Introducing the Official community mod for 0 A.D. Empires Ascendant

[Fabius]

On 30/11/2022 at 4:54 AM, chrstgtr said:

I think all melee champ cav is OP because most civs can’t counter them.

This I concur on. the biggest culprits being Persia and Selucia since they can get extra health with the war horses tech.

And then after that comes Rome. 

Perhaps a reduction in health for champion cavalry might be helpful? they already have double the health pool of a full veteran melee cavalry I don't think it would hurt to much to knock of 10%.

[chrstgtr]

51 minutes ago, Fabius said:

Perhaps a reduction in health for champion cavalry might be helpful? they already have double the health pool of a full veteran melee cavalry I don't think it would hurt to much to knock of 10%.

Agree

Edited December 1, 2022 by chrstgtr

[chrstgtr]

58 minutes ago, Fabius said:

well they do have diverse melee options, but their ranged section is anything but diverse

Yeah, only skirms. But that's better than some civs. Also, you get many siege options and camp, which other civs don't have. 

All in, Rome is by no means the worst civ. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, Fabius said:

Perhaps a reduction in health for champion cavalry might be helpful? they already have double the health pool of a full veteran melee cavalry I don't think it would hurt to much to knock of 10%.

already done, see the merge request I previously linked. I agree, we don't need nearly 400 HP champ cav XD. I believe its closer to 13 percent, 300->260 for melee.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

8 hours ago, Fabius said:

This I concur on. the biggest culprits being Persia and Selucia since they can get extra health with the war horses tech.

And then after that comes Rome. 

Perhaps a reduction in health for champion cavalry might be helpful? they already have double the health pool of a full veteran melee cavalry I don't think it would hurt to much to knock of 10%.

Melee champion cav may be non-counterable, but that does not make them OP necessarily, just frustrating to play against.

Melee champ cav do not have the same damage/cost as ranged and are less survivable. A key factor of firecav/brit chariots being OP in a25 and brit chariots being OP in a26 is their ability to pay for themselves in unit kills with only very few losses.

Personally I would welcome armor nerfs for consular bodyguard ( it seems they get more armor and more damage again like cs swordcav), as well as a moderate hp reduction and a damage buff for spearcav champions.

As for briton chariots/firecav I think fire rate of firecav should be restored to its a25 value and briton champion chariots should have their damage reduced from 36 to 30 (still 5 more than firecav, even neglecting the firecav accuracy nerf).

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Melee champion cav may be non-counterable, but that does not make them OP necessarily, just frustrating to play against.

A unit is not OP if it is counter-able OR it is prohibitively difficult to obtain. Good game design requires that units not be prohibitively difficult to obtain because a prohibitively difficult to obtain unit is superfluous.

Melee champ cav cannot be countered and are not prohibitively difficult to obtain. Therefore they are OP. 

2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Melee champ cav do not have the same damage/cost as ranged and are less survivable

No, they have more health and more armor. Even if they die, 10 champ cav paired with a normal army in a 200 pop game can leave the attacker at 190 pop while the defender has 130 pop. That is GG. A unit can die and still be OP if it leads to a player winning a game. 

2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

As for briton chariots/firecav I think fire rate of firecav should be restored to its a25 value and briton champion chariots should have their damage reduced from 36 to 30 (still 5 more than firecav, even neglecting the firecav accuracy nerf).

Brit chariots are not OP. They are counter-able by any melee champ cav, CS spears, sniping, and by other means. 

[Fabius]

9 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Melee champ cav do not have the same damage/cost as ranged and are less survivable. A key factor of firecav/brit chariots being OP in a25 and brit chariots being OP in a26 is their ability to pay for themselves in unit kills with only very few losses.

Not at all, you get enough champion cavalry of the consular or heavy lancer variety and you can eradicate a ranged army in less time than it took to make said ranged army, this has and always will be one of the primary functions of cavalry, squishing light infantry into the earth. 

[Fabius]

9 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Personally I would welcome armor nerfs for consular bodyguard ( it seems they get more armor and more damage again like cs swordcav), as well as a moderate hp reduction and a damage buff for spearcav champions.

They haven't, they have the usual double sword cav stats plus 1 extra armour on both hack and pierce. the damage is just double the sword cavs, there has been no change except a loss of 1 hack armour and a gain of 1 pierce armour in A24 i think it was.

I will also point out that by the same logic champion lancers should have 11 hack armour since regular lancers have 5 and doubled that gives 10 and add 1 for a total of 11. And if that sounds scary it should. likewise the champ lancer damage is just regular lancer damage doubled.

[Fabius]

16 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

already done, see the merge request I previously linked. I agree, we don't need nearly 400 HP champ cav XD. I believe its closer to 13 percent, 300->260 for melee.

Something to be aware off is that if we drop melee cavalry health we should do something about ranged cavalry health, do we want ranged and melee champions both having the same size health pool?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

check the merge request:

melee CS: 160 (unchanged) melee champ: 260

ranged CS: 80 ranged champ: 180

[alre]

there has been in the past some discussion about reframing champ spear cav as cataphracts (which is mostly how they are called in game). cataphracts would be slower than usual cav and have a lot more pierce armor, and would be very good ranged inf counters, interpreting well the classical AoE cav role.

[binobo]

On 28/11/2022 at 10:31 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

k all done:

merge requests:https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests

branches comparison:

https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades/-/compare/main...cav_speed?from_project_id=36954588&straight=false

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/22/diffs

These 2 shouldn't make a very big difference overall, but I expect them to help bring down cavalry's survivability.

Feel free to comment on other merge requests I have submitted. I did one lowering crush armor, one for allowing the roman army camp in p2, and one for adjusting pikemen damage/armor.

also, there is a slight crossbow nerf.

I think the roman army camp would be better at phase 2. however, rams should not be buildable at this phase. No other Civ can make siege in P2. I think most people don't use the camp because the build time takes too long. Reducing the build time to 200 seconds (20% reduction) would make it more viable. To make it more affordable, I think it it should be 400 wood (100 wood reduction) with 100 stone and 100 metal but the overall stats should be changed. I would suggest slight health reduction to 1750 health to balance the faster build time. I think the arrows should still stay the same. Thoughts?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 hours ago, binobo said:

I think the roman army camp would be better at phase 2. however, rams should not be buildable at this phase. No other Civ can make siege in P2. I think most people don't use the camp because the build time takes too long. Reducing the build time to 200 seconds (20% reduction) would make it more viable. To make it more affordable, I think it it should be 400 wood (100 wood reduction) with 100 stone and 100 metal but the overall stats should be changed. I would suggest slight health reduction to 1750 health to balance the faster build time. I think the arrows should still stay the same. Thoughts?

yes, of course. As the merge request is written, rams are still a phase 3 unit, but just infantry may be trained during p2. At the time, I wasn't sure if an hp reduction was necessary as well, but I might still implement a few of these suggestions. Thanks.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

14 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Brit chariots are not OP. They are counter-able by any melee champ cav, CS spears, sniping, and by other means.

Try them with Boudicca tho.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Try them with Boudicca tho.

Sure. I’ve expressed skepticism about Boudica many times before in these forums.  They’re very very strong with Boudica.  That may be a different problem.
 

But I’m personally undecided on whether Boudica is a problem. She only helps heroes, which means the impact is limited unless a player masses a lot of chariots, in which case it’s probably already gg. Compare that to the cav hero for rome, which boosts champ and CS cav, or Vercin, which boosts all soldiers

[Fabius]

On 02/12/2022 at 5:56 PM, alre said:

there has been in the past some discussion about reframing champ spear cav as cataphracts (which is mostly how they are called in game). cataphracts would be slower than usual cav and have a lot more pierce armor, and would be very good ranged inf counters, interpreting well the classical AoE cav role.

Cataphracts are line breakers not light infantry hunters, historically they tired extremely quickly so not at all ideal for light infantry hunting. They should be good against melee infantry, so high hack armour, and definitely slower.

[Fabius]

On 02/12/2022 at 7:34 PM, binobo said:

To make it more affordable, I think it it should be 400 wood (100 wood reduction) with 100 stone and 100 metal

Why is there a metal cost anyway? fortresses cost wood and stone, so why does this have a metal component? Why not  just make it 200 stone and 400 wood?

[chrstgtr]

7 hours ago, Fabius said:

Why is there a metal cost anyway? fortresses cost wood and stone, so why does this have a metal component? Why not  just make it 200 stone and 400 wood?

This was one of the mistakes from a23-->a24. Someone thought it was massively OP and made the camp useless in a24. It's been partially fixed, but I would have no problem going back to a23 where the camp was actually used (and wasn't OP imo). Now, it is very rare to ever see one built

[poised]

I think it could be useful if the links on the topics for the vote linked to some sort of summary of the discussion, or at least of the argument for agreeing with each respective proposal. It looked like they merely showed the technical application of the alteration. Perhaps I missed something.

[Stan`]

5 hours ago, poised said:

I think it could be useful if the links on the topics for the vote linked to some sort of summary of the discussion, or at least of the argument for agreeing with each respective proposal. It looked like they merely showed the technical application of the alteration. Perhaps I missed something.

Well for that you'd need to have the discussion happen on gitlab which never happens because most people prefer the forums. 

Also most decisions were taken by majority rather than unanimous decisions. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, Stan` said:

unanimous decisions

Which are almost impossible to achieve and game design is never done this way.

[Kampot]

Would it be possible to include in next community-mod release ability for host of the game to disable gaia attack after player resignation - either friendly units or all units?

 

thanks

Edited December 4, 2022 by Kampot

[Fabius]

13 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

This was one of the mistakes from a23-->a24. Someone thought it was massively OP and made the camp useless in a24. It's been partially fixed, but I would have no problem going back to a23 where the camp was actually used (and wasn't OP imo). Now, it is very rare to ever see one built

I see. I remember they complained we were using them as impromptu siege workshops and so bypassing the need for a fortress and proceeded to ruin it, which struck me as rather much like punishing the player for being creative with things. I used that as often as I could, not just for siege, when I realised it had veteran spearmen I always made some camps somewhere on my back line so I could make use of those veterans.

All in all I would love the old camp with the complete original training roster of hastati, triari and Equites(veteran equites maybe?) with all the siege as well. It wont make the siege workshop a redundancy either as that still can be placed back home.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, Fabius said:

I see. I remember they complained we were using them as impromptu siege workshops and so bypassing the need for a fortress and proceeded to ruin it, which struck me as rather much like punishing the player for being creative with things. I used that as often as I could, not just for siege, when I realised it had veteran spearmen I always made some camps somewhere on my back line so I could make use of those veterans.

All in all I would love the old camp with the complete original training roster of hastati, triari and Equites(veteran equites maybe?) with all the siege as well. It wont make the siege workshop a redundancy either as that still can be placed back home.

It also lacks techs and other functionality. 

I agree for all your reasons and more. But that’s how we got here

[Fabius]

9 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

It also lacks techs and other functionality. 

I agree for all your reasons and more. But that’s how we got here

It could be used as a staging point to finally add in centurions as a trainable unit from it, that would be very nice. Though centurions are I think their own little debate at this point.

Some unique techs would be awesome, maybe some kind of vision upgrade, Romans did like their outposts and signal towers.

I guess having the full siege roster might be a bit much on top of a training roster of similar length to all have in one place. So I am definitely fine with other functionalities. Like those mentioned above.