Page MenuHomeWildfire Games

[gameplay] Balance Advanced and Elite Tech.
ClosedPublic

Authored by borg- on Jun 6 2020, 6:45 PM.

Details

Summary

The main point that I never liked in these two techs is the fact that a unit loses its power to collect resources. An elite unit is capable of losing 75% of its collection capacity. It seems to me more like a penalty than a bonus.

Well my proposal is to decrease this penalty -50% to -30%;
Decrease the health gain to 10%. (20% health + 1 armour seems op);
Add crush damage for axemen.

For example, this changes should slightly decrease the strength of Ptolemies with rush of Hero + spam javelins + tech advanced.
Also decrease the penalty for a good rush at the start of the game.

Test Plan

Better test would be 1v1 with fast civilizations with a good rush, like Gauls/Brit and Ptolemies (late game).

Diff Detail

Repository
rP 0 A.D. Public Repository
Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.
Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

There are a very large number of changes, so older changes are hidden. Show Older Changes
Nescio added a comment.Jun 6 2020, 8:11 PM

The main point that I never liked in these two techs is the fact that a unit loses its power to collect resources. An elite unit is capable of losing 75% of its collection capacity. It seems to me more like a penalty than a bonus.
I am not sure if it is to balance the fact that the units get stronger or some historical sense like: more fights, less farmer you are.
Well my proposal is to remove this penalty.

It seems to be intentional and part of 0 A.D.'s design:

           gather , damage , health , armour , health+armour equivalent
basic    :   1    ,   1    ,   1    ,        ,  1
advanced :   0.5  ,   1.2  ,   1.2  ,  +1    ,  1.333
elite    :   0.25 ,   1.5  ,   1.44 ,  +2    ,  1.778
champion :   0    ,   2    ,   2    ,  +3    ,  2.743

Looking at the svn revision history, it appears that prior to the introduction of the advanced and elite technologies (rP16744, five years ago), the reduced gather rate was present in the individual *_a (0.75) and *_e (0.5) templates (introduced with rP8012, ten years ago).
While I'm not opposed to stat tweaks per se, I don't think doing away with ten years of 0 A.D. practice just like that is a good idea.

borg- added a comment.Jun 8 2020, 1:13 PM

The main point that I never liked in these two techs is the fact that a unit loses its power to collect resources. An elite unit is capable of losing 75% of its collection capacity. It seems to me more like a penalty than a bonus.
I am not sure if it is to balance the fact that the units get stronger or some historical sense like: more fights, less farmer you are.
Well my proposal is to remove this penalty.

It seems to be intentional and part of 0 A.D.'s design:

           gather , damage , health , armour , health+armour equivalent
basic    :   1    ,   1    ,   1    ,        ,  1
advanced :   0.5  ,   1.2  ,   1.2  ,  +1    ,  1.333
elite    :   0.25 ,   1.5  ,   1.44 ,  +2    ,  1.778
champion :   0    ,   2    ,   2    ,  +3    ,  2.743

Looking at the svn revision history, it appears that prior to the introduction of the advanced and elite technologies (rP16744, five years ago), the reduced gather rate was present in the individual *_a (0.75) and *_e (0.5) templates (introduced with rP8012, ten years ago).
While I'm not opposed to stat tweaks per se, I don't think doing away with ten years of 0 A.D. practice just like that is a good idea.

Yes. I agree that we must keep as much as possible the original idea of the game, but some ideas may be outdated before the current gameplay.
Anyway i can keep 20% of health. The main idea of the patch is about lost resource power.

Nescio added a comment.Jun 8 2020, 8:47 PM

The exact numbers are not that important, what matters is that soldiers that become better at fighting become worse at gathering to compensate. Fundamentally you can think of champions as a “fourth rank”; elite is statistically closer to champion than to basic, so if you give b/a/e the same resource gather base speed, then you ought to give it to champions too, which is probably undesirable.

borg- added a comment.Jun 9 2020, 12:23 AM

When you nerf a soldier with half his collecting power, in general it doesn't seem like a bonus, but a penalty. It does not work for both cases, neither for the attacker nor for the defender.
If you have a successful attack, you come back with soldiers who cannot collect, which makes your advantage by having won a fight basically nonexistent. The same for the defender if he wins the fight.

We have several other ways to compensate it, without having to remove the collection power of the soldiers.

borg- added a comment.Jun 9 2020, 12:24 AM

The exact numbers are not that important, what matters is that soldiers that become better at fighting become worse at gathering to compensate. Fundamentally you can think of champions as a “fourth rank”; elite is statistically closer to champion than to basic, so if you give b/a/e the same resource gather base speed, then you ought to give it to champions too, which is probably undesirable.

Champion cannot get resources.

When you nerf a soldier with half his collecting power, in general it doesn't seem like a bonus, but a penalty.

It is an intended penalty: units that are better at combat are worse at resource gathering. Basically, it's b < a < e < c for combat, and for resource gathering it's the other way around, 1 = b > a > e > c = 0.

Champion cannot get resources.

Yes, I know that, but if you allow b = a = e = 1, then you should also do c = 1.

half his collecting power

I wouldn't mind tweaking the value (e.g. 0.5 → 0.6), but removing it entirely runs counter to the design that has been followed since 2010.

borg- added a comment.Fri, Jun 12, 1:34 PM

"Promoted skirmishers will typically improve their range, accuracy, hitpoints and a slight boost in armor while making them slower and less capable in gathering resources." Part of the design document.

It seems to me that we have a counterpoint here. As I thought, it would be more logical for the unit to be slower than fast. The decrease in the collection capacity seems to be related to the weight of the "new" armor.

borg- updated this revision to Diff 12331.Tue, Jun 16, 12:26 AM
borg- edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
borg- added a comment.EditedTue, Jun 16, 12:34 AM

Up new patch.

Following the suggestion of @Nescio I decided to keep the collection penalty (something that is in the design document).

I researched and seems units collect more slowly cuz weight of the new armor and also to keep the game balanced.

Just reducing this value from 50% to 20% for advanced and elite, also decreases the health gain from 20% to 15%, it seems fair.

I kept removing movement speed bonus, it seems to go against the design document on some units, and it also doesn't make sense to get heavier and faster.

Pls, I need your opinion @ValihrAnt @Feldfeld @Lionkanzen @badosu

badosu added inline comments.Tue, Jun 16, 1:49 AM
advanced_unit_bonus.json
11 ↗(On Diff #12331)

Maybe you wanted to do multiply 0.8?

borg- updated this revision to Diff 12332.Tue, Jun 16, 1:59 AM

Oh yes, sorry, fixed.

Just reducing this value from 50% to 20% for advanced and elite

{ "value": "ResourceGatherer/BaseSpeed", "multiply": 0.8 },
Such a value does not really feel like a real penalty, I'd prefer 0.6 or at most 0.7; advanced or elite units are not supposed to be decent gatherers.

also decreases the health gain from 20% to 15%, it seems fair.

Fine by me, I don't really care. Any other values you think need tweaking?

I kept removing movement speed bonus, it seems to go against the design document on some units, and it also doesn't make sense to get heavier and faster.

Whilst I agree with that, it's improper to change it only here; if it's to be done, do it properly, and also revisit champion and hero infantry speeds (cf. D2596/rP23737).

borg- added a comment.EditedTue, Jun 16, 2:07 PM

Such a value does not really feel like a real penalty, I'd prefer 0.6 or at most 0.7; advanced or elite units are not supposed to be decent gatherers.

0.7 seems to me a more appropriate value.

Fine by me, I don't really care. Any other values you think need tweaking?

I think not

Whilst I agree with that, it's improper to change it only here; if it's to be done, do it properly, and also revisit champion and hero infantry speeds (cf. D2596/rP23737).

Yes, i agree, champion units should be seen because their values are based on citizen.

I will make changes when I get home, tnx @Nescio

Whilst I agree with that, it's improper to change it only here; if it's to be done, do it properly, and also revisit champion and hero infantry speeds (cf. D2596/rP23737).

Yes, i agree, champion units should be seen because their values are based on citizen.
I will make changes when I get home, tnx @Nescio

It's probably better to split off the infantry movement speed changes (including champions) into a separate patch.

borg- updated this revision to Diff 12344.Tue, Jun 16, 11:52 PM
borg- edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
borg- added a subscriber: wraitii.Tue, Jun 16, 11:57 PM

Up patch.
{ "value": "ResourceGatherer/BaseSpeed", "multiply": 0.8 } to { "value": "ResourceGatherer/BaseSpeed", "multiply": 0.7 }.

@Nescio @wraitii any more opinion/suggestion?

Whilst I agree with that, it's improper to change it only here; if it's to be done, do it properly, and also revisit champion and hero infantry speeds (cf. D2596/rP23737).

Yes, i agree, champion units should be seen because their values are based on citizen.
I will make changes when I get home, tnx @Nescio

It's probably better to split off the infantry movement speed changes (including champions) into a separate patch.

I will do this in another patch.

borg- added a comment.Thu, Jun 18, 4:11 AM

@Nescio if you agree with the proposed values and changes, click in accept pls.

It's probably better to split off the infantry movement speed changes (including champions) into a separate patch.

I will do this in another patch.

This patch still removes the infantry walk speed line.

It's probably better to split off the infantry movement speed changes (including champions) into a separate patch.

I will do this in another patch.

This patch still removes the infantry walk speed line.

@Nescio Fixed.

borg- updated this revision to Diff 12383.Thu, Jun 18, 11:48 PM
borg- edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
badosu accepted this revision.Fri, Jun 19, 3:35 AM

Looks good to me!

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Fri, Jun 19, 3:35 AM

Thanks, I no longer have objections. This patch is complete and correct, and the changes are acceptable.
However, I'm not unhappy with the current values, therefore I'm neither for nor against seeing it committed.

borg- added a comment.Tue, Jun 23, 7:56 PM

@wraitii can be commit?

I can see why why we would want that change. After all, the rate at which promoted units gather feels unnaturally slow, and the 30% reduction as proposed feels reasonable. But well the concern is how it would change balance, if mercenary / skirtai become too strong. It depends if a strategy of almost only training mercenary units and relying on superior fighting power of units could become too strong or not. I can't judge as I don't see what other changes @borg- will do in that regard, but the following could be considered : making the mercenary tech more expensive and/or reducing the melee attack bonus from 20% to 10%. It feels like melee units benefit more from promoting than ranged units anyway so this could also help making the gameplay feel more natural.
tl/dr I like the general idea, just need to make sure no imbalance comes from this

borg- added a comment.Wed, Jun 24, 1:33 PM

I can see why why we would want that change. After all, the rate at which promoted units gather feels unnaturally slow, and the 30% reduction as proposed feels reasonable. But well the concern is how it would change balance, if mercenary / skirtai become too strong. It depends if a strategy of almost only training mercenary units and relying on superior fighting power of units could become too strong or not. I can't judge as I don't see what other changes @borg- will do in that regard, but the following could be considered : making the mercenary tech more expensive and/or reducing the melee attack bonus from 20% to 10%. It feels like melee units benefit more from promoting than ranged units anyway so this could also help making the gameplay feel more natural.
tl/dr I like the general idea, just need to make sure no imbalance comes from this

Yes, i agree.
I had the same idea about mercenary tech.
On skiritis, I'm doing a patch with general balance, including skirit.

Actually I don't think skiri would need to be changed even with this patch, after they're trained they either build or go fight directly anyway. After this patch they will still have a 30% gathering reduction applaying 2 times which is still quite a bit.
Mercenaries are a bit more dangerous though.

borg- added a comment.Wed, Jun 24, 2:40 PM

Actually I don't think skiri would need to be changed even with this patch, after they're trained they either build or go fight directly anyway. After this patch they will still have a 30% gathering reduction applaying 2 times which is still quite a bit.
Mercenaries are a bit more dangerous though.

Ok, I will make changes to the tech of the mercenaries, but in another patch, ok?

The current cost of tech is very low. Only one armor tech in the blacksmith costs much more than the tech of mercenaries, , which besides armor and other attributes are gained.

In D2792#121459, @borg- wrote:

Actually I don't think skiri would need to be changed even with this patch, after they're trained they either build or go fight directly anyway. After this patch they will still have a 30% gathering reduction applaying 2 times which is still quite a bit.
Mercenaries are a bit more dangerous though.

Ok, I will make changes to the tech of the mercenaries, but in another patch, ok?
The current cost of tech is very low. Only one armor tech in the blacksmith costs much more than the tech of mercenaries, , which besides armor and other attributes are gained.

Yep I agree

For the Spartan swordsmen, you could consider inserting e.g.

		{ "value": "Cost/BuildTime", "multiply": 1.15 },
borg- updated this revision to Diff 12448.Wed, Jun 24, 11:45 PM
borg- edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)

Up new patch with nerf melee attack 20% to 15%.
Add crush damage for axemen.

Add crush damage for axemen.

Nice catch! How about ranged attack damage?
It would be helpful if all modifications were alphabetized, though that doesn't have to be done in this patch.

advanced_unit_bonus.json
17–18 ↗(On Diff #12448)

The correct order is Hack, Pierce, Crush.

borg- added a comment.Thu, Jun 25, 1:14 PM

Add crush damage for axemen.

Nice catch! How about ranged attack damage?

Tnx!!! I think not. This change would the ranged units even better compared to melee. Would also make the decrease for health practically irrelevant. It would make ptolomeus even stronger.

It would be helpful if all modifications were alphabetized, though that doesn't have to be done in this patch.

Ok, thanks for the tip, i will change.

How about ranged attack damage?

Generally, in current meta, melee units die before they have the chance to get promoted or soon after, while ranged units have an easier time being promoted because of meat shield dying instead of them. A ranged attack damage bonus could lead to a snowball effect that would probably be too big

borg- added a comment.Fri, Jun 26, 1:02 AM

Up with correct order.

borg- updated this revision to Diff 12459.Fri, Jun 26, 1:02 AM

If you guys agree with the current values and patch, please click on "Accept" pls.

How about ranged attack damage?

What I meant was shouldn't ranged attack damage be adjusted too? But I now see those lines are not present in these two files (unlike e.g. attack_soldiers_will.json) and agree adding them is not an improvement.
Doesn't lowering the melee attack damage increase make melee soldiers relatively weaker compared to ranged soldiers, though?

I also think inserting a training time increase (e.g. 15%) makes sense.

Feldfeld added a comment.EditedFri, Jun 26, 12:43 PM

Doesn't lowering the melee attack damage increase make melee soldiers relatively weaker compared to ranged soldiers, though?

A small bit, but it isn't going to change the snowball effect ranged soldiers could have

I also think inserting a training time increase (e.g. 15%) makes sense.

This patch affects the bonus promoted units gains. A unit can promote on the battlefield via experience or can be trained promoted thanks to techs like the mercenary rank upgrade tech. In fact, that tech gives a train time increase. Spartan skirtai also train slower compared to other units.

This makes me think of a somewhat unrelated idea which could be to decrease necessary experience required for melee units to promote. This could allow the player to profit more of promoted melee units (possibly nicer gameplay) and decrease a bit the relative strength of ranged units. It might not be a good idea for cavalry though.

borg- added a comment.Fri, Jun 26, 5:44 PM

This patch affects the bonus promoted units gains. A unit can promote on the battlefield via experience or can be trained promoted thanks to techs like the mercenary rank upgrade tech. In fact, that tech gives a train time increase. Spartan skirtai also train slower compared to other units.
This makes me think of a somewhat unrelated idea which could be to decrease necessary experience required for melee units to promote. This could allow the player to profit more of promoted melee units (possibly nicer gameplay) and decrease a bit the relative strength of ranged units. It might not be a good idea for cavalry though.

Yes I agree. In the patch I'm working on, I reduced the xp needed for melee units, just for infantry.
 

Feldfeld accepted this revision.Sat, Jun 27, 8:40 AM

The current values for this patch seem good.

Yes I agree. In the patch I'm working on, I reduced the xp needed for melee units, just for infantry.

Ok, good that we thought of the same thing.

I have personally always disliked our promotion system. It gives no real choice to the player, and it stems from a weird vision of historical perspective where people would be more or less specialised towards combat, but this is completely inaccurate anyways -> the warfare division was generally based on social class, not on 'experience'.

My question is simple -> Are the current values of these techs actually a problem in-game? I would agree that in general I would expect most melee units to die anyways, so promotions seems irrelevant.
If it's simply a change because you dislike the promotion system, I would actually go all the way and simply remove it entirely.

If it's a necessary balance change, then I would like to see some more motivation for it in the comments.

Feldfeld added a comment.EditedSun, Jun 28, 8:29 PM

I have personally always disliked our promotion system. It gives no real choice to the player, and it stems from a weird vision of historical perspective where people would be more or less specialised towards combat, but this is completely inaccurate anyways -> the warfare division was generally based on social class, not on 'experience'.
My question is simple -> Are the current values of these techs actually a problem in-game? I would agree that in general I would expect most melee units to die anyways, so promotions seems irrelevant.
If it's simply a change because you dislike the promotion system, I would actually go all the way and simply remove it entirely.
If it's a necessary balance change, then I would like to see some more motivation for it in the comments.

I personally see this patch as a simple gameplay enhancement. It feels kind of unnatural to have units gathering so slowly. It doesn't change much in fact.
The current values for promotion are not a problem for me balance wise. Promotion is not considered much strategy wise by players, but it can have some small uses :

  • Cavalry are fast, and can pick their fights. It means they can choose good fights, and will therefore tend to get promoted overtime, easier than for foot soldiers. Promotions can be a small argument for going for cavalry.
  • Following the preceding point, promotions can be a small help for cavalry rushes.
  • Healers don't kill enemy units, but help keep your alive. It actually has the side effect of helping them promote (I think). It could be a good argument for going for healers, but personally I don't train them, I don't like them.
  • It gives some uniqueness for mercenaries

That said, don't forget these points are rather theoretical and most of them probably don't get noticed by multiplayer community (they are noobs :D)
Personally I think it's fine having some historical innacurate things if it helps gameplay, now promotion system is far from crucial so I guess you can search other opinions on that question I guess.

borg- added a comment.Sun, Jun 28, 8:46 PM

I have personally always disliked our promotion system. It gives no real choice to the player, and it stems from a weird vision of historical perspective where people would be more or less specialised towards combat, but this is completely inaccurate anyways -> the warfare division was generally based on social class, not on 'experience'.
My question is simple -> Are the current values of these techs actually a problem in-game? I would agree that in general I would expect most melee units to die anyways, so promotions seems irrelevant.
If it's simply a change because you dislike the promotion system, I would actually go all the way and simply remove it entirely.
If it's a necessary balance change, then I would like to see some more motivation for it in the comments.

I particularly have no problems with the current promotion system, although it is not so historically accurate.
The patch is for correcting balance problems.

{ "value": "Heal/HP", "add": 5, "affects": "Healer" },
is rather excessive (basic healers have a value of 5). Could you replace it with e.g.
{ "value": "Heal/Rate", "multiply": 0.8 }?

This patch affects the bonus promoted units gains. A unit can promote on the battlefield via experience or can be trained promoted thanks to techs like the mercenary rank upgrade tech. In fact, that tech gives a train time increase. Spartan skirtai also train slower compared to other units.

You're right, upgrade_rank_advanced_mercenary.json does, I forgot, but upgrade_rank_elite_healer.json does not, and spart_champion_infantry_sword.xml is just one unit. I'd much rather prefer those lines were removed from there and e.g.
{ "value": "Cost/BuildTime", "multiply": 1.15 },
is inserted here in the advanced and elite files, for consistency and to make things easier to maintain in the long run.

The patch is for correcting balance problems.

@wraitii is right, the reason for the individual changes is not clear. Could you explain why the health and melee attack damage reductions are necessary?

{ "value": "Heal/HP", "add": 5, "affects": "Healer" },
is rather excessive (basic healers have a value of 5). Could you replace it with e.g.

		{ "value": "Heal/Rate", "multiply": 0.8 }?

I think that indeed basic healers are too weak but promoted healers are probably too strong, maybe overall changes could be done in another patch. I think @borg- had ideas for them.

You're right, upgrade_rank_advanced_mercenary.json does, I forgot, but upgrade_rank_elite_healer.json does not, and spart_champion_infantry_sword.xml is just one unit. I'd much rather prefer those lines were removed from there and e.g.

		{ "value": "Cost/BuildTime", "multiply": 1.15 },

is inserted here in the advanced and elite files, for consistency and to make things easier to maintain in the long run.

That could be an idea indeed.

@wraitii is right, the reason for the individual changes is not clear. Could you explain why the health and melee attack damage reductions are necessary?

It's a way to counterbalance the changes to gathering rates (which is a buff). Maybe @borg- sees this patch as correcting balance problems but for me as I described in a previous post it's just a small gameplay improvement (I think that it is still better to have elite units rather than not)

@wraitii is right, the reason for the individual changes is not clear. Could you explain why the health and melee attack damage reductions are necessary?

It's a way to counterbalance the changes to gathering rates (which is a buff). Maybe @borg- sees this patch as correcting balance problems but for me as I described in a previous post it's just a small gameplay improvement (I think that it is still better to have elite units rather than not)

Yes, which is why I would like @borg- to explain why this is a necessary balance change :)
I'm not opposed to changing it, as I would agree it's rather inconsequential, but I would like to know if it's a real issue or not.

borg- added a comment.EditedMon, Jun 29, 1:26 PM

@wraitii
The design document does not make it clear why the 50% penalty on collection is probably due to purely balance.
So just as we dropped to 30%, we should also make the promoted units a little weaker.
The patch also seeks to correct small balancing problems that already exist, for example, skiritis units, which are actually very strong compared to other units, so if we lower the penalty to 30%, they would be stronger than they already are.
Another important point is that civilizations that have technology to promote mercenaries like ptolomeus, can be extremely strong, because they promote their mercenaries with a low cost and with a big gain of health + armor and other attributes, so the decrease of 15% is to decrease this effectiveness, mainly of javelin infantry units and cavalry in general. Cavalry Rank 2 and later 3 are strictly strong in the current gameplay when they are in large quantities, mainly with hero / aura buffs and other techonolgoias (the health can easily exceed 300+).

so the decrease of 15% is to decrease this effectiveness, mainly of javelin infantry units and cavalry in general.

Then why is the melee attack damage lowered?

(the health can easily exceed 300+)

Could you describe how to “easily” reproduce that?

Decrease the health gain to 15%. (20% health + 1 armour seems op);

For the record, each armour level is equivalent to an 11% (1 / 0.9 = 1.111) compound increase in health. +20% health + 1 armour is equivalent to +33% health (1.2 / 0.9 = 1.333) and +15% + 1 armour is equivalent to +28% (1.15 / 0.9 = 1.277). If you believe advanced and elite units are too strong, you could consider purging the health increase altogether.

borg- added a comment.EditedMon, Jun 29, 2:59 PM

Then why is the melee attack damage lowered?

Melee attack decrease is for specific units like swordman (skirits) and sword cavalry (cartage).

Could you describe how to “easily” reproduce that?

Persia + hero + techs + rank 3 + relics.

Decrease the health gain to 15%. (20% health + 1 armour seems op);

For the record, each armour level is equivalent to an 11% (1 / 0.9 = 1.111) compound increase in health. +20% health + 1 armour is equivalent to +33% health (1.2 / 0.9 = 1.333) and +15% + 1 armour is equivalent to +28% (1.15 / 0.9 = 1.277). If you believe advanced and elite units are too strong, you could consider purging the health increase altogether.

It is also an option, but I think it is very radical, I prefer values between 15% or 10% can be a good option too.

I think with values at 10% health, we can keep 20% for the melee attack.

I think with values at 10% health, we can keep 20% for the melee attack.

That would make sense, given that you indentified javelin infantry as the units that benefit most.

Persia + hero + techs + rank 3 + relics.

Catafalques are not present on maps by default. No hero, team, or civ bonus increases cavalry health. The only technologies that do are advanced_unit_bonus.json, elite_unit_bonus.json, and special_war_horses.json (+20% each). 1.2^3 = 1.73, times 160 (cavalry spearman has most health), we still get to only 276. The champion equivalent has 300 + 20% = 360. It's not really important, though.

The only technologies that do are advanced_unit_bonus.json, elite_unit_bonus.json, and special_war_horses.json

There are the phasing tech that give HP bonus. That brings spear cavalry to over 300 HP if advanced and about 360 HP if elite.

There are the phasing tech that give HP bonus. That brings spear cavalry to over 300 HP if advanced and about 360 HP if elite.

Oops, you're right, phase_city.json and phase_town.json don't, but phase_city_generic.json and phase_town_generic.json do, thanks for correcting me! I was looking only at Cavalry and missed the Citizen Soldier line.
With those we get 1.1 × 1.2^4 = 2.28, with 160 makes 365.
Reducing a and e to 10% results into 1.1^3 × 1.2^2 = 1.92, with 160 makes 307.
I'd actually favour removing the citizen soldier health increases from the phases, but that's outside the scope of this patch.

borg- added a comment.Mon, Jun 29, 6:36 PM
This comment was removed by borg-.
borg- added a comment.Mon, Jun 29, 7:05 PM

I'd actually favour removing the citizen soldier health increases from the phases, but that's outside the scope of this patch.

I think the value of 10% seems more secure for now.

I think the value of 10% seems more secure for now.

Yes, I agree reducing the A and E health gain from 1.2 to 1.1 is an improvement.
Any opinions on D2792#121935?

borg- updated this revision to Diff 12494.EditedTue, Jun 30, 12:09 AM
borg- edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)

@Nescio @wraitii @Feldfeld
Up patch, reducing health gain to 10%, keeping the 20% for melee attack.

borg- updated this revision to Diff 12495.Tue, Jun 30, 12:12 AM
Nescio added inline comments.Tue, Jun 30, 11:26 AM
advanced_unit_bonus.json
6 ↗(On Diff #12495)

Please remove the trailing zero (1.101.1).
While at it, could you move the "Health/Max" line down and insert it in between the "Attack/Capture/Capture" and "ResourceGatherer/BaseSpeed" lines?

elite_unit_bonus.json
6 ↗(On Diff #12495)

idem

Nescio accepted this revision.Tue, Jun 30, 12:21 PM
  • The health reduction is necessary to prevent elite soldiers getting more health than their champion counterparts.
  • The missing melee attack crush damage line was an oversight, fixing it here is certainly an improvement. Crush damage is used by axemen, clubmen, macemen, future additions, and mods. Other technologies that change attack damage also affect all damage types.
  • As I wrote earlier, I'm indifferent to the gather speed changes; the proposed values are acceptable to me, but I had no problems with the current values either.

(The summary has to be updated to reflect the current changes.)

badosu accepted this revision.Fri, Jul 3, 12:58 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.