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

[leopard]

6 hours ago, Stan` said:

The question is not when but by who.

I think we can copy the gameplay of AOE4, 
that is, when melee attack buildings they attack with fire, we can bring this as a purchasable upgrade from barracks or fort.
I don't know it if is historically accurate but we can bring a new upgrade to archers/ranged so that they can attack with fire arrows.

Edited February 8, 2024 by leopard

[AIEND]

21小时前，Lion.Kanzen 说：

确切地说，大象在战斗中必须造成大量伤害（溅射）。 即使移动也会造成损坏。

From my experience, you can add an aura to the war elephant that deals damage to surrounding cavalry and infantry, or make the war elephant's attack itself splash.
According to your idea, we can have sputtering and auras at the same time.

[AIEND]

6 小时前，斯坦 说：

游戏中已经发生了火灾。 至于平衡没有。 对于 bb 的活动我会说不

It is necessary to add resistance to fire to different types of buildings, and some buildings such as stone walls should not be ignited.
I have edited these values myself and I feel that using fire as the main siege method for cavalry and infantry is feasible.

[AIEND]

I think the military buildings themselves should be armed and not lose control due to the loss of CC. At the same time, whether they are towers or fortresses, their own firepower should be strong enough without relying on the soldiers stationed there. We should encourage players to use Infantry and cavalry were placed outside towers and fortresses, and under the cover of arrows, they engaged enemy soldiers directly.
At the same time, barracks and stables should be able to fire arrows after garrisoning soldiers. Otherwise, garrisoning soldiers simply to prevent the enemy from occupying these buildings will result in fewer soldiers who can directly attack the enemy (especially siege weapons).

[leopard]

I think latest version has made the game harder. I prefer cavalry to be more effective but the new version made them weak, may be we should add more speed to them?

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@leopard

I've found that cavalry only compositions are very rare and hard to pull off. I've had some successful cav play and some disasters myself. A lot of players are having success with some cavalry and some infantry, sometimes operating independently. I think the main change has been that cavalry is not universally superior to infantry as it was before the mod, which is good. A balance challenge emerges for civs like persians whose strengths lie mostly in cav.

[leopard]

5 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I think the main change has been that cavalry is not universally superior to infantry as it was before the mod, which is good

I don't think it is a good idea to make cavalry inferior to infantry. cavalry in history was superior to infantry if we change that for sake of a stupid balance issue 0AD will be a stupid game to play. I feel stupid playing with this new version if stronger units are useless in battle. if we are trying to make cavalry = infantry then reduce the food cost of cavalry 

50 food 50 wood cav would make sense then. also why they die too fast?

[leopard]

I think we should play test the changes before finalizing them

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 hours ago, leopard said:

cavalry in history was superior

Not always. But yes in that context of the video they should not die so easily, they should do more damage or not be reached.

The pikeman should have less projectile defense(pierce).

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@leopard you are playtesting them. Thanks for your efforts. The pikemen here are rank 3, melee units have added damage, armor, and hp with each rank, compared to ranged units which only get accuracy and hp. The strength of melee rankups is acknowledged to be a problem by most players, so there will be some reduction to the rankup bonuses. Try the same scenario with rank 1 units from both types and you'll find it much easier to kill the pikemen.

Edited February 13, 2024 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Lion.Kanzen]

It is also necessary to test these units with other units, that is to say with infantry in between.

 

It will always depend on the context.

[Lion.Kanzen]

There should be other experiments .

Cav skirmishers vs spearmen

Cav skirmishers vs swordmen

[leopard]

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

you are playtesting them. Thanks for your efforts. The pikemen here are rank 3, melee units have added damage, armor, and hp with each rank, compared to ranged units which only get accuracy and hp. The strength of melee rankups is acknowledged to be a problem by most players, so there will be some reduction to the rankup bonuses. Try the same scenario with rank 1 units from both types and you'll find it much easier to kill the pikemen.

ok will try that. but we can see the outcome of the new balancing changes in games we play, we should not shut eyes to that. also we should consider the opinion of players who has been playing this game for years, if they don't like the direction of balancing changes then we should not go that direction.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

yes @leopard I am taking feedback from several longtime players. Unfortunately it is difficult to agree on the path forward on a couple items, in particular the building arrows.

[leopard]

@BreakfastBurrito_007

[leopard]

 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

14 minutes ago, leopard said:

@BreakfastBurrito_007

In theory you could micro well enough to completely avoid damage from the pikeman. It's really interesting to see the long reach of pikemen play a role here, where before it didnt matter since they did negligible damage anyway. It's nice now to see pikemen and spearmen having different strengths versus cavalry.

[leopard]

2 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

In theory you could micro well enough to completely avoid damage from the pikeman.

look how much time it takes to micro away from the pikeman and my cav died anyway, in 0AD time play a big factor. I feel pikemen is buffed too much. and even after hitting too many javelins pikeman is barely touched. watch the second video.

pikeman is reasonably strong but still getting hit by javelins and eventually dies I had to micro hard though and wasted lot of time killing one pikeman.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

32 minutes ago, leopard said:

look how much time it takes to micro away from the pikeman and my cav died anyway, in 0AD time play a big factor. I feel pikemen is buffed too much. and even after hitting too many javelins pikeman is barely touched. watch the second video.

pikeman is reasonably strong but still getting hit by javelins and eventually dies I had to micro hard though and wasted lot of time killing one pikeman.

The situation changes when you have 100+ unit battles, some players have complained that everything dies too fast.

[ChronA]

6 hours ago, leopard said:

look how much time it takes to micro away from the pikeman and my cav died anyway, in 0AD time play a big factor. I feel pikemen is buffed too much. and even after hitting too many javelins pikeman is barely touched. watch the second video.

pikeman is reasonably strong but still getting hit by javelins and eventually dies I had to micro hard though and wasted lot of time killing one pikeman.

Balance-wise there might be an argument that the one-sided victory for the modded pikeman is bad, but speaking from a perspective of historical authenticity and the impression given by the in-game art, I think the modded outcome is an improvement. The rank 3 pikeman is depicted as a heavy-infantryman kitted in full body armor. He should be virtually impervious to all light projectiles of the period, which would include the rider's javelins. Otherwise why wear all that heavy and expensive gear?

And the opponent he is facing, even at the elite rank is still just a light cavalryman. His role is supposed to be to scout, to raid, and to lure the pikeman out of position so that allied heavy infantry of heavy cavalry could mop him up. In this time period he wouldn't be expected to inflict massed casualties against heavy infantry. Even in a rout, his job was really just to pick off a few unlucky individuals to keep the enemy in a state of fear and prevent their re-cohering. If they were lucky they might trigger a crowd disaster or chase the enemy into a river, where they would drown, but that was the exception.

There was a period in history where ranged light cavalry could inflict mass casualties against heavy infantry like you're expecting. It was in the era of pike and shot, when cavalry started carrying pistols and carbines. This was one of the development that ended the era of armored melee infantry.

[Nobbi]

On 06/02/2024 at 6:47 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

change options for building arrows (there is a lot of them, so some subset of these would be good):

• Decrease CC "max arrows" currently this number is 23, which is 1 less than for fortresses.
• Decrease CC range from 60 meters to 55 or 50 meters.
• Decrease sentry tower base range by 10 meters to 50m.
• Increase sentry tower cost by 25 stone. (change upgrade cost to defense tower too)
• All buildings with arrows: Decrease pierce damage or fire rate, increase default arrows.
  • The idea here is to make garrisoning less impactful for building effectiveness, keeping the un-garrisoned performance the same. Currently a tower with 5 garrisoned units does 6x the damage of the empty tower.
• back to random arrows except when focused.

Please, don't change the range of towers or CCs or u mess up the balance with CAV archers/camels again. Another idea is to make pierce damage of CCs or towers dependent from the phase. So they will not be too strong in P1 but also not too weak in P3.

[Lion.Kanzen]

If you are going to balance units or factions, make technologies that break that balance without being OP.

 

And have a counter strategy.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@Nobbi thanks for the suggestion on changing damage on phase ups. This is also something I have been considering for addressing the issues with building arrows at the moment. I think most would say the arrows are too strong when fully garrisoned and it leads to too much turtling at the moment. You can really see this in p1 when enough units garrisoned can be overly punishing of any attempts to rush.

I get that part, but are you saying cavalry archers/ camel archers are too strong now?

[alre]

keep bulding arrows random is my two cents. you fixed something that wasn't broken.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, alre said:

keep bulding arrows random is my two cents. you fixed something that wasn't broken.

It wasn't a fix per se, but a desired feature. People wonder why the heck the arrows don't shoot at the unit they tell them to shoot at.

I think a more than acceptable middle ground would be 100% random by default, but focus-fire when re-targeted by the player.