Page MenuHomeWildfire Games

[gameplay] Rework forge armor techs.
ClosedPublic

Authored by borg- on Mon, Jan 4, 2:21 AM.

Details

Summary

Before this patch added crush armor as forge techs. I thought it was better to rework and make technologies more objective.

Currently we had 4 technologies, two for infantry and two for cavalry. All give armor against pierce and hack.
What the patch does is divide the technologies into pierce for one type and hack armor for another, Both affecting soldiers.

That way the player is free to choose the best type of technology for the moment.

Cost are lower compared to the current values, but high value of metal.

Icons according to the description.

I plan to change the techs attack also to just 4 techs of the same format.

EDIT

Crush armor removed.

Test Plan

I don't think you need a balancing test because techonlogies don't have different values than the current ones, just in cost.

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

borg- requested review of this revision.Mon, Jan 4, 2:21 AM
borg- created this revision.
borg- updated this revision to Diff 14967.Mon, Jan 4, 2:24 AM

Perhaps since armour gives less resistance against blunt force?

borg- added a comment.Mon, Jan 4, 12:40 PM

Perhaps since armour gives less resistance against blunt force?

What you mean?

If one wears a chain mail it hurts when being hit by blunt force, if you strengthen the chain mail, it still hurts about the same when hit with blunt force. But the likelyhood of cuts to come through may be less.
That being said it may all be bogus ;)
I only fear someone coming by and saying: "Wait, this is just a x% increase in Health, why not just do that?".

borg- added a comment.Mon, Jan 4, 1:31 PM

If one wears a chain mail it hurts when being hit by blunt force, if you strengthen the chain mail, it still hurts about the same when hit with blunt force. But the likelyhood of cuts to come through may be less.
That being said it may all be bogus ;)
I only fear someone coming by and saying: "Wait, this is just a x% increase in Health, why not just do that?".

Thank you for the explanation!!!

Crush damage are overrated against armor. They don’t magically negate armor.

There is a reason why swords are more popular than maces for example. Maces generally could not finish their opponents with heavier armor, you could secure some force to the point of knocking the opponent down, but you would press a dagger or sword to finish him.

I don't see this as a good argument for not adding crush armor to techs.

Nescio added a comment.Mon, Jan 4, 2:43 PM

I don't know the real reason for not have crush armor for these techonologies

Presumably because soldiers tend to have crush resistance ten to fifteen levels higher than their hack and pierce, which means crush damage is already ridiculously ineffective. As long as default crush resistance isn't reduced, I don't really see the need for increasing it even further.

This patch add crush armor to 5 forge armor techs:

Did you check whether there are any other technologies that need changing? And how about auras?

Renames technologies armor_cav_01 and armor_cav_02 to armor_cavalry_01 and armor_cavalry_02

If you are to rename them, do it properly:

svn mv armor_cav_01.json cavalry_resistance_01.json
svn mv armor_cav_02.json cavalry_resistance_02.json
svn mv armor_infantry_01.json infantry_resistance_01.json
svn mv armor_infantry_02.json infantry_resistance_02.json

I only fear someone coming by and saying: "Wait, this is just a x% increase in Health, why not just do that?".

That would be me.
In fact, I actually favour splitting these technologies into separate technologies for pierce (‘shields’), hack (‘body armour’), and, perhaps, crush (‘helmets’). That would give players more meaningful choices.

That would be me.

:)

borg- added a comment.Mon, Jan 4, 3:00 PM

I don't know the real reason for not have crush armor for these techonologies

Presumably because soldiers tend to have crush resistance ten to fifteen levels higher than their hack and pierce, which means crush damage is already ridiculously ineffective. As long as default crush resistance isn't reduced, I don't really see the need for increasing it even further.

Ranged infantry has crush armor 10, following this logic, tech armor should not affect pikeman who already has 10 pierce / 10 hack armor.

borg- updated this revision to Diff 14992.Mon, Jan 4, 11:04 PM
borg- edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
borg- updated this revision to Diff 15051.Fri, Jan 8, 4:23 AM
borg- retitled this revision from [gameplay] Add crush armor to forge armor techs. to [gameplay] Rework forge armor techs..
borg- edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
borg- edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)

Rework!!!

borg- updated this revision to Diff 15053.Fri, Jan 8, 4:26 AM
borg- edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Sun, Jan 10, 1:07 PM

Having suggested it myself, it's hardly surprising I'm in favour of having separate technologies for hack and pierce resistance. However, I'm unsure whether it's better to have them applicable to all soldiers (similar to Age of Mythology); have separate versions for infantry and cavalry; or for melee and ranged; or make them apply to melee troops only, excluding ranged troops from receiving resistance increases.
I would highly appreciate feedback on this patch from more players.
Moreover, I don't really understand why a technology increases both crush and pierce resistance: elephants and archers have very different attacks.

wraitii accepted this revision.Mon, Jan 11, 12:08 PM
wraitii added a subscriber: wraitii.

I think Crush armour is high to avoid rams being OP, but since they can't attack organic units, maybe that doesn't matter anymore.
I do agree that crush armour bonus is useless.

I like the split because it makes it more strategical (which do you need at the moment to counter your enemy) IMO. Splitting further by sub-types seems adding un-necessary complexity perhaps, and it makes it less easy to add civ-specific techs that boost some unit type.

I would say go, but maybe this needs more testing?

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Mon, Jan 11, 12:08 PM
Nescio requested changes to this revision.Mon, Jan 11, 12:24 PM

As I wrote earlier, I really like the concept, but disagree with the technologies raising both crush and pierce resistance.
Moreover, could you rename them properly?

cd binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/
svn mv armor_cav_01.json soldier_resistance_hack_01.json
svn mv armor_cav_02.json soldier_resistance_hack_02.json
svn mv armor_infantry_01.json soldier_resistance_pierce_01.json
svn mv armor_infantry_02.json soldier_resistance_pierce_02.json
svn propset svn:mime-type text/json soldier_resistance_*
svn propset svn:eol-style native soldier_resistance_*

Furthermore, update the template_structure_military_forge.xml production queue.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Mon, Jan 11, 12:24 PM
borg- added a comment.Mon, Jan 11, 7:59 PM

Two votes in favor of removing crush armor, so I will remove.

borg- updated this revision to Diff 15159.Tue, Jan 12, 2:58 AM
borg- edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)

The description strings are in need of improvement.

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/soldier_resistance_hack_01.json
9 ↗(On Diff #15159)

armor → resistance

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/soldier_resistance_hack_02.json
10 ↗(On Diff #15159)

armor → resistance

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/soldier_resistance_pierce_01.json
2 ↗(On Diff #15159)

Wood → Wooden

9 ↗(On Diff #15159)

armor → resistance

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/soldier_resistance_pierce_02.json
2 ↗(On Diff #15159)

shield → Shield
Actually the shields were not made out of metal, they were mostly wooden or leather, but strengthened by a bronze or metal elements such as a shield boss, spine, rim, and rarely covered with a thin metal sheet.

10 ↗(On Diff #15159)

armor → resistance

borg- added a comment.EditedTue, Jan 12, 4:33 PM

@Nescio is exchanging bronze armor for leather and putting food and wood cost realistic?

How about the armour (hack resistance) technologies costing food and metal, and the shield (pierce resistance) technologies costing wood and metal?

While breastplates, scale armour, and chain mail existed and were used, leather, linen, wool, and cotton were very common materials for body armour.

borg- updated this revision to Diff 15222.Wed, Jan 13, 2:30 AM
borg- edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)

Rebase

borg- updated this revision to Diff 15226.Wed, Jan 13, 2:47 AM
borg- marked 6 inline comments as done.
borg- updated this revision to Diff 15230.Wed, Jan 13, 3:59 AM

Icons after D3320.

Elephants don't benefit from resistance technologies currently, but will with this patch. Is that good or bad?

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/soldier_resistance_hack_01.json
5–6 ↗(On Diff #15230)

Maybe lower it to 400 each? It's a town phase technology.

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/soldier_resistance_pierce_01.json
5–6 ↗(On Diff #15230)

idem

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/soldier_resistance_pierce_02.json
3 ↗(On Diff #15230)

"Strengthen shields with a metal rim or spine."

I don't see any major problems. like any other champion, it seems fair to me to be affected by techs.

Elephants are very large animals, I'm not sure how giving them a shield would work. Anyway, that's just nitpicking, not a major objection against this patch.
The technology description strings need to be corrected, though.

Elephants are very large animals, I'm not sure how giving them a shield would work. Anyway, that's just nitpicking, not a major objection against this patch.

It could be argued that this applies to the elephant's rider, which is also somewhat vulnerable. I think unless we have a strong reason not to include them (such as specific techs for elephants), it's probably better to.

borg- updated this revision to Diff 15273.Thu, Jan 14, 1:15 AM

Cost and description by @Nescio

Nescio accepted this revision.Thu, Jan 14, 11:05 AM

The patch is a clear improvement, making gameplay more interesting, in my opinion. The file changes are correct and the patch is complete.
A difference is elephants now benefit too, which was not the case earlier. I don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing; it seems a bit more consistent, though.

I would like to rephrase a string or two and change an icon, but it's probably more efficient if I just upload a differential rather than requesting changes again.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Thu, Jan 14, 11:05 AM

You can also update this diff with the corrected strings?

Nescio updated this revision to Diff 15290.Thu, Jan 14, 11:30 AM
  • properly svn mv files
  • keep names, descriptions, and icons for the hack/armour technologies
  • different icons and descriptions for the pierce/shield technologies
Owners added a subscriber: Restricted Owners Package.Thu, Jan 14, 11:30 AM

You can also update this diff with the corrected strings?

That's what I meant.

Nescio updated this revision to Diff 15291.Thu, Jan 14, 11:34 AM
  • rephrase one more string
Stan added a subscriber: Stan.Thu, Jan 14, 11:34 AM

A random thought I had when reading this patch, Maybe we should have paired techs for things like this, where stronger hack armor means movement penalty and stronger pierce armor means some other penalty.

It's not a random thought, it's an interesting idea to explore.

Freagarach accepted this revision.Thu, Jan 14, 11:41 AM

Accepting the strings (and checkrefs passes).

In D3287#149238, @Stan wrote:

A random thought I had when reading this patch, Maybe we should have paired techs for things like this, where stronger hack armor means movement penalty and stronger pierce armor means some other penalty.

It's not a random thought, it's an interesting idea to explore.

See Delenda Est ;)

borg- marked 3 inline comments as done.Thu, Jan 14, 11:50 AM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

@Nescio soldier_resistance_hack_02 should cost food instead of wood.

borg- added a comment.Fri, Jan 15, 9:40 PM

@Nescio is wood on purpose?

No, it's a mistake, hack technologies should cost food and metal, pierce technologies wood and metal, thank you for the notification.