Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok, any balance concerns I can address in a new version? Are swordcav too weak compared to spear cav? Perhaps a new briton team bonus?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok, idea I just came up with for brit civ bonus:

The Briton team bonus is quite sub-optimal: it rarely comes into play and it doesn't make much of a difference.

At the same time, the gauls bonus is quite generic, affecting all military techs, which leads to no change in how the game is played.

Since the brits and gauls are sister civs, I think it would be neat to give them sister team bonuses, and there are multiple ways to go about this.

1. Brits: 30% cheaper ranged damage and pierce armor techs, gauls 30% melee damage and hack armor techs.

The way they are split is up to debate, but I think this would be a great idea for a brit team bonus.

[Gurken Khan]

I like the idea of giving sister civs sister bonuses. For me the Briton bonus always comes into play but it's not a big deal; for ten healers it's worth 250 res. It would feel like an upgrade to the brit bonus and gaul pretty much staying the same (doubling effect, halving affected tecs).

I don't know if it's less generic and would actually affect gameplay. I guess you're proposing it here so it will be tested before going into vanilla?

What I really don't appreciate is civ specific bonuses; if I don't have access to eles or mercs those bonuses are worthless. [I usually don't make eles or siege (unless I have two or more iber enemies), so those bonuses are usually worthless for me, but that might be a personal problem.]

[Effervescent]

35 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Brits: 30% cheaper ranged damage and pierce armor techs, gauls 30% melee damage and hack armor techs.

This is a buff for Britons and nerf for Gauls. Especially if you consider the resources/time spent after discounted prices is the same but only for limited options (melee or range). This limit to options is pretty insidious in it's own way as it promotes a certain playstyle (melee or range heavy, atleast initially) and more importantly takes choices/options away from players.

 

41 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

At the same time, the gauls bonus is quite generic, affecting all military techs, which leads to no change in how the game is played.

While I don't agree that Gauls is generic when you have options to vary your playstyle with Gauls -like p2 fanatics if you wanna be fancy, or going for a slinger army for simpler strats, there's also some good options to spam early cavs as they have good food techs and stables that don't cost stone- I can understand if you wanna make Gauls better. There is always room for improvement after all. The keyword being better and not different.

If you wanna give more options to players on how they can play Gauls, I don't see how cutting discount for half the military techs will achieve it. The changes to mace and spartans is a good example of adding variety to playstyle while making the civ better and I would be happy if Gauls get something similar but limiting options is not a good way.

57 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

The Briton team bonus is quite sub-optimal: it rarely comes into play and it doesn't make much of a difference.

I agree whole-heartedly with this. Brits need a better team bonus. And honestly, we can do better than giving them second-hand Gauls bonus. This should be the focus and complicating it by changing another civ to achieve this doesn't seem to be the way.

I suggest the bonus to britons revolve around their forts. They already have something to do with that in the building Island Settlement which is very good for naval maps. Maybe forts that can be placed in neutral territory. That would allow for some fun plays.

tl;dr: Don't nerf Gauls.

[chrstgtr]

Agree with @Effervescent. This feels like less of an addition and more a rearrangement. The whole sister civ idea is fine except we aren’t doing that for any of the other sister civs (Sparta and Athens, ptol and Sele, etc.) (note: brits need some new features for p2-p3 to make them more than a watered down version of Gauls with different heroes/bonuses)
 

For Brits, everyone always says how they should be an ambush/raiding civ. Why don’t we actually do something with that? Something generic could be giving a speed bonus or a loot bonus.  Something more ambitious could be something where you a p1 only bonus (ie, they get 10% cheaper units but only for p1 or something like that). 
 

If you don’t like that then why don’t we just make healers free? It’s the same idea of what is currently in place except free healers might actually have some game impact. 

Edited September 28 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I don't think a speed bonus would be good especially since caracutos's global speed buff.

Ok ok, ill come up with some others:

• Discount for defensive structures (or some subset: forts maybe? walls and palisades?)
• Buildings and support units get increased vision range?

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

2 hours ago, Effervescent said:

This limit to options is pretty insidious in it's own way as it promotes a certain playstyle (melee or range heavy, atleast initially) and more importantly takes choices/options away from players.

I don't think a discount on half of the smith techs would take away options from players. Just like the iber team bonus doesnt take away the option to make slingers (many players continue to make slingers because they prefer them for combat). 

The main holdup for me about this change would be which techs to choose for which civ. No matter how hard you try to balance the techs there will be one that is better than the other. Also because its a team bonus very often see the same effect as the original bonus because of how frequently we see both brit and gaul in the same team.

I take the Athens team bonus as a recent addition that has been very fun to play with.

[chrstgtr]

47 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

caracutos's global speed buff.

Could change. But fine. 

47 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Buildings and support units get increased vision range?

A general vision range would be nice. 

47 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

• Discount for defensive structures (or some subset: forts maybe? walls and palisades?)

Meh. Also, doesn't fit with civ profile. 

[Atrik]

9 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

they get 10% cheaper units but only for p1 or something like that

That one sounds fun.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

But we are talking about team bonuses here.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

But we are talking about team bonuses here.

Don't think that matters. 

Athen's team bonus is "Democracy" but none of the other civs were democratic. 

Sparta's team bonus is "Peloponnesian League" but none of the other civs were members.

Rome's team bonus is "Conscription" but Rome didn't conscript men to serve allies. 

Etc.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Oh I was just talking about the stacking with other civs, like imagine the 10% discount on top of the 10% discount ibers get. That would be super OP. Also I think people would just boom in p1 even more than they already do.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I'm starting to hear suggestions that rome is borderline OP due to the fertility festival (ff), at the same time people seem to agree it is cool bonus. I agree, but personally I would want to wait for copycats (of chrstgtr's strategy, or a better one) to appear before deciding to make any adjustments. At the same time there are other issues relating to ff which we could look at if we want to adjust things:

• 30 second train time for all house sizes (5 pop 10 pop 20 pop): regardless of rome, it would be nice to adjust this so that 5 pop is slower, and 10pop houses are still 30 seconds)
• batch modifier for CC is slower than that for barracks: I would suggest lowering cc batch modifier to equal that of barracks. This would mean the gap between cc production and fertility festival would be less extreme
• fertility festival is expensive in food which is already needed to make use of the tech, and takes 60 seconds to research. I think if something like bullet 1 and or 2 is done, then a cost and research time reduction is warranted, reducing some food cost and 60-> 40 seconds.

in the meantime you can just rush lules.

 

[chrstgtr]

43 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

 

I'm starting to hear suggestions that rome is borderline OP due to the fertility festival (ff), at the same time people seem to agree it is cool bonus. I agree, but personally I would want to wait for copycats (of chrstgtr's strategy, or a better one) to appear before deciding to make any adjustments. At the same time there are other issues relating to ff which we could look at if we want to adjust things:

 

I don’t think Rome is OP. People just haven’t figured out how to deal with it yet. If Rome is OP, then give FF to another civ—Brit’s need one anyways.
 

On FF stats, I would def make unlocking it cheaper and faster. I also might make women train a little faster.  
 

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Oh I was just talking about the stacking with other civs, like imagine the 10% discount on top of the 10% discount ibers get. That would be super OP.

Not sure about being OP. 5% might be a better number anyways, which certainly wouldn’t be OP. 
 

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Also I think people would just boom in p1 even more than they already do.

Also not sure about that. Not sure I’ve noticed a difference with iber. 
 

With all this said, I still think it should be a 3x loot bonus for team. I would make the civ bonus cheaper units for p1. But that’s just me. 

Edited September 28 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Another idea could be to give Britons a barracks discount and make the Persian one just a stable discount. I’d probably buff the stable discount for Persia in that case.

britons are an infantry heavy civ, and while this would be an eco bonus, it wouldn’t be so uniformly strong as an unit discount. 
I imagine it would help a lot early on and later on when u try to get like 10 barracks.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

[chrstgtr]

On bolts, I think we should get rid of min range. If a player charges the bolts, it will cause the bolts to pack and try to move away in an attempt to get out of the min range. They do this instead of just finding a new target out of range. This doesn't function as desirable. 

[Effervescent]

4 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

On bolts, I think we should get rid of min range. If a player charges the bolts, it will cause the bolts to pack and try to move away in an attempt to get out of the min range. They do this instead of just finding a new target out of range. This doesn't function as desirable. 

Bolts are op enough already. Getting rid of minimum range on bolts (just like catas) doesn't make sense.

Bolts without minimum range will be almost impossible to counter with units.

[chrstgtr]

19 minutes ago, Effervescent said:

Bolts are op enough already. Getting rid of minimum range on bolts (just like catas) doesn't make sense.

Bolts without minimum range will be almost impossible to counter with units.

If bolts were so OP then more people would use them. Instead, they’re the least used type of siege unit  

Regardless, I'd rather change other stats then have a function that looks like a bug every time units get too close. 

Also, removing a min range would do nothing to the main counter--rams. 

Edited September 29 by chrstgtr

[Effervescent]

7 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

If bolts were so OP then more people would use them. 

More people don't use bolts not because they are not op but because they are too set in their build orders. (I am guilty of this too)

10 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Regardless, I'd rather change other stats then have a function that looks like a bug every time units get too close. 

It's the intended effect. You probably have bolts set on aggressive. so bolts try to back up and try to kill the units close by (only they never do manage to get away). If bolts are set to hold position this does not happen.

 

13 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Also, removing a min range would do nothing to the main counter--rams. 

The keywords here are Main Counter, removing minimum range renders the main counter as the only counter. Rams and catas for example have multiple counters in varying degrees -rams, elephants, swords, spears, women- from highly-effective to moderately-effective to marginally-effective to virtually non-effective.

Removing minimum range does not change the main counters, but it does change the secondary counters in the form of units. So you either have the highly-effective counter units or you have marginally-effective or virtually non-effective units for counter.

The lack of moderately-effective counter units is not ideal and definitely makes the bolts stronger than they already are. So instead of changing the stats for bolts that'll have adverse effects on balance, it would be better to change how battle stance work for bolts (not that it's needed since setting it to hold ground avoids bolts from running around, and other stance work as expected)

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, Effervescent said:

More people don't use bolts not because they are not op but because they are too set in their build orders. (I am guilty of this too)

This is so not true. 

Bolts were hardly used. Then they got a buff and suddenly a lot of people started using them. Then they got a nerf and people stopped using them much. That isn't at all reflective of people stuck in their build order.

The same story has happened for every OP unit. Slingers in a21, skirms in a22, archers in a24, firecav in a25, etc. People figure out what units are OP and converge on those units. The fact that this is not occurring with bolts indicates that bolts are in fact not OP. 

1 hour ago, Effervescent said:

It's the intended effect. You probably have bolts set on aggressive. so bolts try to back up and try to kill the units close by (only they never do manage to get away). If bolts are set to hold position this does not happen.

You are right. They were set on aggressive. But only because stand ground also doesn't work. If you have them set to stand ground the bolts will just sit there idle. 

Consider the two replays. In the 9/23 replay, I do exactly as you suggest, which resulted in all the bolts standing completely idle. In the 9/29 replay, I set the bolts to aggressive (after they froze idle in stand ground), which resulted in bolts packing and unpacking. In both replays, bolts were 100% useless the moment I got 2v1ed and units were able to walk within range the min range halo of the bolts. 2024-09-23_0003.zip2024-09-29_0004.zip To be honest, I think these were the last two games where I went bolts and both games resulted in an immediate gg because of the min range feature. 

1 hour ago, Effervescent said:

Removing minimum range does not change the main counters, but it does change the secondary counters in the form of units. So you either have the highly-effective counter units or you have marginally-effective or virtually non-effective units for counter.

 

This also isn't true. If you watch the replays, I would've lost all or almost all my bolts in both games with or without a min range. However, with a min range, the bolts became 100% useless and the game ended as a result.

Your analysis also totally disregards any strategic considerations. Bolts were nerfed to be slower. Because of their speed, an enemy can often circumvent the bolts and take out the bolt player's base.

The counter strategy to bolts should be more than dive bomb them and let them bug out. 

Edited September 29 by chrstgtr

[Atrik]

Sieges engine shouldn't be usable as main units in army, instead they should be tactical units to add to a combo. In vanilla a26, bolts fulfill this role, also because of it's limitations (pack time, min range), but with good stats (good damage and range).
Instead of seeking to make bolts spamable superchamps, sieges towers could have been balanced to reach this status too, with for example a capture aura buff or something instead of hit and run op arrows.
The more tactical units you can use for combos, the more micro that isn't the classical 'snipe and dance'  will add and make battles more interesting. If the issues is that microing too much unit type is too hard, then maybe adding features to ease base micro can improve players experience.

Well I already know the trend will go exactly against what I say above as it have been explained to me enough times.

[Effervescent]

32 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

This is so not true. 

Bolts were hardly used. Then they got a buff and suddenly a lot of people started using them. Then they got a nerf and people stopped using them much. That isn't at all reflective of people stuck in their build order.

The same story has happened for every OP unit. Slingers in a21, skirms in a22, archers in a24, firecav in a25, etc. People figure out what units are OP and converge on those units. The fact that this is not occurring with bolts indicates that bolts are in fact not OP. 

We can't compare previous alphas with community mod patches. Most players don't know all the changes that take place in community mod, myself included. I didn't even know bolts were nerfed for example. The ease with which a soldier unit can be spammed is different from the ease with which a siege unit can be spammed. Even the alpha where mercs were super op did not have widespread use of merc cavs for a similar reason.

All the example you mention for op units are soldier units and not siege units. I recall siege towers were pretty op in some alpha but still they were never in widespread use like the op soldier units.

55 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

You are right. They were set on aggressive. But only because stand ground also doesn't work. If you have them set to stand ground the bolts will just sit there idle. 

Here is a replay of you demonstrating bolts on Standground stance working perfectly with Macedonians.CHRS BOLTS MACE 2024-09-18_0007.zip. Also to be noted in the replay I have attached is the uniformity of your army. Your army consisted of 1 unit type only.

59 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Consider the two replays. In the 9/23 replay, I do exactly as you suggest, which resulted in all the bolts standing completely idle. In the 9/29 replay, I set the bolts to aggressive, which resulted in bolts packing and unpacking. In both replays, bolts were 100% useless the moment I got 2v1ed and units were able to walk within range the min range halo of the bolts. 2024-09-23_0003.zip2024-09-29_0004.zip To be honest, I think these were the last two games where I went bolts and both games resulted in an immediate gg because of the min range feature. 

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

This also isn't true. If you watch the replays, I would've lost all or almost all my bolts in both games with or without a min range. However, with a min range, the bolts became 100% useless and the game ended as a result.

The first replay with the filename 2024-09-23_0003.zip I managed to open and view but the other I was not able to view for some reason. In the replay 2024-09-23_0003.zip you were Romans on border against SimonBolivarRamirez and Darlz. I see you did not get past phase 2 and I did not see any bolts. The second replay I cannot comment on as it doesn't show my replay list. sorry.

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

Your analysis also totally disregards any strategic considerations. Bolts were nerfed to be slower. Because of their speed, an enemy can often circumvent the bolts and take out the bolt player's base.

The counter strategy to bolts should be more than dive bomb them and let them bug out. 

An enemy can also circumvent Infantry army by sending faster units to base like cavs and capture most production units or destroy eco. I avoided taking strategic measures taken by players into consideration because they can be multifarious and would be out of scope for the isolated situation of Bolts allegedly "bugging out" when units get close to them.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I figured this discussion would come up. Unfortunately, I think some improvements are needed for how bolts and catapults behave, and as will be seen later, all units. I made both of these reported as issues:

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7074

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/6948

What i noticed in regard to the first one is that bolts and siege towers may massively overshoot their min or max ranges depending on the movement on the chosen target:

If you retreat units away from a catapult during the repeat time, the catapults will take the movement into account and still shoot the unit if it is outside the attack range. This results in shots that fly far away and very high.

For bolts, this means a unit may be shot one time if it crosses the min range after the target was acquired, then it seems the bolt goes idle and keeps trying to shoot this unit because it gets shot as soon as it leaves the min range, even if other targets are available.

What is interesting to think about is what this means for everyday units. Have you ever been retreating from some group of units and thought "how could that hit me?". Likely its been crossbows, pikemen, or ram ships, because they have a slower repeat time. Even if the amount a unit can move in 1 to 3 seconds isn't that far, I think everyday gameplay would be more readable if no overshooting was possible.

I am almost sure of the reason: Range queries are done after the completion of the last attack.

Edited September 29 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Atrik]

11 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

What is interesting to think about is what this means for everyday units. Have you ever been retreating from some group of units and thought "how could that hit me?". Likely its been crossbows, pikemen, or ram ships, because they have a slower repeat time. Even if the amount a unit can move in 1 to 3 seconds isn't that far, I think everyday gameplay would be more readable if no overshooting was possible.

I am almost sure of the reason: Range queries are done after the completion of the last attack.

Pretty sure most people know this. But preventing this from happening will pretty much be worse.
In case that's not obvious, if a unit reset or re-target when foe gets out of range, chasing will become very buggy and depending on how often you check for range you also impact performance. Maybe some other games have this figured it out but from what I know it's often either chasing get too weird or overshooting is allowed.