry, since it was not a typical unit. This is historical grounds to remove the CS crossbow cav, which I thought was problematic for a few reasons anyway. However, considering that crossbow cavalry was possible, and maybe very rarely achieved (only by very skilled warriors), I think the crossbow cav champion can remain.

Also, the hero is crossbow cav, so it makes sense to allow the crossbow cav champs.

[AIEND]

16 小时前，real_tabasco_sauce 说：

这是一次艰难的讨论。 @AIEND 反对弩骑兵，因为它不是典型的单位。 这是移除 CS crossbow cav 的历史依据，无论如何我认为这是有问题的。 然而，考虑到弩骑兵是可能的，而且可能很少达到（只有非常熟练的战士），我认为弩骑兵冠军可以保留。

此外，英雄是弩骑士，所以允许弩骑士英雄是有意义的。

I have repeated many times, the Han army's elite crossbowmen are only infantry, because they can use their legs and waist to open a powerful crossbow.
Cavalry cannot use powerful crossbows, but only the weakest crossbows. These crossbows are weaker than bows. In a dynasty like the Qin Dynasty that adopted a general conscription system, the cavalry used crossbows because the quality of the riders was not high and they could not use bows and arrows. In the Han Dynasty, this was very rare. The cavalry generally used the bow, and the bow used by the cavalry was more powerful than the crossbow, and the speed of the bow was faster.
Therefore, it is impossible to have any champion crossbow cavalry. In reality, only champion cavalry archers, and only novice cavalry with the worst riding skills will use crossbows.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

5 hours ago, AIEND said:

I have repeated many times, the Han army's elite crossbowmen are only infantry, because they can use their legs and waist to open a powerful crossbow.
Cavalry cannot use powerful crossbows, but only the weakest crossbows. These crossbows are weaker than bows. In a dynasty like the Qin Dynasty that adopted a general conscription system, the cavalry used crossbows because the quality of the riders was not high and they could not use bows and arrows. In the Han Dynasty, this was very rare. The cavalry generally used the bow, and the bow used by the cavalry was more powerful than the crossbow, and the speed of the bow was faster.
Therefore, it is impossible to have any champion crossbow cavalry. In reality, only champion cavalry archers, and only novice cavalry with the worst riding skills will use crossbows.

I agree that they are problematic from a historical standpoint.

My thoughts are if these champion cavalry crossbowmen are also problematic for gameplay in terms of balance, then they could be replaced with the infantry champion crossbowman. This would be an easier balancing option.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone does art for this unit exist already?

[Stan`]

Crossbowmen are trash units. They shouldn't be champions

[real_tabasco_sauce]

7 hours ago, Stan` said:

Crossbowmen are trash units. They shouldn't be champions

in AOE yes, but if there are champ archers, why not allow champion crossbows? I remember @AIEND mentioned there were weaker crossbows for lesser trained soldiers, and much more powerful crossbows for elite units.

Edited July 13, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Stan`]

5 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

in AOE yes, but if there are champ archers, why not allow champion crossbows? I remember @AIEND mentioned there were weaker crossbows for lesser trained soldiers, and much more powerful crossbows for elite units.

Not in AOE. In real life

 

[AIEND]

5 小时前，斯坦` 说：

不在AOE中。 在真实生活中

 

In reality, there are elite crossbowmen. The crossbow used by these people must be used with both hands and feet to be opened, and the power is stronger than that of the bow. After about the Sui and Tang dynasties, because people generally used bows, the original crossbows with low power, which were only convenient for learning, were eliminated. From the Sui and Tang Dynasties to the Ming Dynasty, only the powerful crossbows remained.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 hours ago, AIEND said:

In reality, there are elite crossbowmen. The crossbow used by these people must be used with both hands and feet to be opened, and the power is stronger than that of the bow. After about the Sui and Tang dynasties, because people generally used bows, the original crossbows with low power, which were only convenient for learning, were eliminated. From the Sui and Tang Dynasties to the Ming Dynasty, only the powerful crossbows remained.

Part of the problem in this conversation is that you keep mentioning other dynasties and eras. It has induced a lot of confusion. Please stick to the Han period to prevent confusion. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

10 hours ago, Stan` said:

Not in AOE. In real life

I meant medieval time period.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

13 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I meant medieval time period.

Sure, but it's irrelevant FUD when decisions need to be made quickly.

[borg-]

Maybe offtopic, but crossbows were much easier to learn than bows and arrows, so it wouldn't be interesting to make a little differentiation in citizen crossbows like requires -50% xp to promotion ?

[AIEND]

16 小时前，wowgetoffyourcellphone 说：

这次谈话的部分问题是你一直在提到其他朝代和时代。 它引起了很多混乱。 请坚守汉代，以防混淆。

In the Han Dynasty, I have already said that the crossbow with small power is easy to learn, and the crossbow with great power requires both hands and feet to operate. I don't understand what is difficult to understand.