As reported by FeldFeld, ptol barracks cost 200 wood 200 stone and cart barracks cost 100 wood 150 stone seem not consistent with the rest of barracks which the total amount of resources cost is 300.
The actual costs refer to r15282 and seem outdated compared to the changes made since that changelog.
Details
Details
start a game and test if the changes have been applied successfully.
Diff Detail
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
Comment Actions
Build is green
Updating workspaces. Build (release)... Build (debug)... Running release tests... Running cxxtest tests (306 tests)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................OK! Running debug tests... Running cxxtest tests (306 tests)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................OK! Checking XML files...
http://jw:8080/job/phabricator/1722/ for more details.
Comment Actions
Good change, this seems to me a mistake and not a value with some justification. Im ok with new value for barrack pto.
Anyway, I think barrack for Carthage should cost only 200 (150w 50s), a bonus, because it has only 3 training units.
They also cant train champ in barracks, since it is training in temples, which already cost 100 more stone, so I think it's fair that the stall costs 100 stone less.
Comment Actions
Well remembered, there must also be this reduction of value in stone, because stable costs 200 stone.
Comment Actions
Persia has a wide choice of cavalry units to choose between in their stable which costs 200 stone and it it avsilable in phase 1. Carthage can still train mercenaries from Embassies. Probably the number of buildings you build gives more advantage than the number of units available from a single building because units can be trained in contemporary and seems that those civs incentive such strategy.
Comment Actions
Well, Carthage is op now, so I guess I'm okay with 150w, 150s.
Persia though, they're tough. The worst thing is that since the cost is all wood, you can't use some of your starting stone. The other 300w civs are Briton, Gaul, and Maurya, each of which has an eco bonus to compensate.
Having extra buildings isn't an advantage if they cost the same as regular buildings. If I want to switch from cavalry to infantry because opponent made a lot of spearmen, then my stable will go idle. Or vice-versa, and meanwhile another civ could've made two barracks for (almost) the same cost as barracks + stable, and not have any trouble switching their army composition.
So I suggest the Persian barracks cost 200w. (Their stable is 200s.)
Comment Actions
That switching between cavalry and infantry isn't convenient it is true in part, other civs like Mauryans and Celtics have access to more units investing less resources. What struggles me is that persia has access to unique techonologies which decrease cavalry or infantry training time depending from which building you use to research the "Levy xxxxxx" technology. While -20% training time but -10 hp is actually convenient for cavalry, 10% training time for -5 health isn't a big deal since the training time of infantry units (citizen soldiers at least) changes from 10 sec to 9 sec for single trained units and I'd rather consider to work on that technology more than modify the barrack cost.
Comment Actions
The tech has already been changed in D551. Of course it's nice but it takes 40s to research, and you can't build units in that time.
Other civs can use their starting stone towards their barracks, so they only have to gather 150w to build it. Persia has to gather twice as much.
Persia is really weak to me (I have them ranked second from last), so I think they could use a little help here. But maybe you have a different opinion.
Comment Actions
It would also be interesting to differentiate some civilizations from others. I'm with a project to do this for a23, I think these small differences make civilizations more unique.
Comment Actions
Agree about the ptol barracks change, that's too expensive since all others cost 300 and they can't even train champs there.
Default cost 300 wood.
athen_barracks.xml: <wood>150</wood> athen_barracks.xml: <stone>150</stone> cart_barracks.xml: <wood>100</wood> cart_barracks.xml: <stone>150</stone> iber_barracks.xml: <wood>100</wood> iber_barracks.xml: <stone>200</stone> mace_barracks.xml: <wood>150</wood> mace_barracks.xml: <stone>150</stone> ptol_barracks.xml: <wood>200</wood> ptol_barracks.xml: <stone>200</stone> rome_barracks.xml: <wood>100</wood> rome_barracks.xml: <stone>200</stone> sele_barracks.xml: <wood>150</wood> sele_barracks.xml: <stone>150</stone> spart_barracks.xml: <wood>150</wood> spart_barracks.xml: <stone>150</stone>
About the trainable units:
brit_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_infantry_barracks
brit_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_cavalry_barracks
gaul_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_infantry_barracks
gaul_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_cavalry_barracks
iber_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_infantry_barracks
iber_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_cavalry_barracks
mace_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_infantry_a_barracks
mace_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_cavalry_barracks
maur_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_infantry_barracks
maur_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_maiden_barracks
rome_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_infantry_barracks
rome_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_cavalry_barracks
spart_barracks.xml: units/{civ}_champion_infantry_swordTo me it seems like Rome could use 150w / 150s cost too, but not that important.
Considering that almost every barracks costs stone and that hurts early on, a thought would be to add 50 stone cost for celtic civs and mauryans.
On the other hand, most of their stuff is made from wood (in particular mauryan walls).
On the other other hand, civic centers have the same price for these civs too.
Agree that having 200 stone costs for the persian stables seems too much. 100/100 seems better. Doesn't have to be 300 in the sum IMO, but possible.
Comment Actions
Stable costing 100w/100s not an advantage, it is a disadvantage. Wood is much more important at beginning of game.
I prefer make barrack 150w 150s than 300w, i think persian and cartage barrack must be 200w only.
Comment Actions
Actually having a barrack costing 150 wood and 150 stone is an advantage for those civs who can't train slingers at phase 1 because they can save a significant amount of wood to invest into houses or defensive units / buildings (sentry defense tower) while civs relying on slingers (available for athene and britons only) will indeed benefit from barracks costing wood only since 10x slingers only require 200 wood and 300 stone.
Persian stable cost is fine to 200 stone, perhaps having barracks costing 200 wood and 100 stone will let them train infantry units at cheaper wood cost without to change the total amount.
Britons can train slingers and save wood for military or economy technologies with ease and can even build a lot of barracks (wood is the most common resource) and speed up the growth, perhaps 200 wood 100 stone cost for Celtic barracks and eventually 200 wood and 100 stone for temples would be nice.
Mauryans don't have any stone costing unit and perhaps keeping their barracks cost to 300 wood would incentive players to consider worker elephants as a valid way to save wood players would invest into early wood cutting and wicker basket technologies, thus i'd even propose to move elephants stable to phase 1 for such purpose.
Rome barracks could cost 150 wood and 150 stone.
Ptolemis barracks for 100 wood and 200 stone means that ptol players will be able to train less slingers and train more mercenaries consuming metal if they want to speed up their army growth.
Perhaps iber barracks could cost 150 wood and 150 stone since those don't differ from other barracks and there are other buildings with an high cost of stone.
Comment Actions
This is backwards, because everyone starts with 300 stone and they can use that towards the barracks (since units only cost food and wood and you build a barracks before towers, etc.). Later on when you want to build more barracks then having an all-wood cost is better, because wood is faster to gather than stone. But early on it's the other way around.
I can't speak to historical reasons why some barracks should be wood or stone. For consistency, I'd like most of them to be 150w, 150s, so people can build two barracks with their starting stone if they choose. (Why would some be 100w, 200s?) But I'm okay with 300w for Celt/Maurya because that helps offset their early eco advantages.
Maybe the easiest solution is to have both Carthage and Persia at 150w, 150s too. It's true they can only make three units from their barracks rather than five or six like every other civ, but on the other hand they get to build the cheaper stables and embassies (200 total resources instead of 300). In this case I think the Persian stables should be changed to 100w, 100s so that they can build barracks + stables with their starting stone.
Comment Actions
We are not finetuning barracks for the firt 6 minutes, are we?
To get to age 3, the player will have to gather the stone instead of the wood, and wood is gathered 50% faster than stone (0.75 vs 0.5 gather rate).
If you build more than one barracks, that does hurt, doesn't it?
In late game, stone can become rare and then having solely wood cost can become an advantage.
If stone is not rare, the gather rate still makes a significant difference.
Anyway I do agree with the proposed patch conforming cost to 300.
Comment Actions
Indeed i think that ptol barrack cost rebalance was needed
About carth, persia, and stone/wood cost, i think first that the balance between stone/wood isn't really important, as elexis said, there is middle and late game too. Stone that was used in p1 is missing in p2 to make slingers/stone building + age up. 300 wood barrack is an advantage for brits with their p1 slingers, gauls and maurya save wood with their respective advantages, so the additionnal stone will be useful p2.
Now, about persia, i think that first they were one of the strongest civ in a21 (because of their army composition) and that they will still remain quite strong in a22. Their barracks doesn't give access to many units, but they give access to eco units. They can delay building a stable to make it later and only focus on eco in early game, and as their advantage isn't about early game eco, i think we should keep their barrack cost as it is. Their stable cost less res but doesn't really build eco units, and if they want to make a lot of horses, they need more stables which cost stone that is important to go p3 + buildings. As the units build in stables don't grow eco, i think it is okay to keep it as it is too. To me persia is currently well balanced.
About carthage, their less expensive barrack didn't strike me, because i found them quite weak in a21 anyway. Now that they will be better with these mercenaries, i think that their barrack should cost 300 res as any other civ. They don't give access to many units, and no access to champs, but on the other end their temple is really good as it can both heal and make champs. Their advantage isn't early game too.