Page MenuHomeWildfire Games

[gameplay] differentiate rams
Changes PlannedPublic

Authored by Nescio on Jan 10 2021, 10:05 PM.

Details

Reviewers
None
Group Reviewers
Balancing
Summary

D2782/rP23753 made rams slower and prevented them from attacking fields or organic units.
D2815/rP24528 allowed all civs to construct rams.
This patch:

  • lowers their base costs from 350 wood and 200 metal to 300 wood and 200 metal;
  • changes experience loot to 20% of health and resource loot to 20% of costs;
  • to make civs less similar, gave rams different values, depending on which actor they use:
                   wood  , health , movement
                   cost  ,        , speed
brit, gaul      :  −30%  ,  −30%  ,  +15%
athen, spart    :  −20%  ,  −20%  ,  +10%
cart, iber      :  −10%  ,  −10%  ,   +5%
mace, ptol, sele:        ,        ,
maur            :  +10%  ,  +10%  ,   −5% 
rome            :  +20%  ,  +20%  ,  −10%
kush, pers      :  +30%  ,  +30%  ,  −15%
  • removed the +20% crush damage from the pers and rome rams (their new higher health makes them stronger already);
  • slightly adjusts some ram footprints:


[EDIT] While at it, standardizes the loot of the other siege engines too:

  • resource loot to 20% of costs (all)
  • experience loot to 20% of health (ram and tower) or 100% (artillery)
Test Plan

Check for mistakes, agree with the concept, agree with the proposed values, play-test some games, figure out if this doesn't make brit, gaul to weak or kush, pers too strong.

Event Timeline

Nescio created this revision.Jan 10 2021, 10:05 PM
Owners added a subscriber: Restricted Owners Package.Jan 10 2021, 10:05 PM
Nescio edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Jan 10 2021, 10:06 PM
Nescio removed a subscriber: Restricted Owners Package.

Build is green

builderr-debug-macos.txt
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreAudio.framework/CoreAudio.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreAudio.framework/CoreAudio are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//AudioToolbox.framework/AudioToolbox.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//AudioToolbox.framework/AudioToolbox are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//ForceFeedback.framework/ForceFeedback.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//ForceFeedback.framework/ForceFeedback are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreVideo.framework/CoreVideo.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreVideo.framework/CoreVideo are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stu

See https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/2752/display/redirect for more details.

Nescio requested review of this revision.Jan 10 2021, 10:14 PM
borg- added a subscriber: borg-.EditedJan 11 2021, 4:01 AM

I compared the models with the values and everything seems appropriate.
How about increasing or decreasing the garrison capacity depending on the size of the models, what do you think?
I'm not sure about metal reduction, I think it can make spam easier and we have some problems with rams vs spear / pike, so I would keep the value of 200 for metal.

Freagarach added inline comments.
binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/template_unit_siege_ram.xml
44

I guess you can omit 0 values?

I compared the models with the values and everything seems appropriate.

Before you accept, do you think you could do at least one test game with e.g. @ValihrAnt? I'm a bit worried what effect it will have on brit and gaul.

How about increasing or decreasing the garrison capacity depending on the size of the models, what do you think?

Well, I actually thought about it when writing this patch, but I was unsure by how much, or whether it's desirable; being able to garrison rams with fewer swordsmen seems a clear disadvantage.

I'm not sure about metal reduction, I think it can make spam easier and we have some problems with rams vs spear / pike, so I would keep the value of 200 for metal.

I lowered the metal value because rams are a lot less effective in A24 than they were in A23, and because rams are much more expensive than the structures they're supposed to raze (walls and towers). But if you think keeping 200 is better, I can do that, of course; or 150?

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/template_unit_siege_ram.xml
44

A good question. I'm not entirely sure how the <Looter> (which is used by a few auras) works, therefore I kept these <Loot> lines just in case, since they're not present in template_unit.xml (possibly to prevent getting resource loot from animals).

Freagarach added inline comments.Jan 11 2021, 11:50 AM
binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/template_unit_siege_ram.xml
44

It just loops over all resources, checks which has a non-zero loot (assuming zero as default) and adds carrying resources.

Nescio added inline comments.Jan 11 2021, 11:51 AM
binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/template_unit_siege_ram.xml
44

<Loot> or <Looter>?

Freagarach added inline comments.Jan 11 2021, 11:54 AM
binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/template_unit_siege_ram.xml
44

Both ;)

Nescio updated this revision to Diff 15121.Jan 11 2021, 12:45 PM
Nescio edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
  • restore ram's 200 metal cost, per @borg-
  • remove 0 loot lines, per @Freagarach
  • standardize loot of other siege engines
Owners added a subscriber: Restricted Owners Package.Jan 11 2021, 12:45 PM

Build is green

builderr-debug-macos.txt
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreAudio.framework/CoreAudio.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreAudio.framework/CoreAudio are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//AudioToolbox.framework/AudioToolbox.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//AudioToolbox.framework/AudioToolbox are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//ForceFeedback.framework/ForceFeedback.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//ForceFeedback.framework/ForceFeedback are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stub file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreVideo.framework/CoreVideo.tbd and library file /System/Library/Frameworks//CoreVideo.framework/CoreVideo are out of sync. Falling back to library file for linking.
ld: warning: text-based stu

See https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/2758/display/redirect for more details.

borg- added a comment.Jan 12 2021, 3:48 AM

Before you accept, do you think you could do at least one test game with e.g. @ValihrAnt? I'm a bit worried what effect it will have on brit and gaul.

Yes, in fact this can be a problem for civilizations that only have rams. We can use conservative values like 5% / 10% / 15% for cost, health and speed. They are much safer values and still maintain a noticeable difference between the units.

+5% health seems rather inconsequential. I suppose one could add +5% attack damage as well, but then we get the same problem.
This patch needs feedback from more people, so I'd say keep it for A25.

Nescio planned changes to this revision.Jan 13 2021, 4:38 PM
borg- added a comment.Jan 13 2021, 4:41 PM

+5% health seems rather inconsequential. I suppose one could add +5% attack damage as well, but then we get the same problem.
This patch needs feedback from more people, so I'd say keep it for A25.

I can agree with that. We can for a25 to differentiate between civilizations, units status, buildings etc...

Palaxin added a subscriber: Palaxin.EditedJan 16 2021, 11:07 PM

I like the intention of this patch.
However, 7 different classes of rams seems a bit too much to me. I'd rather suggest having three classes of rams:

  • light ram with -25% cost/health (-20% if too much of a nerf) and +10% speed
  • medium ram unchanged
  • heavy ram with +25% cost/health (+20%) and -10% speed

That way you would have noticeable/impactful differences between the different types of rams as well as diversity that still can be memorized without too much effort.

We could also think of ram specific techs (0-2 per civ, on average 1 per civ) that mitigates the civ-specific weaknesses or enhance the strengths.

I like the intention of this patch.

Thanks. I'm not entirely sure I like it myself, though.
Currently kush, pers, rome rams have +20% attack damage, so effectively we already have two groups. Those of mace, maur, ptol, sele could stay as is (and be the “medium” group), while the athen, brit, cart, gaul, iber, spart rams are visibly smaller and could share a discount and damage or health reduction.
The main concern is that most of the civs in the small group rely on rams, so even a reduction of 15% might already be too much, I simply don't know.

I like the intention of this patch.

Thanks. I'm not entirely sure I like it myself, though.
Currently kush, pers, rome rams have +20% attack damage, so effectively we already have two groups. Those of mace, maur, ptol, sele could stay as is (and be the “medium” group), while the athen, brit, cart, gaul, iber, spart rams are visibly smaller and could share a discount and damage or health reduction.

Following realism, I'd adjust both health and damage.
However, distinguishing by health alone seems to be the choice for a clean gameplay design.

The main concern is that most of the civs in the small group rely on rams, so even a reduction of 15% might already be too much, I simply don't know.

I don't see a problem if the cost is lowered accordingly. When preparing a siege, you would simply build a few more rams with these civs having a comparable force at a comparable cost. Additionally, if the weaker rams have a smaller actor, pathfinding should be easier for them. Or are their pathfinding capabilites independent?

Following realism, I'd adjust both health and damage.
However, distinguishing by health alone seems to be the choice for a clean gameplay design.

Yes, the idea is a health modification and a removal of the damage increase.

I don't see a problem if the cost is lowered accordingly. When preparing a siege, you would simply build a few more rams with these civs having a comparable force at a comparable cost.

They have the same population cost.

Additionally, if the weaker rams have a smaller actor, pathfinding should be easier for them. Or are their pathfinding capabilites independent?

Obstructions and footprints are two different things. For pathfinding, there are just four flavours: default, large, ship, and small ship (see simulation/data/pathfinder.xml).

Palaxin added a comment.EditedJan 17 2021, 9:03 PM

They have the same population cost.

What about the following, then:

light rammedium ramheavy ram
pop cost234
other cost66.7%100%133.3%
health80%100%120%
damage80%100%120%

Probably garrison capacity should be adjusted as well.

With a 2:4 pop cost range, I would both change health and damage as well, a 1:2 hp ratio but no difference in damage seems a bit unrealistic...

Obstructions and footprints are two different things. For pathfinding, there are just four flavours: default, large, ship, and small ship (see simulation/data/pathfinder.xml).

Ah, yes, I remember, thanks! So having more rams would be a small handicap then...