Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[Stan`]

Updated @Philip the Swaggerless @real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

21 minutes ago, Stan` said:

Updated @Philip the Swaggerless @real_tabasco_sauce

I don't see a voting option. Maybe it is because I already voted? Maybe reset the poll so people can revote on the new stuff. 

[Stan`]

@chrstgtr does it work now?

[chrstgtr]

7 minutes ago, Stan` said:

@chrstgtr does it work now?

yes

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I guess this was mentioned when we first voted, but I'll say it again:

We should keep in mind that we are voting to add experimental features to a mod, not patches to the main game. In other words, I don't see an issue with erring on the side of adding content.

Edited December 7, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Dakara]

Just an opinion and suggestion.

1) The idea of a centurion unit can be appealing but I fear of too much micro.. it is a fundamental to avoid. It can just make the concept boring. 

But ok for test this and delete if the feature if it bad... the interest is to test.. but if it bad don't let it too many time on the mod please

Orther idea : 

We can push to the concept to the centurion is like a little hero. All rank 3 melee swords are automatically converted to Centurion. Then small icon at the top of the screen like the heroes. and 250 hp. 3 max alive simultaneously. Not very roleplaying but when passing centurion the unit is automatically healed at 100%.
So it automatic and give to rome little bonus in army without micro.

3) i don't understand 100%  and i don't like have a lot of little tech

4) Look at rome or kushite, it like no bonus in most of time. 

Pref give useful or military bonus instead economy. 

We need just give to selucid tools to told the early game. Too many civ have economical bonus. Please don't do more.

We can make severals little bonus.

CIVIL HEGEMONOY : All building of the classe civic are boosted.

House : 8 garnison woman avaisable (still give 10population)

CC : Garnison 30 people and armor against crush is X3 (not more arrow)

Market : More big and can't be captured 

Temple : Unit garnison heal speed X2, we delete the tech called "life conditions"

Colony : Garnison 30 people (not more arrow).

CAVALERIE :-10% cost, can be good ,in tg is not op, in 1vs1 maybe.. but selucid no have tech for range bonus so it ok i guess.

PROSPEROUS CITY : All P3 Building cost -25%

ELEPHANT : Cost only 2 population (not 3)

=> Normal economy with bonus useful for told easily rush. Little military bonus start phase 2 and 3. Medium bonus eco in P3 for reduce cost of P3 building (elephant building, siege, fortress, theatron and wonder)

5) if we nerf hp don't need speed.. it the main interest, i fear noboby will play cav if we add nerf to orther nerf.

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

25 minutes ago, Dakara said:

3) i don't understand 100%  and i don't like have a lot of little tech

it's not all 23 in one civ.

each civ only gets somewhere from 4 to 8 of them.

so for macedonians, they get upgrades for pikes, skirms, and 1 for crossbowmen.

Edited December 8, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

29 minutes ago, Dakara said:

5) if we nerf hp don't need speed.. it the main interest, i fear noboby will play cav if we add nerf to orther nerf.

in that case, I think we just chose whichever gets more votes than the other. I would also say both might be overkill.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

The game has very few structure/building/construction/defensive techs and bonuses (but mainly techs). Consider those.

[chrstgtr]

37 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

in that case, I think we just chose whichever gets more votes than the other. I would also say both might be overkill.

I think you need to split the health proposal. It has too much going on. For example, I don't want to nerf skirm cav health, but I do want to nerf melee champ cav. 

19 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The game has very few structure/building/construction/defensive techs and bonuses (but mainly techs). Consider those.

There's a decent number but no one uses the ones that exist. But, yes, it is an area of potential--we just haven't seen anything for it that widely appeals

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

By far the most iffy changes are the blanket cav hp/speed decreases. There is certainly no one size fits all cavalry nerf, we can't even agree on one change to one unit: for example spearcav +1/2 pierce armor or javelin cavalry -2 pierce attack.

Unit specific upgrades are exciting though, and offer their own balancing opportunities.

Edited December 8, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 27/10/2022 at 4:31 PM, chrstgtr said:

My main problem with cav is that they don't die even when they should (i.e. running straight through inf and fighting spears head on). I think that is a direct result of their speed (ability to escape fights and to get to fights quickly) and their health (they might get hit once when running through a pocket of men but then keep running so the damage doesn't do enough to kill them). As a result, I don't mind that cav do extra dmg. 

Making inf, specifically spears faster, would be a step in the right direction. (I think spears and swords should be faster anyways bc of their lack of range). 

I would rather change health than armor because that ensures an even change across all units as opposed to just hack or pierce units. Otherwise, a -1 nerf to both hack and pierce might result in one type of attack becoming relatively stronger. Also promotions make extra HP a snowball problem. 

@chrstgtr you seem to go back and forth on your opinions here. How about we stick with the merge request as is, and revert certain things later?

If things turn out well, fine. If not, we can revert certain items.

Edited December 8, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

31 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

@chrstgtr you seem to go back and forth on your opinions here. How about we stick with the merge request as is, and revert certain things later?

No, these are just the spelled out things. I would nerf all melee cav health. I don't have a big problem with jav cav health. Champ melee cav is a huge problem. 

I think speed is an issue, which is the way I would try to nerf jav and archer cav. 

I'm just trying to tell you how I think you could get wider acceptance on the cav issue, which is I think you could get a consensus on certain cav needing to be nerfed, but the current package as a whole is too divisive to gain large acceptance. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I see. Well, we can revert jav cav health if it seems they are too weak. It is a small change overall, with the biggest change for champs anyway.

Shouldn't be a big concern, as they look poorly supported anyway.

[chrstgtr]

1 minute ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Shouldn't be a big concern, as they look poorly supported anyway.

Yeah, that's why I say, if these fail to gain support--as they appear headed to, I would see if a narrower/more targeted patch would gain support. 

[Philip the Swaggerless]

About the crush re-work:  I am not opposed to the idea necessarily but the merge request says to give mace man also 5 hack attack.  So they would have 5 Hack, 7 Crush for macemen every 1, versus 5.5 hack  every .75 second for swordsmen.  I haven't run any simulations but that feels like too much.  Macemen also have -less hack resistance so they are inferior that way but given that they can take down CC's with relative ease I think the 5 hack is too much.  Maybe 3 hack?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

13 minutes ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

About the crush re-work:  I am not opposed to the idea necessarily but the merge request says to give mace man also 5 hack attack.  So they would have 5 Hack, 7 Crush for macemen every 1, versus 5.5 hack  every .75 second for swordsmen.  I haven't run any simulations but that feels like too much.  Macemen also have -less hack resistance so they are inferior that way but given that they can take down CC's with relative ease I think the 5 hack is too much.  Maybe 3 hack?

I see, yeah 5 hack is too much, I think this might be an older version of the branch because I also seem to have left off the champion macemen here too (yoddahs). In any case, it is unintended.

The idea is that they should at least be usable in normal combat. I would say 4 sounds more appropriate. In this case, the CS macemen do 3.5 hack and the champs 7 hack.

edit: I split the middle, also this way they do half as much hack as crush.

Edited December 8, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Fabius]

7 hours ago, Dakara said:

The idea of a centurion unit can be appealing but I fear of too much micro.. it is a fundamental to avoid. It can just make the concept boring.

what exactly are you referring to when you say you are afraid of there being to much micro? I am not seeing how you need much micro for centurions.

you aren't going to really micro them on the battlefield and there are only 8 of them that you can have at any one time. The most micro you might have is setting up the initial acquisition and thats just getting some rank 2 troops and popping them into the barracks for 2 minutes to reach rank 3.

[alre]

pity, I liked the skirmisher adjustments, but voted no because of changes to slingers.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Just curious: what are some reasons to vote against number 3, unit specific upgrades? I would have expected more popularity due to the amount of content included.

[chrstgtr]

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Just curious: what are some reasons to vote against number 3, unit specific upgrades? I would have expected more popularity due to the amount of content included.

(1) It's a complicated system with 23 new techs.

(2) It basically tries to rebalance everything all at once, which will inevitably create greater imbalances. 

(3) It contains some specific things I find concerning.

For example, jav cav have a massive buff. Their spread (accuracy) improves a massive amount and their prepare time also is almost cut in half. 

Similarly, a massive buff is available for sword cav, which can get +10% health and +1 pierce armor. 

Additionally, a massive buff is available for archer cav, which get 1.15x dmg pierce dmg and 1.25x projectile speed, which increase accuracy (but does so indirectly). 

Taken together, the three best units, which many people already think are OP, all receive really, really large buffs. These buffs are also better than comparable inf buffs (e.g., archer cav get 1.25 dps plus increased accuracy but inf slings only get about 1.1x more dps). 

Likewise, projectile speeds are modified for several units and these modifications are inconsistent (1.5x speed for inf archers but 1.25x for cav archers and 30 for inf jav). Changing projectile speeds was a big part of the problem in a24. Honestly, I see no reason to ever change them because the same result can be accomplished in other more direct ways and their change isn't transparent to players. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

not all 23 technologies are active at the same time. Each civ gets 4 to 8 of them.

Sure, some particular upgrades may be imbalanced for particular situations. I get that. But why would you rather miss out on all of this content on the grounds that some things may be imbalanced? Remember this is an experimental mod.

These techs are extremely easy to adjust, so in other words the "specific things" you find concerning could be fixed effortlessly if they pose a problem.

I also don't understand what is complicated too: its literally just a tech tree for each unit type. Of course it's going to seem complicated at first, as is everything the first time you see it.

7 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

(2) It basically tries to rebalance everything all at once, which will inevitably create greater imbalances. 

I disagree here, all the patch does is add content. Balance is a secondary objective. I have simply designed them to avoid being OP as best I can.

currently, military upgrades are basically an arms race, with very little strategy involved. Unique upgrades like 'archery tradition' and 'hoplite tradition' are the exception, and the improvement to gameplay these techs bring inspired me to make a larger group of techs.

The strategic aspect these upgrades add to the mod outweighs the risks (some things could be OP).

[real_tabasco_sauce]

17 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

For example, jav cav have a massive buff. Their spread (accuracy) improves a massive amount and their prepare time also is almost cut in half. 

Similarly, a massive buff is available for sword cav, which can get +10% health and +1 pierce armor. 

Additionally, a massive buff is available for archer cav, which get 1.15x dmg pierce dmg and 1.25x projectile speed, which increase accuracy (but does so indirectly). 

also, keep in mind that these upgrades replace the rather boring cavalry_health and cavalry_speed upgrades. These upgrades currently serve as a blanket buff for all cavalry at a very low price.

You are drawing too many assumptions on individual technologies instead of looking at the system as a whole.

[chrstgtr]

 

46 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Sure, some particular upgrades may be imbalanced for particular situations. I get that. But why would you rather miss out on all of this content on the grounds that some things may be imbalanced? Remember this is an experimental mod.

A single unit can ruin gameplay. I prefer a game with 2 balanced units instead of a game with 3 unit options but only 1 is built because it is OP. 

57 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

currently, military upgrades are basically an arms race, with very little strategy involved. 

This isn't true. You have to decide which to techs to get, the order to get them, and when to get them. Unless you are playing death match settings, it is a game of limited resources. I very rarely get all the techs and I doubt I have every played a game where everyone got all the techs. 

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Unique upgrades like 'archery tradition' and 'hoplite tradition' are the exception, and the improvement to gameplay these techs bring inspired me to make a larger group of techs.

I like these too. I would like to see some more tech options like this. 

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

You are drawing too many assumptions on individual technologies instead of looking at the system as a whole.

I don't think this is truly a whole system instead of a compilation of several individual things that could be individually implemented. I identified a 3 instances where I believe the proposal would be too strong. 

------

I am not trying to say there aren't good ideas. I am trying to say that I don't like the package as a whole. But I would welcome some aspects of these. 

There have been a lot of people with grand overhaul visions and everyone who has tried to do it has created greater imbalances than they started out with. I don't think anyone should assume they are better than anyone has proven to be. 

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

also, keep in mind that these upgrades replace the rather boring cavalry_health and cavalry_speed upgrades. These upgrades currently serve as a blanket buff for all cavalry at a very low price.

 

I like when the health bonus was only for specific civs. If it is kept for all civs then there should be a trade off. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

This isn't true. You have to decide which to techs to get, the order to get them, and when to get them. Unless you are playing death match settings, it is a game of limited resources. I very rarely get all the techs and I doubt I have every played a game where everyone got all the techs. 

Maybe it's exaggerating to call it an arms race, but these upgrades would just improve on the diversity of gameplay options. Thats a positive.

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

I like these too. I would like to see some more tech options like this. 

...

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

I don't think this is truly a whole system

No, it's definitely a system. It is commonly referred to as a tech tree.

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

grand overhaul visions

This is no grand overhaul. It's just content. Maybe I am doing a bad job of explaining this.

Why would you rather throw the entire proposal out the window than allow the possibility of 1 or 2 (slightly more) OP units in an experimental mod?