Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

3 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

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

the manual change from spearmen to archers and back allows the player to make decisions about his units. If the weapon switching is something automated, then I think it loses some gameplay value unless you are doing something more creative than that.

[AIEND]

53 分钟前，BreakfastBurrito_007 说：

从长矛手到弓箭手和背部的手动更改允许玩家对他的单位做出决定。 如果武器切换是自动化的，那么我认为它会失去一些游戏价值，除非你做的事情比这更有创意。

If so I hope that the soldier switch from armed state to labor state is also manual, a person can not be carrying a hoe and pickaxe one second, the next second out of thin air a full set of armor and weapons.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

31 minutes ago, AIEND said:

If so I hope that the soldier switch from armed state to labor state is also manual, a person can not be carrying a hoe and pickaxe one second, the next second out of thin air a full set of armor and weapons.

The difference between the two is that one is a choice between two options (bow or spear) and the other is a task that must be done in every situation (change from tool to weapon). The latter makes sense to be automated because the player exerts no choice in the switch from tool to weapons and it is just a waste of clicks and player attention.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

the manual change from spearmen to archers and back allows the player to make decisions about his units. If the weapon switching is something automated, then I think it loses some gameplay value unless you are doing something more creative than that.

I'm not quite sure how @bb_ patch works.

But it was not an entity change.(,one unit changes to be another).

[AIEND]

28 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

我不太确定 @bb_ 补丁是如何工作的。

但这不是实体变化。（一个单位变成另一个单位）。

In my experience, is to add to the unit for different objects of the attack, you play the mirror mod should know, arson is this principle, you just need to limit arson can only be used for buildings, and melee attacks can not attack buildings, you can achieve the switch.
And switch melee attack and ranged attack method is also very simple,for example, the minimum range of the bow is 10m, and then add the sword without the minimum range as a melee attack, then when the enemy enters within 10m, the archer will switch the sword to attack the enemy instead of retreating and keeping 10m distance from the enemy.

Edited November 4, 2022 by AIEND

[Dakara]

For Rome, i suggest keep their identity with no spear infantery at P1 but up the spear unit, rang 3 like skiritai for same cost as skiritai. Rome is pretty good infantery, we need feel it.

Than add phase 3 auxiliaries unit (mercenary) : Archer infanterie and cavalerie archer and cavalerie sword (germans or gauls) and later special unit (like master dog or something, master bird for scout)

 

[Feldfeld]

As the first round of my tournament starts next Monday, it could be nice if the proposals that received support could be merged like @real_tabasco_sauce said:

  

On 29/10/2022 at 5:30 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think we have enough votes to conclude that the ram change and the ptolemy, Iphicrates nerfs do not have enough support.

@wraitii does a November 1 release of the next version sound feasible/ideal? Seems like the second round of the tournament will happen soon, so it would be nice to release in time.

since they are not going to change anyway and we should target regular enough releases imo @wraitii

Also I still am interesting in having merging rights in the gitlab repo, I could make an account if that is accepted (though it would be not be relevant in current situation since I want a release xd)

Edited November 4, 2022 by Feldfeld

[real_tabasco_sauce]

@Feldfeld I think @wraitii is busy or taking a break.

@Stan` do you have commit access? I'm not sure what it takes to approve the merge requests and later add to mod.io, but I think a 26.3 branch would need to be made to house those changes.

[BeTe]

Question,

I remember I read some CC build range reduction - do we plan work on that?

It's time to punish "turtling"  I would also significantly reduce resources available from main CC so you can't safely get to Phase 3 without expansion!  

P.S.

also I read CC will be cheaper which would be nice combination with above changes.

[alre]

34 minutes ago, BeTe said:

Question,

I remember I read some CC build range reduction - do we plan work on that?

It's time to punish "turtling"  I would also significantly reduce resources available from main CC so you can't safely get to Phase 3 without expansion!  

P.S.

also I read CC will be cheaper which would be nice combination with above changes.

range is fine now I think. it needs to be no less than that of archers, for adequate protection.

I would reduce the max number of arrows from CCs: now it's 23, which makes the CC super strong even in p3. that's too many arrows for a civilian building, there's fortresses and towers to provide that kind of fire.

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 hours ago, Dakara said:

Than add phase 3 auxiliaries unit (mercenary) : Archer infanterie and cavalerie archer and cavalerie sword (germans or gauls) and later special unit (like master dog or something, master bird for scout

our Romans are based on the middle republic.They don't use Germans and Gauls until much later.What they can have are Balearic slingers, Cretan archers, and Numidian cavalry.

[BeTe]

3 hours ago, alre said:

range is fine now I think. it needs to be no less than that of archers, for adequate protection.

I would reduce the max number of arrows from CCs: now it's 23, which makes the CC super strong even in p3. that's too many arrows for a civilian building, there's fortresses and towers to provide that kind of fire.

I mean "build range" not attack range. Point is to reduce number of resources available without expansion...

[real_tabasco_sauce]

30 minutes ago, BeTe said:

I mean "build range" not attack range. Point is to reduce number of resources available without expansion...

territory radius is kept as is for now. I think it should stay the same. If we want to do something like that, it should be to either reduce the amount in each mine to 3000 OR add some more randomization to the position of the "starting" stone and metal. I am more partial to the second option.

However, it is best to try one thing at a time.

[alre]

25 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

territory radius is kept as is for now.

but not its increase with phasing, right? that's very significant.

[Fabius]

On 04/11/2022 at 7:07 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

our Romans are based on the middle republic.They don't use Germans and Gauls until much later.What they can have are Balearic slingers, Cretan archers, and Numidian cavalry.

Numidians though would be another skirmisher cavalry and Rome already has one. Balearics and Cretans would be nice. 

[Fabius]

On 04/11/2022 at 10:33 AM, Dakara said:

For Rome, i suggest keep their identity with no spear infantery at P1 but up the spear unit, rang 3 like skiritai for same cost as skiritai. Rome is pretty good infantery, we need feel it.

Than add phase 3 auxiliaries unit (mercenary) : Archer infanterie and cavalerie archer and cavalerie sword (germans or gauls) and later special unit (like master dog or something, master bird for scout)

 

I don't think you can justify metal cost on veteran Triari as Gauls can make champion spearmen without metal, but more importantly that leaves Rome without any melee unit that doesn't cost metal, also army camps already make rank 2 spearmen.

Phase 3 auxiliaries is an interesting idea, I like that it gives the feeling of Rome as a late game power, but since we are trying to dial back the dependency on phase 3 I am not certain that it is helpful to add more features to phase 3. One could add a special auxiliary barracks or something to Rome, and then just to make things interesting you could make it a choice like the Seleucid Traditional and reformed army, only instead its a choice of archers or slingers. Could just skip the unique building and simply have that as a tech choice in the barracks though as a single option doesn't merit a new building.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

ok I have forks now for moving the army camp to p2 for rome and for giving pikes damage, reducing armor some. If you would like to view them, they are on my fork previously linked.

I have a question for you all:

Should I add a change to arrow count to the CC_territory cost merge request? (***we already voted on this, hence why I ask you all).

currently, CC's max arrows are 1 less than a fortress (23 vs 24). With the change making them cheaper, I think their max arrows should significantly reduced. *this does not in theory effect early defense from rushes because you are usually only able to garrison a few soldiers in the CC for arrows at that time anyway.

I propose to lower the max arrows to 15. (and the same for colonies). This should help with concerns of "CC dropping."

I will add a fix to sentry towers (<max arrows> should be 4 and not 3, currently the 3rd soldier does not add an additional arrow)

[chrstgtr]

13 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Should I add a change to arrow count to the CC_territory cost merge request? (***we already voted on this, hence why I ask you all).

I don’t like that idea. I don’t like the idea of armies hanging out around CCs, especially in early game. Taking away food prod will really slow a player down even if it is just for 30 seconds. Honestly, I’m mostly happy with how arrow shouting buildings work now. I also think it’s premature to be concerned with CC spam when currently almost no one makes CCs. It’s something to keep an eye out on during testing, though
 

But I like the sentry arrow change you mentioned

[real_tabasco_sauce]

19 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

I don’t like that idea. I don’t like the idea of armies hanging out around CCs, especially in early game. Taking away food prod will really slow a player down even if it is just for 30 seconds. Honestly, I’m mostly happy with how arrow shouting buildings work now. I also think it’s premature to be concerned with CC spam when currently almost no one makes CCs. It’s something to keep an eye out on during testing, though

Yeah, but how often will you have more than 15 soldiers to defend in early game? 15 arrows is enough to deter cav. My main concern is that they have almost as many arrows as forts, which seems like sub-optimal balancing.

I could add the changes to a separate branch, so that they could be added if cc dropping does prove to be a problem.

[chrstgtr]

12 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Yeah, but how often will you have more than 15 soldiers to defend in early game? 15 arrows is enough to deter cav. My main concern is that they have almost as many arrows as forts, which seems like sub-optimal balancing.

I could add the changes to a separate branch, so that they could be added if cc dropping does prove to be a problem.

Mid game where you have armies of like 50 soldiers and retreat to cc. 
 

this will also decrease the need for siege late game. Could create a a21-like meta where 80 slings kills CCs alone

[real_tabasco_sauce]

k I'll make it a separate branch to use later if need be. Sentry tower fix can stay.

Edited November 6, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Lion.Kanzen]

It's funny that this idea of the slinger is mine, it was the function(role) of slinger in AoE I and well I thought it would work as a skirmisher.

It would be excellent if it had resistance against arrows.

 

[alre]

7 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I will add a fix to sentry towers (<max arrows> should be 4 and not 3, currently the 3rd soldier does not add an additional arrow)

nice. never noticed.

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

I don’t like that idea. I don’t like the idea of armies hanging out around CCs, especially in early game. Taking away food prod will really slow a player down even if it is just for 30 seconds. Honestly, I’m mostly happy with how arrow shouting buildings work now. I also think it’s premature to be concerned with CC spam when currently almost no one makes CCs. It’s something to keep an eye out on during testing, though

6 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Mid game where you have armies of like 50 soldiers and retreat to cc. 
 

this will also decrease the need for siege late game. Could create a a21-like meta where 80 slings kills CCs alone

mid game is currently the calmest moment of a game, I wouldn't mind making aggression easier. also keeping armies under fire is expensive, no less than having farms under threat. and finally because the CC is cheaper, it makes sense to supplement it with defensive buildings to defend it from hordes of slingers, or to lose it to them (it's cheaper to rebuild and it's cheaper to get a backup one).

8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

ok I have forks now for moving the army camp to p2

this I oppose. a fort that you can build in the hearth of your enemy territory is a p3 building to me.

[alre]

guys I have a concern: currently a good half of the online players have never adopted the community mod. I hope when the next iteration is released, a big effort is made to have them use the mod as well, otherwise half of the players will br playing one game, and the other half will be playing another, significantly different one.

[seeh]

49 minutes ago, alre said:

guys I have a concern: currently a good half of the online players have never adopted the community mod. I hope when the next iteration is released, a big effort is made to have them use the mod as well, otherwise half of the players will br playing one game, and the other half will be playing another, significantly different one.

yes i often need to switch. also i often start games differently. if not many player in lobby (or many beginners) is start without.

But maybe wanted advantage from some players maybe players who have the moon are a bit more reliable

Edited November 6, 2022 by seeh