Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[Lion.Kanzen]

cavalry should have less capturing power and much less against towers.

I say this because the ideal strategy against a rush is using CC + defenses.

But if it is a lot of cavalry they could well take the towers easily.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

There might be a cavalry problem for late game in TGs. However I fail to believe that there is a cavalry rush problem.

So you have no problem with all-in "chicken rush" gameplay?

I guess it is fine in 1v1s which I understand is where your exerience lies. I guess you would expect something like this and prepare some infantry/cav or maybe other preparation already like @Feldfeld said. So OP.

However, in a TG, doing a chicken rush is usually a toxic way to put someone out of the game. It's nearly impossible to recover from if you set up for a "greedy" boom. Even when you instead try to make infantry, these units are at best equal in number to cav which is not enough to defeat them. Maybe a better approach to this would be to half the number of chickens instead.

But still the cav dominance remains (early game, mid game, late game). Skilled players use cavalry's mobility to win while anyone can use their inherent advantages over inf to simply supplant skirmishers in the late game. This is seen all the time, and I think its not ideal gameplay. The patch as written would maintain the mobility advantage of cav while limiting the plain advantage over infantry.

If you would rather we keep it how it is, I'll just forget about the branch. if you would like something changed about it, suggest.

Edited November 2, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

So you have no problem with all-in "chicken rush" gameplay?

I guess it is fine in 1v1s which I understand is where your exerience lies. I guess you would expect something like this and prepare some infantry/cav or maybe other preparation already. 

However, in a TG doing a chicken rush is usually a toxic way to put someone out of the game. Its nearly impossible to recover from. Maybe a better approach to this would be to half the number of chickens instead.

But still the cav dominance remains (early game, mid game, late game). Skilled players use cavalry's mobility to win while it is easy to use their inherent advantages over inf to simply supplant skirmishers in the late game. This is seen all the time, and I think its not ideal gameplay.

in theory the infantry should have more defense and more endurance, they fight on the ground. while the rider fights on a powerful beast but with more difficulty.

[Feldfeld]

16 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I guess it is fine in 1v1s which I understand is where your exerience lies. I guess you would expect something like this and prepare some infantry/cav or maybe other preparation already like @Feldfeld said. So OP.

For now I'm claiming to be able to deal with it without preparation, only by scouting and adapting. I would take the issue more seriously if I needed to alter my build just because of the possibility of a rush, but right now it's not the case. That said I still didn't play a lot this alpha so if anyone wants to challenge me and try to prove me wrong i'd be happy to play some 1v1s so we have more data about this strategy. Only problem is I'm not very active in lobby

[alre]

30 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

So you have no problem with all-in "chicken rush" gameplay?

I guess it is fine in 1v1s which I understand is where your exerience lies. I guess you would expect something like this and prepare some infantry/cav or maybe other preparation already like @Feldfeld said. So OP.

However, in a TG, doing a chicken rush is usually a toxic way to put someone out of the game. It's nearly impossible to recover from if you set up for a "greedy" boom. Even when you instead try to make infantry, these units are at best equal in number to cav which is not enough to defeat them. Maybe a better approach to this would be to half the number of chickens instead.

But still the cav dominance remains (early game, mid game, late game). Skilled players use cavalry's mobility to win while anyone can use their inherent advantages over inf to simply supplant skirmishers in the late game. This is seen all the time, and I think its not ideal gameplay. The patch as written would maintain the mobility advantage of cav while limiting the plain advantage over infantry.

If you would rather we keep it how it is, I'll just forget about the branch. if you would like something changed about it, suggest.

also untrue. I've been "taken out of a game" early sometimes in a TG, I've taken other players out of a game, this is just what happens when someone rushes another player, and the defender is outplayed. other times the defender outplayes the rusher, just like in 1v1s.

the only difference ia that two or more allied players can gang up and attack one defender at a time, but this is a strategy way more difficult than it seems, and less effective. also it's very counterable, using equal teamplay.

Edited November 2, 2022 by alre

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 minutes ago, alre said:

also untrue. I've been "taken out of a game" early sometimes in a TG, I've taken other players out of a game, this is just what happens when someone rushes another player, and the defender is outplayed. other times the defender outplayes the rusher, just like in 1v1s.

the only difference ia that two or more allied players can gang up and attack one defender at a time, but this is a strategy way more difficult than it seems, and less effective. also it's very counterable, using equal teamplay.

U really just copied my entire post, said "untrue" and then explained your experience of chicken rushes. So you would also say chicken rushes are good gameplay? 

@chrstgtr @BreakfastBurrito_007 agree?

[Feldfeld]

I will also add that, for now I don't really see a point in doing a (significant enough) cavalry nerf. At the end of the day, infantry is still hugely useful in 1v1 and in team games as well, a transition to cavalry if not well timed can just lead to being overrun by infantry. For the current state I only see a small damage nerf to skirm cav to be interesting.

I'd consider the gameplay of mostly ranged infantry CS to be worse. There is not even an attempt in transitioning away from a unit we make from the beginning of the game.

Instead of fine tuning stuff like this, I'd be more interested in some more radical changes, such as for example straight up halving the attack rate of all ranged units (so reducing their DPS by that much), accompanied by a melee cav nerf. That could rehabilate melee infantry and maybe champions as well. Experiment, bring new units to the light, try to reach a new balance.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Feldfeld

[Lion.Kanzen]

17 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

Instead of fine tuning stuff like this, I'd be more interested in some more radical changes, such as for example straight up halving the attack rate of all ranged units (so reducing their DPS by that much), accompanied by a melee cav nerf. That could rehabilate melee infantry and maybe champions as well. Experiment, bring new units to the light, try to reach a new balance.

I agree.

@real_tabasco_sauce

seems adequate to me.

[Feldfeld]

About chicken rushes in team games, I agree that in the case of one team having an imbalanced line-up like 1800 + 1300s, if the all-in is well executed it could be possible to slow down the 1800 at the price of slowing down even more a lower rated player and therefore winning the game. However, the chicken rush is not the only way to do it, for example a 2v1 rush could do it well and is not new.

I have not seen enough TGs to see if it is a problem. One all-in strategy was done against me this alpha but it was using ranged inf CS not cav, and was unsuccessful. It is tricky because if the defender gets even a 20 pop advantage early on against his adversary that can easily snowball to victory without the pocket's situation being relevant.

If the chicken rush really is a problem in TGs, then a 2min or 3min ceasefire could do the trick. Also having teammates sending resources could help a lot, as you could safely build your forces without being slow down too much.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Feldfeld

[alre]

14 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

U really just copied my entire post, said "untrue" and then explained your experience of chicken rushes. So you would also say chicken rushes are good gameplay? 

why not? there was a period in a25 in which I enjoyed very much rushing with kushites, and I absolutely loved going strong in cav in p1, I loved the early priest too. but that was a period and I drifted back to less extreme gameplay. why would I do that if chicker rushes were so op? because they weren't, and I don't believe they are now.

14 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

I will also add that, for now I don't really see a point in doing a (significant enough) cavalry nerf. At the end of the day, infantry is still hugely useful in 1v1 and in team games as well, a transition to cavalry if not well timed can just lead to being overrun by infantry. For the current state I only see a small damage nerf to skirm cav to be interesting.

I'd consider the gameplay of mostly ranged infantry CS to be worse. There is not even an attempt in transitioning away from a unit we make from the beginning of the game.

Instead of fine tuning stuff like this, I'd be more interested in some more radical changes, such as for example straight up halving the attack rate of all ranged units (so reducing their DPS by that much), accompanied by a melee cav nerf. That could rehabilate melee infantry and maybe champions as well. Experiment, bring new units to the light, try to reach a new balance.

[alre]

1 minute ago, Feldfeld said:

About chicken rushes in team games, I agree that in the case of one team having an imbalanced line-up like 1800 + 1300s, if the all-in is well executed it could be possible to slow down the 1800 at the price of slowing down even more a lower rated player and therefore winning the game. However, the chicken rush is not the only way to do it, for example a 2v1 rush could do it well and is not new.

I have not seen enough TGs to see if it is a problem. One all-in strategy was done against me this alpha but it was using ranged CS not cav, and was unsuccessful. It is tricky because if the defender gets even a 20 pop advantage early on against his adversary that can easily snowball to victory without the pocket's situation being relevant.

If the chicken rush really is a problem in TGs, then a 2min or 3min ceasefire could do the trick. Also having teammates sending resources could help a lot, as you could safely build your forces without being slow down too much.

sending res is such a good counter to rushes in team games.

[chrstgtr]

31 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

I'd consider the gameplay of mostly ranged infantry CS to be worse. There is not even an attempt in transitioning away from a unit we make from the beginning of the game.

 

See all the games where players transition to range cav. Or skip ranged infantry and go straight to ranged cav. 

33 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

I will also add that, for now I don't really see a point in doing a (significant enough) cavalry nerf. At the end of the day, infantry is still hugely useful in 1v1 and in team games as well, a transition to cavalry if not well timed can just lead to being overrun by infantry. For the current state I only see a small damage nerf to skirm cav to be interesting.

You're right that it is a tough balancing act. I don't know how to fix it. But I haven't heard anything to suggest that the meta right now is anything more than spamming cav early, often, and late. Just everyone can't execute that meta against everyone. 

[Fabius]

I have never seen this meta of early cavalry spam, maybe I just don't play enough, but the vast majority of games I have played end as slugging matches between infantry blocks. And this is at low level for the record (1300)

So I would rather see changes to the infantry roster. 

[chrstgtr]

57 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

I'd consider the gameplay of mostly ranged infantry CS to be worse. There is not even an attempt in transitioning away from a unit we make from the beginning of the game.

On a related note, I think this can also be a problem. I think an easy fix here is to make all possible current units actually available. So I would make champs, especially inf, more accessible. My first step would be to eliminate the unlocking requirement in barracks 

3 minutes ago, Fabius said:

I have never seen this meta of early cavalry spam, maybe I just don't play enough, but the vast majority of games I have played end as slugging matches between infantry blocks. And this is at low level for the record (1300)

So I would rather see changes to the infantry roster. 

Honestly, I think it’s the level of game you play. It’s not the easiest thing for beginners to do. If you want to see what I am referencing, I would suggest watching some high level games, especially 1v1s

[Fabius]

30 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

On a related note, I think this can also be a problem. I think an easy fix here is to make all possible current units actually available. So I would make champs, especially inf, more accessible. My first step would be to eliminate the unlocking requirement in barracks

Frankly the whole unlocking thing is just a nuisance.

Also certain civs, specifically Rome and Sparta, could use a second longer ranged unit so players have at least some options to consider when making armies, skirmishers are not great for fire fights. I understand the consideration of individual strengths and weaknesses, but every other civilization in the game has two or more different ranged options. 

For Rome every game is the same, spam the one ranged option you have and your choice of melee infantry. Its quite monotonous and under performs against civs who can field a more diverse army with the longer ranged options, slingers especially still seem to dominate.

For Sparta its slightly different as you have superior melee unit options, so the lack of range doesn't hurt as much since you can hammer your way through enemy battle lines. Still a slinger like Athens would be nice, but not as necessary given the strong melee focus already present.

 

[chrstgtr]

13 minutes ago, Fabius said:

For Rome every game is the same, spam the one ranged option you have and your choice of melee infantry. Its quite monotonous and under performs against civs who can field a more diverse army with the longer ranged options, slingers especially still seem to dominate.

I recommend you try using cav, swords and siege. Rome has good cav with a good hero. Their sword cav champ with hero is one of the strongest combos In game. Not all civs have swords so rome melee can slice through a lot of enemies. Siege is great. There are more options than just spam range CS

[real_tabasco_sauce]

ok, well all this debate shows that we should not rush to change the status quo here, but rather agree on a more nuanced solution. Honestly, first we should agree on some problem XD.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts on these two:

I think these are more agreed-upon problems. Many players are saying crossbows are strong.

spearcav:

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

Crossbows:

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

 

[chrstgtr]

7 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Many players are saying crossbows are strong.

I think the "players only make range units" is a self-fulling prophecy. Han is the most easily countered civ. All you have to do is make spears. But no one does so they have problems with Han’s sword cav and crossbows. 

I don't have a strong opinion on the new spear cav yet

Edited November 3, 2022 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

6 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I don't have a strong opinion on the new spear cav yet

the branch I linked was about the difficulty spear cav have when chasing other cavalry, its just 15% more acceleration.

Edited November 3, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Fabius]

10 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

I recommend you try using cav, swords and siege. Rome has good cav with a good hero. Their sword cav champ with hero is one of the strongest combos In game. Not all civs have swords so rome melee can slice through a lot of enemies. Siege is great. There are more options than just spam range CS

Ok, I will take your advice on that point thankyou  

[Fabius]

The javelin and sword interchange for legionaries in that Rome at War mod for AOE II is quite a nice thematic feature, can we not borrow the idea and apply to Extraordinari seeing as Immortals now have the spear to bow interchange?

 

[Fabius]

Speaking of under used features, what about shifting the Roman castrum to second phase? 

Perhaps returning more of its siege making capabilities too, the complaint that it was getting used as a cheaper siege workshop is now invalid since everyone has a siege workshop now. 

 

[chrstgtr]

4 hours ago, Fabius said:

Speaking of under used features, what about shifting the Roman castrum to second phase? 

Perhaps returning more of its siege making capabilities too, the complaint that it was getting used as a cheaper siege workshop is now invalid since everyone has a siege workshop now. 

 

Do you mean the army camp? The castrum is the barrack. I would be in favor of the former but not the later. 

[Fabius]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

Do you mean the army camp? The castrum is the barrack. I would be in favor of the former but not the later. 

Oh, yes I am referring to the army camp not the barracks

[Lion.Kanzen]

12 hours ago, Fabius said:

The javelin and sword interchange for legionaries in that Rome at War mod for AOE II is quite a nice thematic feature, can we not borrow the idea and apply to Extraordinari seeing as Immortals now have the spear to bow interchange?

 

be patient that the second attack will come without the need for such a primitive implementation.