Page MenuHomeWildfire Games

[gameplay] Rework attack forge techs
ClosedPublic

Authored by Nescio on Jan 15 2021, 3:52 AM.

Details

Summary

This patch is a follow-up to D3287/rP24604.

  • Currently, there are eight attack technologies available at the forge: infantry/cavalry melee/ranged town/city. This patch merges the cavalry and infantry technologies to have technologies affecting all soldiers, as was already done for resistance, making the situation simpler and more flexible (e.g. if camels would no longer be cavalry they would still benefit).
    • Elephants are excluded from the melee technologies, because of their very high base damage.
  • The damage increases are reduced from 20% to 15%, making them still a bit better than their resistance counterparts.
  • The melee attack technologies cost only food and metal (cf. hack resistance technologies) and the ranged attack technologies cost only wood and metal (cf. pierce resistance technologies).
  • Their total costs have been reduced.
  • The town phase technologies stay at 40 s each, the city phase technologies go to 60 s (also for resistance technologies).
  • New names and descriptions for the ranged attack technologies.

Initial patch by @borg-, rebased and updated by @Nescio.

Test Plan

Check mistakes.

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- created this revision.Jan 15 2021, 3:52 AM
borg- requested review of this revision.Jan 15 2021, 3:52 AM
borg- updated this revision to Diff 15319.Jan 15 2021, 3:55 AM
borg- edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
Freagarach set the repository for this revision to rP 0 A.D. Public Repository.Jan 15 2021, 7:24 AM

I don't have a particular opinion to be honest. I think it makes some sense to merge those (particularly at the forge), and yes I guess it makes it slightly easier while mostly keeping the strategic value.

The reduction from +20% to +15% seems OK.

I would say I'm probably alright with this, I'll wait and see a few days if other people disagree.

The concept is acceptable, I'm not sure merging the cavalry and infantry technologies is strictly necessary, but it won't harm.
The reduction in attack damage is fine by me; +15% is slighlty better than +1 resistance.
However, I think three resource types per technology is unnecessary, I'd prefer it if the ranged technologies would cost wood and metal and the melee technologies food and metal, like was already done for the resistance technologies. I'll leave finding appropiate numbers up to you.
As for the file names, I'd appreciate it if they were renamed to soldier_attack_melee_01.json etc.

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/attack_melee_01.json
19 ↗(On Diff #15319)

["Soldier !Elephant"]
(excludes champion elephants)

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/attack_melee_02.json
20 ↗(On Diff #15319)

["Soldier !Elephant"]
(excludes champion elephants)

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/attack_ranged_01.json
19 ↗(On Diff #15319)

["Soldier"]
(includes elephant archers)

binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/technologies/attack_ranged_02.json
20 ↗(On Diff #15319)

["Soldier"]
(includes elephant archers)

borg- added a comment.Jan 17 2021, 1:07 PM

Tnx feedback. The big problem in a23 is that these techs are very expensive, so if you choose ranged infantry as a target for your first upgrade for example, you probably won't have the resources to switch to target afterwards. I know I'm asking you a lot, but I'm still far from home, so if you want, you can take care of this patch for me.

borg- updated this revision to Diff 15496.Jan 19 2021, 2:00 AM

Changes by @Nescio

wraitii added a comment.EditedJan 19 2021, 8:28 AM

I think those techs are too expensive for Town Phase, to be honest. 15% attack bonus is good, but the resource cost is at least equivalent to 10 more units, which will probably make more of a difference in town phase. Given the metal/wood cost, I can't see anybody researching those before going City, since champions are a better upgrade and are basically cheaper to get at that point.

I would probably lower the costs overall a bit, and lower the town phase cost so it's about 50% of the city phase one, and you can actually consider picking it instead of going City phase.

(let me know if you disagree with that reasoning)


Edit: you write in the summary The values are higher than the current ones for obvious reasons., I'd like to know this obvious reasons then :P

borg- added a comment.EditedJan 19 2021, 12:58 PM

Edit: you write in the summary The values are higher than the current ones for obvious reasons., I'd like to know this obvious reasons then :P

In a23 we have 8 technologies that are reduced to 4 in this patch, so now you need only 2 to have the same effect as 4 in a23, since they simultaneously affect cavalry and infantry.

Research is now much more important in phase 2 as it gives you the advantage for both units. I search for a23 armor in phase 2, which costs 1000 wood and 350 metal so it doesn't seem bad the patch values for attack.

ValihrAnt added a subscriber: ValihrAnt.EditedJan 19 2021, 1:13 PM

What about having 3 levels of upgrades? Currently getting any military upgrades in Phase 2 is unfeasible because they cost so much. Having 3 levels of upgrades, with 2 available in Phase 2 with scaling cost but not bonus. So say 300F +150W for the first upgrade and a 10% attack bonus. Second upgrade costing 450F + 250M for another 10% attack bonus and so on. It would also allow to withhold upgrades from some civilizations, depending on what they historically excelled at, without hurting them as much.

In regards to the changes in this patch I'm not the biggest fan. The costs are so much higher that it's going to be near impossible to re-tech into a different unit type and will hurt players trying to field armies of different unit types.

There is no strong reason to stick with what was done in the past, we should simply consider what's fair in the current situation.
I agree with @wraitii the numbers seem rather high. Also, the cost difference is rather small, I'd prefer it if the city phase technologies are 50% more expensive than their town phase counterparts.

Also, I'm in favour of having smaller, cheaper technologies; an alternative could be to have separate technologies for archers, javelineers, spearmen, etc. rather than grouping melee and ranged together.

What about having 3 levels of upgrades? Currently getting any military upgrades in Phase 2 is unfeasible because they cost so much. Having 3 levels of upgrades, with 2 available in Phase 2 with scaling cost but not bonus. So say 300F +150W for the first upgrade and a 10% attack bonus. Second upgrade costing 450F + 250M for another 10% attack bonus and so on. It would also allow to withhold upgrades from some civilizations, depending on what they historically excelled at, without hurting them as much.

I think this is a good compromise in the current situation. Maybe 2 city-phase tech rather than 2 two-phase techs, with the intermediate one being a choice between "champions" or "upgrade", since champions must be unlocked too.

borg- added a comment.Jan 19 2021, 2:41 PM

I find the proposed ideas interesting, however for a25. I think the proposal of the patch is better than the current situation, it is cleaner, simpler and easier to understand. I can decrease the cost for town phase, what do you think?

In D3366#151626, @borg- wrote:

I find the proposed ideas interesting, however for a25. I think the proposal of the patch is better than the current situation, it is cleaner, simpler and easier to understand. I can decrease the cost for town phase, what do you think?

Would work for me.

borg- added a comment.Jan 19 2021, 4:36 PM
In D3366#151626, @borg- wrote:

I find the proposed ideas interesting, however for a25. I think the proposal of the patch is better than the current situation, it is cleaner, simpler and easier to understand. I can decrease the cost for town phase, what do you think?

Would work for me.

1000/500 seems better for you? Some suggestion?

Or you could just keep the current cavalry and infantry technologies for now but make them more affordable.

borg- updated this revision to Diff 15545.Jan 19 2021, 10:52 PM

Cost reduction suggested by @wraitii

Feldfeld accepted this revision.Jan 20 2021, 8:46 AM
Feldfeld added a subscriber: Feldfeld.

I like this patch because it goes well with the defense upgrades rework that is already in, and it will not (or at least, less) lock players into an army composition they invested in (like they can switch from cav to infantry and vice versa if they have to)
That said the first technology might be a bit expensive but I think it's an improvement.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jan 20 2021, 8:46 AM
wraitii added a comment.EditedJan 20 2021, 10:32 AM

Mh, I agree that the cost remains rather high. I think I'd rather see 50% of the city-phase cost, i.e. 600/400, and I think it might be more balanced to lower the wood cost (mercs now cost only F/M, so the higher wood cost penalises citizen soldiers usage).
Somebody who would want to use this in town phase needs to get more than the equivalent trained units, and even that reduced cost is 12 spearmen / 7 Mercenaries / 6 Cav / 5 merc Cav. 15% additions damage matches that only if you have 80/45/40/33 units respectively, which is a lot of units for town phase.

In city phase it gets comparatively much more interesting, because champions are more expensive. Likewise, this tech is more worth getting if you're going into Cav now because it cavalry is costlier. Maybe to offset that it should be +20% for infantry and %15% for cavalry?

I guess right now that places it as a specialist technology for defence when booming, since it might give an edge, and you're probably not making mercenaries then.


Edit: I reckon this probably remains an improvement on SVN though, so if there are no changes today I'll merge as-is I think.

Their costs still seem really high. For comparison:

soldier_resistance_hack_01   : 400 food, 400 metal, 40 s, town phase
soldier_resistance_hack_02   : 600 food, 600 metal, 40 s, city phase
soldier_resistance_pierce_01 : 400 wood, 400 metal, 40 s, town phase
soldier_resistance_pierce_02 : 600 wood, 600 metal, 40 s, city phase

And yes, I know it's a different game, but Age of Mythology had comparable technologies:

copper weapons: 200 food, 200 gold, 30 s, classical age
bronze weapons: 300 food, 300 gold, 40 s, heroic age
iron weapons  : 600 food, 600 gold, 50 s, mythic age
copper mail   : 150 food, 150 gold, 30 s, classical age
bronze mail   : 300 food, 200 gold, 40 s, heroic age
iron mail     : 500 food, 500 gold, 50 s, mythic age
copper shields: 150 wood, 150 gold, 30 s, classical age
bronze shields: 300 wood, 200 gold, 40 s, heroic age
iron shields  : 500 wood, 400 gold, 50 s, mythic age

The weapons technologies were more expensive in that game because buildings benefitted from them too.

How can it be expensive? in alpha23 you need approximately 2500 resources to have 20% attack for melee cavalry and infantry, with patch cost 1400 town and 2000 city.

In D3366#151993, @borg- wrote:

How can it be expensive? in alpha23 you need approximately 2500 resources to have 20% attack for melee cavalry and infantry, with patch cost 1400 town and 2000 city.

It was absurdly expensive in A23, but it's still too expensive in absolute terms in the patch I think.

(as written above, nonetheless better)

They're a bit better than the resistance technologies, so I would recommend making them only a bit more expensive than those, e.g.

soldier_attack_melee_01 : 600 food, 400 metal, 40 s, town phase
soldier_attack_melee_02 : 900 food, 600 metal, 40 s, city phase
soldier_attack_ranged_01: 600 wood, 400 metal, 40 s, town phase
soldier_attack_ranged_02: 900 wood, 600 metal, 40 s, city phase

I can't update for the next 12 hours, so @Nescio can commander this patch if necessary?

Nescio commandeered this revision.Jan 20 2021, 2:26 PM
Nescio added a reviewer: borg-.
wraitii updated this revision to Diff 15566.Jan 20 2021, 2:28 PM
wraitii edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)

Update with lower costs. Went with 600-400 then 1000-700

Owners added a subscriber: Restricted Owners Package.Jan 20 2021, 2:28 PM

Build is green

builderr-debug-macos.txt
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/ranlib: file: ../../../binaries/system/libsimulation2_dbg.a(precompiled.o) has no symbols
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/ranlib: file: ../../../binaries/system/libengine_dbg.a(precompiled.o) has no symbols
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/ranlib: file: ../../../binaries/system/libatlas_dbg.a(precompiled.o) has no symbols
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/ranlib: file: ../../../binaries/system/libgui_dbg.a(precompiled.o) has no symbols
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/Framew

See https://jenkins.wildfiregames.com/job/macos-differential/2987/display/redirect for more details.

Nescio updated this revision to Diff 15565.Jan 20 2021, 2:37 PM
Nescio edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
Nescio removed rP 0 A.D. Public Repository as the repository for this revision.
  • properly move files
  • reduced their costs, per @wraitii and @ValihrAnt
  • city phase technologies to 60 s (also resistance)
  • new names and descriptions for ranged technologies
Nescio updated this revision to Diff 15569.Jan 20 2021, 2:40 PM

(sorry 'bout double-work there, but I think you did a better job than me :P ).

I'm not sure about the cost of the city phase tech yet tbh, I went slightly higher than you did but meh.

borg- accepted this revision.Jan 20 2021, 2:45 PM

I can accept new values.
Tnx @Nescio

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/2990/display/redirect for more details.

Nescio edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Jan 20 2021, 3:01 PM
Nescio removed a subscriber: Restricted Owners Package.
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Owners added a subscriber: Restricted Owners Package.Jan 20 2021, 3:23 PM