Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/differential/391/display/redirect

Maybe a population cost of 2 is too low. A value like 4 or 3 maybe more suitable. IMO, health is too high as well. Nerfing to 150 is better. These are some suggestions and may not be that good as I’m not that good on balance stuff.

Too bad we do not have unpack proximity restrictions.

I don't think that they are such more op dann other units in a mass. If you have many catapults, rams, siege towers or horsemen archer they are also hard to stop. Catapults, rams and 2-3 sword horsemen bring them easy down. You only should give attention how do you attack them. There is freehand position a good possibilty (attack in a big line) that every bolt can only hit one horsemen.

I think the only thing you could do ist do increase the population to three.

A higher pop cost is better since it doesnt nerf individual bolts. Which are already quite weak.

More than 10 bolt shooters seem to stand out in comparison to ranged infantry or cavalry with regards to cost and cost for the enemy to destroy a these units.
The current splash damage seems suspiciously strong, but that's not the relevant part of the diff.
One of the problems with killing capturable siege engines is that they capture by default, which is very slow in comparison. But that's nothing that we can improve for alpha 23.
temple did a test where 60 melee cavalry killed only 3 of 30 bolt shooters.
Increasing the minimum range means that the unit isn't nerfed when they fight at range but that they have a hard time defending against melee units once the melee units reach it.
This way you get the possibility of a counter unit, unless the siege engines are protected well.
Catapults have 26min range already.

Orthogonal to that diff: what about making siege easier to capture?
Currently we could even remove capturing from siege without effect, as it is nearly impossible to capture one...

The units also should maybe prefer to attack than to capture the siege units.

Perhaps you should consider removing the crush damage from bolt shooters, then bolt shooters become pure anti-soldier units, unable to raze structures, and other siege weapons become effective counters vs (massed) bolt shooters.

Capturing was removed from rams because they switched ownership too quickly. It shouldn't be too easy to capture, but it's also nice to still have it capturable at all, even if it is currently hard to kill.

Using siege engines to counter siege engines doesn't seem right. Cavalry should be a counter afaik. But agree that crush could be reduced significantly.

Sure, but catapults and bolts currently are de facto uncapturable.

I prefer this type of solution rather than having a training limit.

In D1452#59452, @elexis wrote:

Catapults have 26min range already.

They have 12 min range, could be increased too.

In D1452#59452, @elexis wrote:

Catapults have 26min range already.

They have 12 min range, could be increased too.

Apparently I was looking at the roman one. (Sounds like a fun baseless inconsistency.)

In D1452#59495, @elexis wrote:

In D1452#59452, @elexis wrote:

Catapults have 26min range already.

They have 12 min range, could be increased too.

Apparently I was looking at the roman one. (Sounds like a fun baseless inconsistency.)

Oh, that's not the regular roman catapult but the "siege catapult", non-packable, non-movable, only for scenarios or whatever.

I'd be okay with 30m minimum range for both bolt shooter and catapult.
Not sure if catapult needs a nerf or if I just play badly. When units are clumped up one shot can do enormous splash damage.

Not sure if catapult needs a nerf or if I just play badly

We could check the replay again and try to recreate the scene with the proposed balancing changes.
Wanna commandeer and finish this until CF?
FeldFeld nani and Hannibal are the best frequent svn lobby players currently, would be good to get their ideas on the issue in the lobby or here (but it can be hard to achieve communication).

Just for archeologists

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22839-alpha-22-bolt-shooters/&do=findComment&comment=337529
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21631-a21-catapults/&tab=comments#comment-332476

Sorry if what I say didn't really have much signifiance towards solving the problem. (https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22839-alpha-22-bolt-shooters/&tab=comments#comment-337610).

(people involved with that will have to take care about the fact that iirc footprints are not taken into account, refactoring the template like radius -> length, width, and probably offset is also perhaps something to consider).

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Link to build: https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/differential/439/display/redirect

Maybe the min range should be smaler than the max range of skirmisher. Otherwise they could attack them as long as they want without getting damaged. And skirmisher will need much time..

I think most useful would be if the units attack the siege units by default instead of try to capturing them.

What about setting min range to 20 and decreasing the capture regen rate to 8 (10 would probably also ok)? That way bolts and catapults won't be de-facto uncapturable (10 cav could capture one siege in some mins).

In D1452#60266, @elexis wrote:

• Perhaps that roman scenario catapult should be equalized for consistency and svn blame archeologists

I'll do 26m to match that.

I'm fine with someone undoing this and finding a better balance for a24.

In D1452#60224, @OptimusShepard wrote:

I think most useful would be if the units attack the siege units by default instead of try to capturing them.

Hopefully that'll get done in a24.