+1 for the concerns I originally raised.

I would put a pin in this one until we understand the melee changes. Whatever we do should be done in conjunction with the melee changes, which are undergoing pretty big testing in the community mod. We need to make sure that rams don't die too easy or else it will become a turtle fest.

In D5206#222807, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5206#222806, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

After talking about it a little, I honestly think a fix for the OOS needs to be whipped up before we commit this. I think building the Onager with soldiers is a worthy feature and worth having it work right. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

to be honest, I would be fine with scrapping it, but if the fix isn't too hard/hacky then I would prefer the fix.

In D4964#222659, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4964#222658, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4964#222657, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4964#222656, @Stan wrote:

Oh right my bad. So it's picking a list of like 20 targets, shoots as many arrows as possible on the favourite one until it goes missing (could be dead or out of range) then moves on to the next one.

I always figured it would attack multiple units at the same time but seems it does not.

yes, exactly. One at a time is targeted.
You were very convincing though, I must admit XD.

Does that mean once a unit is targeted that the building will fire at it until it is dead or out of range? So even if another unit gets closer, the building will still target the first unit?

If so, I could see that being a problem with heroes. Heroes would absorb all arrows, which would mean no dmg to other units and would lead to heroes dying quickly. It’s an edge case but one that would be very annoying

If left alone, the building will target the closest unit until the end of a "round", so it will pretty quickly target the new closest unit. Its not like it will keep shooting the unit that was initially close until its dead. Rounds of shooting go fairly quickly, and each new round has an updated set of units which will be sorted by their new positions.

In D4964#222657, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4964#222656, @Stan wrote:

Oh right my bad. So it's picking a list of like 20 targets, shoots as many arrows as possible on the favourite one until it goes missing (could be dead or out of range) then moves on to the next one.

I always figured it would attack multiple units at the same time but seems it does not.

yes, exactly. One at a time is targeted.
You were very convincing though, I must admit XD.

You can only have one of these trickles, right? I don't think it the change from 5s to 10s matters that much. Nor do I think either is op.

In D4384#220799, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Then you would have to adjust the horse numbers and presence in different maps/biomes.

In D4384#220630, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Forced Capture hotkey now makes it possible to both capture or hunt the horses. @real_tabasco_sauce @marder @chrstgtr Does this address your concerns?

In D5190#220771, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

If this applies to ranged infantry, the skirmishers will be 14.4 m/s with the hero, which is 0.9 slower than cavalry archers and close to 2 m/s faster than naked fanatics.

In D5190#220758, @borg- wrote:

I think maybe as a civ bonus it could be more interesting. what you think guys?

In D5190#220752, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Yeah I recommend the following.

1. Apply it only for melee infantry. (potential issue with ranged infantry receiving 1.1x from the tech and 1.15x speed from the hero). It makes sense to me as well as the intimidation would be more suited for melee units.
2. Greatly reduce the cost. I think 200 food and 100 metal could work out if it comes from the CC.

In D5190#220750, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

I like the tech. Seems expensive for a Village Phase tech tho, but maybe it's worth it in some situ

In D4964#220690, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Either way, having the ability to control building arrows seems like an improvement from the current meta.

That last bit is what everyone says would be good. Personally I think it would be weird for a tower firing randomly to change behavior and pinpoint 1 unit upon user input, so better to default to shooting the nearest unit. If we did it like that anyway, we would have to balance the building's arrows both for their ability to focus fire 1 unit _and_ for the ability to shoot randomly.

In D4964#220687, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Since everyone seems to think this would be an improvement, I am willing to try and add user input to the building arrows. They would then default to the above pattern of shooting the closest unit with a preference for units, ships, then buildings. I would like to use the control for a building to attack a unit instead of drop a rally point on a unit. Possibly force attack could be used.
@Freagarach @Stan @wraitii any suggestions or tips on how to proceed? what cases I'll have to consider? Maybe what files I might need to understand and modify?

In D5188#220667, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Well the whole idea of a tech to reduce production cost is that you are investing extra resources for a long term advantage. If the upgrade cost in total resources is paid off in 5 healers, then this tech seems like a no-brainer before making any healers.
Then you have to consider how easily 300 food may be acquired compared to stone even in town phase.

In D5184#220471, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

I feel like a +10% bonus is kinda small, considering if you look at it compared to a regular attack tech, but its usefulness cut in half by it being a targeted bonus.

Compare each of the ranged attack techs which precede it:

Improved Fletching +15%
Iron Arrowheads +15%
Trilobate Arrowheads +20%

Locally, I've excluded the CitizenSoldier class, but I'm torn on the +10% bonus. If anything, considering how specific the bonuses are, they could maybe be +15%-20%.

One more thing to consider: this will be a pretty big eco buff.

In D5183#220399, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5183#220396, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Is the Civic Center or the Market the proper place for this tech?

5% is fine to me, since it is global.

In Roman territory-only is not currently possible. Only other possibility is to make it a Civic Center aura about the side of the City Phase territory radius.

I think it would be fine to let it be a global aura for the time being. If there comes a time when we can limit it to the territory, then we could also consider raising it to 10%.
I think it should come from the CC for opportunity cost reasons. Other civs also have a number of their unique techs in the CC so it would be good for the romans to have one in the CC as well.,

In D5184#220397, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5184#220395, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5184#220392, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5184#220380, @borg- wrote:

My fear is to make archers very strong. Maurya already has additional pop, along with swords and unique technology are super strong, this would make it even stronger. Maybe this technology only for champion archers?

I agree, the mauryan archer death ball is already quite strong. I wonder if it could be limited to champion archers, champion archer chariots, and elephant archers.

Agree with both.

I would also consider decreasing the buff to +10% as 15% is really huge.

Also, I wonder if anyone has suggestions for how to make steel arrows more appealing. Ele already die fast to arrows and archers aren’t great against cav because of accuracy issues.

One other option would be to change steel arrows so that it gives archer ele a buff against all units. That would help make archer ele more appealing.

If no one likes any of my suggestions, I’m fine with just limiting it to champs too

Perhaps. I have already designed a hero with a solid bonus for ele archers among other things, so ele archers probably do not need to be the sole benefactor of this bonus.

In D5184#220392, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5184#220380, @borg- wrote:

My fear is to make archers very strong. Maurya already has additional pop, along with swords and unique technology are super strong, this would make it even stronger. Maybe this technology only for champion archers?

I agree, the mauryan archer death ball is already quite strong. I wonder if it could be limited to champion archers, champion archer chariots, and elephant archers.

Sounds good to me for either 10% or 5%.

Good with me if it makes other people happy

This is an improvement from status quo but I don’t really care about it. Yes from me.

In D5177#220103, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In D5177#220101, @chrstgtr wrote:

Would also like it for rabbits too

I'll look into rabbits. Was thinking we could just make those eyecandy fauna, like the buzzards.

Would also like it for rabbits too

In D5164#219797, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

My only concern would be whether or not to replace the existing isthmus map, but it would be easy to make that later.

In D5169#219777, @Freagarach wrote:

Nice! (For the future, one might even consider a different hero per temple, where the temple has synergic bonuses with the hero it 'trains'.)

Sounds like an improvement.

In D5169#219732, @borg- wrote:

In D5169#219731, @chrstgtr wrote:

Idea looks fine to me. But maybe the temple should only be available in p3 with a longer build time. Otherwise, ptol heroes will be available very quickly available. That would undo the move to the fort, which was done to make ptol heroes harder to get.

Thanks for answering @chrstgtr
The temple is only available on p3 and has a construction time 1.5X (300 secs) longer than a normal temple.

Idea looks fine to me. But maybe the temple should only be available in p3 with a longer build time. Otherwise, ptol heroes will be available very quickly available. That would undo the move to the fort, which was done to make ptol heroes harder to get.

In rP27870#61299, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Maybe should be moved to Town Phase. Thoughts?

In D5153#219294, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In D5153#219293, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

I think if it goes in village, there should be a limit of 5 per kennel, and if it goes in town probably no need for a dynamic limiter

Makes sense. But which one do you want?

In D5141#218830, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Any other ideas for differentiation? Possibly: -25% attack, but make up for it with a a good amount of splash damage (like with Elephants).

In D5141#218769, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In D5141#218764, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

On second thought, -10% speed is kind of a lot. 18 movement speed to 16.2. Maybe just 5% will do here since the unit already costs 15 extra metal? Or maybe the thing to do would be decrease acceleration instead.

-5% speed, and slightly slower acceleration is a good alternative.

In D5125#218692, @borg- wrote:

Anything else to add @wowgetoffyourcellphone @chrstgtr @real_tabasco_sauce ?

In D5120#218627, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5120#218547, @borg- wrote:

How it works now:

Not decay in neutral/own territory
Decay in enemy territory

Is this what we want?

It is necessary to describe the decay/territory influence?

Yeah I think this is the ideal territory behavior. Now, what about hack armor? I worry that scout tower rushing could be impossible to stop for civs without slingers in p1. I think the worst civs for this would be Gauls, Macedonians, and Seleucids. Decreasing the hack armor would help with balance, so that spearmen can more easily rush down towers.

Clear to me, thanks!

Haven’t test yet but this has always been a super annoying aspect of the game.

In D5136#218405, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Likes: Moving the Champ Cav back to the Temple & Reducing cost of Colonization

Suggestion: Perhaps give a better description to what "Civic Structures" are in the Colonization tech tooltip "(Civic Centers, Temples, and Houses).

In D5118#218311, @borg- wrote:

Maybe safe numbers like food 150 and decrease research time to 20 or 30?

In D5125#218309, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5125#218306, @borg- wrote:

I think i will increase the attack, +4 of must be better.

yeah, higher attack would be good. It has to be worth the -30% grain gather rate.

In D5125#218308, @borg- wrote:

@real_tabasco_sauce @chrstgtr must request loom tech?

If so, should be searchable in houses again or one technology in the house and another in CC not a problem for you?

I think this technology should certainly be researched from the cc. In that case, I think it would be fine to not require loom.

In D5120#218226, @borg- wrote:

Just remove the root territory, this way it will act as an outpost. What do you think is better, remove or leave the root territory? The territory of a stone tower is large, you can even build a fortress.
@real_tabasco_sauce @chrstgtr

In D5129#218184, @phosit wrote:

The new Migration looks pretty much like Flood.
The difference is that the water is "chest deep".

What do you think about adding a switch to Flood, to select the water level?

In D5129#218144, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Awhile back @badosu made a mod with a map called Slopes that was totally different and unique. I loved it and thought it was the best map. But that doesn’t mean I would want to delete mainland and replace it slopes. I would want to add just a new map.

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/16242-random-maps-suggestions-bug-reports-and-ideas-about-random-maps-here/?do=findComment&comment=556445

Well I have a poll out to gauge public opinion. If enough people raise interest in keeping both maps, then I will rename the original to 'land grab' but the issue is we shouldn't let the number of maps balloon too much.

In D5118#218141, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

So @chrstgtr you think it should be lowered more? I worry that it could become a no-brainer.

In D5129#218105, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Well if you like, I could call this map 'Migration', and copy the old one, calling it 'Land grab'. Thoughts?
What i am gathering from your writing is that you strongly dislike my improvements here.

In D5118#218125, @borg- wrote:

I think the best approach would be 100 food, 20 seconds research time, and from the CC. But this patch is more of a compromise.

I think you are right here. I think 200 is too expensive and 100 is too cheap, but if it is searched in cc (20) then there is a penalty.

@chrstgtr any opnion?

In D5129#218097, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

@real_tabasco_sauce: You're proposing an entirely different meta for a map.

It needs one clearly. I haven't seen it played in the lobby for over 6 months, and I don't recall ever having an enjoyable experience on it. The way I have designed this map should allow for a lot more ways to play it. Much more than the current setup.
Currently, you have to immdiately bail your island, there's too much land to fight over (just becomes mainland w/ nomad), and often the water battles dominate the outcome of the game one way or another.
I mean look at these screenshots of the status quo XD

After looking at the before and after, there is basically not a doubt in my mind. I have made some divisive patches before, but this is just a 100% W.

In D5129#218094, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5129#218093, @phosit wrote:

Because the bottleneck is stone/mettal instead of wood the migration will take place later.
IMO It's more interesting when the migration takes place early. Because players are be in p1 they can't build anything on the mainland and their recidence is more volatile.
Also in late game there can be markets and the player aren't forced (that much) to migrate.

Doesn't this map with this diff play like any other naval map: build a eco on the home-island, move many troops at once to another island to conquer it? Without this patch this map might play like Continent in nomad mode. (I don't think so because the food-eco is "protected" on the home island.)

This points aren't a big concern. You know much more about gameplay then me.

I hate to bring in aoe2, but look at the dynamic here (you can even tell by just looking at the minimap):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBncTbor99M
Currently players are forced out of their islands too early, while it should be flexible and strategic when you go to the middle. Going early makes it harder for the enemy to shake your hold on the middle, going late means you have a slight edge economically, untill your home resources run out. The long term game is determined by the middle continent.

In D5120#217903, @borg- wrote:

@chrstgtr @real_tabasco_sauce @wowgetoffyourcellphone

What is preferable, fortress p3 neutral, fortress p2 neutral (maybe increase cost to balance) or tower p2 neutral?

In D5120#217887, @Freagarach wrote:

I'll continu the discussion here. What I meant to say was that for constructing towers in neutral territory you'd probably search for a description like the brochs: "Defensive structures (...) that dotted the rest of the islands." from Wikipedia. (IMHO you can bend the historical justification a bit.) My concern for this patch is that the history in the civ.json talks about large towers and so it doesn't match the effect. Change the history and there's no problem anymore. ;P

In D3407#217536, @borg- wrote:

@real_tabasco_sauce @chrstgtr any opinion about this? Because only for seleucides is it different? If it stays as it is, then it should go to civ bonus?

In D5116#217522, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

It's true, I guess you could heal the units while they gather wood for eco. That would be pretty nuts on top of the fact the kush get those pyramids. Maybe best to leave as is.

In D5116#217520, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

I think it would still be OP. Being able to quickly heal a half dead raiding force sounds very very strong. Stone is still easy to gather in p1.

It would be very strong, but as OP as the maury elephant hunting? Or camel rush? I think strong but not as good as these.

In D5116#217512, @borg- wrote:

If it works well, I think an attack for druids can be interesting, especially to buff nearby melee units. Something close to a rank 1 conventional sword unit?

In D5116#217416, @borg- wrote:

I think I expressed myself poorly. I mean, giving the druids a aura where it decreases the cost/research time of technologies in general, like each druid -1% cost of technologies, or an same aura (range) for the temple, with the same function.

In D5117#217472, @borg- wrote:

Available in the village phase would it be bad? Maybe it can change the beginning of the game of cartage and bring some new things.

In D5117#217440, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

@chrstgtr the apartments are 20 pop each.

In D5117#217436, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5117#217433, @borg- wrote:

My original idea was to make it an upgrade of the normal house. that way I think it would be much more usable. i would make the upgrade cost like 175 wood. More expensive than one each but you don't need to move a unit to build it.

If the upgrade should make up the cost of the apartment then upgrading existing houses would be 75 wood and 50 stone? Since nobody has to build it, should the upgrade cost be 100 wood and 50 stone?

Keep skirm and at least one of the melee cav. I’m indifferent between keeping 1 or 2 of the melee cav.

In D5109#217417, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

It seems that historically, the unit was dissolved after the reforms. So I think I'll remove this unit. What about the cavalry? I think the consular bodyguards should stay, but what about the CS cavalry? @chrstgtr thoughts here? Maybe just one of them?

In D5116#217414, @borg- wrote:

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, can you be more specific? my English is bad.

I would make it an automatic aura for units within X meters. Too many techs is clunky and less likely to be used (a delay or won’t be used or at all).

In D5109#217395, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5109#217380, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5109#217367, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

What do you all think? @chrstgtr as well.

Seems fine. I don’t think it’ll be a huge change for most games but it might make rome harder to rebuild if they somehow lose their base in late game. But hard to know without testing. On that, this might be an item that makes more sense to try out in the community mod because it is so different.

Well, a lot of other civs received rather ambitious differentiation passes, so I would think it fine to add alongside the other differentiations, as long as there will be time to test these in an RC. Things have been very slow recently with the community mod, perhaps owing to vacation time.

But yeah you are right. The idea here is that rome becomes more of a dedicated professional army, so much of the citizen soldier capability is reduced. Over time, with the skirm/women eco susceptible to raiding, the roman economy should no longer be able to support legionaries and champions and would crumble.
To emphasize this point, I could add something like citizen soldiers -15% damage, if you think that is necessary for balance.

In D5109#217367, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

What do you all think? @chrstgtr as well.

In D5112#217334, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

That's not true. A Brits/Gauls build literally looked different than other civs and Brits/Gauls would play differently than other civs. You would make more storehouses because it gave you extra pop, which changed your eco efficiency (walking distance) and make you research techs at different times (carry tech became less important and wood chopping tech might become affordable sooner or later depending on how many storehouses you build). You would make extra farmhouses to get faraway hunt/berries because it would give you an extra 2 pop, which makes a big difference when rushing with 10 vs 12 cav at min 5. You would purposely build less houses in mid game because you knew that doing so would be a waste of wood since you'd know that barracks/storehouses in late game would get you to pop cap anyways. Losing border skirmishes/rushes would become more painful because losing storehouses would mean you both lose your way to drop off res and some of you pop cap.

Right, and what you are describing could be described as a percent modifier on existing gameplay.
These are all build orders and strategies players already do, its just that they are easier if other buildings give you pop. Like for example since you get 2 pop to build a farmstead, players feel that it is more worthwhile to place them for distant hunt. However, every point you mentioned there can be said for something like buildings -20% cost, which a blanket buff. So, something like +2 pop space for all buildings is a blanket buff and is not super interesting. At best it will lead to slight variations to existing strategies. The main thing is that its really strong.

Also, it would be OP to now do this for all buildings like you suggested on top of all the other content rome will be getting. We have to keep things balanced or else it will be quite a chore to rebalance the release candidate.

In D5112#217331, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Disagree--I definitely had different build orders for brits/gauls that took advantage of to pop bonus associated with other buildings. It changed the way I did eco and the way I would prep rushes.

I could see the barracks giving 4 pop making a difference, but +2 pop for all buildings is just a general buff and wouldn't make for any different strategies. Yeah it would change the way you do eco but the change would just be better eco (delayed need for houses and fewer houses needed). I would hardly call that a different strategy.

In D5112#217324, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5112#217323, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5112#217321, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5112#217312, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5112#217311, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

It is cool and unique, so why not lean more strongly into the roman houses being unique, rather than the other buildings? Roman houses +2 population bonus to give them 12 pop each.

I think this is really boring to be honest. It doesn't do anything to change strategy--it just makes Roman houses better. It also isn't particularly unique.

I guess it isn't all that interesting, so I feel like going more into the techs would be cooler.
But tbh, if the bonus is for all buildings, what interesting builds are u gonna do? 20 storehouses to get 40 extra pop? Giving the pop bonus to all buildings doesn't really change strategy either.

It changes build orders. See a23 Brit’s/Gauls. Make a ton of barracks and makes rush available much quicker. Also makes you much more likely to invest in other eco buildings, which makes the eco quicker/easier to restart eco, happens with rushes

No it just made brits and gauls way stronger in general. Like just OP. And thats also because it was 4 pop. not 2. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2841
There is no way that as romans u are going to build a barracks much sooner than normal for 2 pop. Also no way they you will get 3 barracks to make a rush more available. Far more influential here would be training women without FF. Imagine u can keep training eco from houses while getting spear cav from the CC early on this could begin at like 1 and a half or 2 minutes.

In D5112#217321, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5112#217312, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5112#217311, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

It is cool and unique, so why not lean more strongly into the roman houses being unique, rather than the other buildings? Roman houses +2 population bonus to give them 12 pop each.

I think this is really boring to be honest. It doesn't do anything to change strategy--it just makes Roman houses better. It also isn't particularly unique.

I guess it isn't all that interesting, so I feel like going more into the techs would be cooler.
But tbh, if the bonus is for all buildings, what interesting builds are u gonna do? 20 storehouses to get 40 extra pop? Giving the pop bonus to all buildings doesn't really change strategy either.

In D5112#217313, @borg- wrote:

Maybe +4 pop bonus per house but remove pop techs?

In D5112#217311, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

It is cool and unique, so why not lean more strongly into the roman houses being unique, rather than the other buildings? Roman houses +2 population bonus to give them 12 pop each.

I don't know if I understand your question, but the 50% health aura is only for agis.

If you agree with the patch idea, please accept.

In D5112#217237, @borg- wrote:

+2 bonus pop for military and economy buildings.

I like the idea.

In D5112#217189, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Maybe have the females unlocked with Town Phase or something, which essentially makes it free since Town Phase is a tech you will research as quickly as possible anyway.

The patch gives CCs and houses a +20% population bonus and can train women in houses without needing to research tech.

In D5053#217074, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Would 1 meter be noticeable by players?

Nice work, all.

In D5096#216886, @borg- wrote:

@Freagarach is there any way to limit aura just for Macedonia?

@real_tabasco_sauce @chrstgtr if possible, are you okay with limiting the aura to Macedonia only, or should the civilization you capture get the new aura?
I mean, if we limit it to Macedonia only, when capturing a Macedonian barracks/stable, you don't have the default aura and you don't have the new aura either.

Seems worth trying to me.

In D3727#215718, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

I think that would be too much of a hassle to manage. I think we should try to keep features elegant.

In D4736#214919, @borg- wrote:

@chrstgtr opnion?

Think it makes sense to test in community mod and then address with required adjustments, if there are any. A change this big will need lots of play testing

In D5053#214836, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

yes, increasing splash area rapidly makes the splash stronger. So by limiting the area to 1, the snowball effect is pretty much capped. I can't remember what the area was in a23, but I am sure it was larger.

I’m generally fine with the idea of splash dmg.

I’m generally fine with the idea of splash dmg.

In D5008#214554, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

@chrstgtr @borg- would you both be open to ele friendly fire if catapults had splash with friendly fire as well? Or would you want both of these splashes to not have friendly fire?

In D5008#214061, @Feldfeld wrote:

That's to reflect the fact that sometimes elephants could run amok and kill friend or foes alike, I believe.

What you're saying generally makes sense to me.

Agree, should have minimal impact on gameplay and it'll look better.

In D5008#213651, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D5008#213650, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D5008#213627, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

even with this nerf, 10 eles still beat 30 champ swords with full forge upgrades. (same pop, 5500 res vs 6600).
That being said, they lose to large numbers of ranged units handily as just over 50 fully upgraded skirms are required to take down 10 big eles.
I am thinking either reducing hack splash further to 15 or a small decrease in hp would be ideal.

Haven't gotten to test, but this sounds crazy strong. Ele are champ, but they shouldn't be a super melee champ killer. It really takes away any incentive to build melee champ against an ele civ. I am generally fine with ele being able to manhandle CS melee, but right now it sounds like they're just a better version of melee champ that only some civs have.

Can you make ele more effective against CS but less effective against champ (like how spear get a bonus against cav)?

Well the main reason skirms do better here is because they do more damage than champ swordsmen and because they can all shoot at a distance. So the root cause is how strong ranged units are at the moment in-comparison to melee,
The way things work out now is that eles are great against melee and are somewhat vulnerable to ranged units. Its not that bad of a meta as long as the unit isn't always OP. That is where I expect things will be with this update.
I could decrease hack armor or increase pierce armor if the outcomes are still concerning.

In D5008#213627, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

even with this nerf, 10 eles still beat 30 champ swords with full forge upgrades. (same pop, 5500 res vs 6600).
That being said, they lose to large numbers of ranged units handily as just over 50 fully upgraded skirms are required to take down 10 big eles.
I am thinking either reducing hack splash further to 15 or a small decrease in hp would be ideal.

In D4964#211587, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

"Because targetUnits is filled in order of proximity, it makes a lot of sense to just use an array."
Well, after testing, this is true. However, since the order is taken when the units arrive at the area, the closest unit remains the "closest unit" even if it is moved far away. I am thinking "targetUnits" will need to be refilled every 2 seconds. I am not sure how this would effect performance.

In D4964#211535, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4964#211534, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4964#211533, @chrstgtr wrote:

I’m a no for the reasons stated in the forum thread. (I would be a yes in the community mod to experiment). No need to rehash debate here.

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/106469-non-random-buildingai/

Mainly for the fort vs tower differentiation with respect to overkill right? Feel free to suggest changes, for instance, I can increase the ungarrisoned arrows of forts while decreasing the max arrows of CCs.

Honestly, I think I am conceptually opposed. Big part of it is overkill. This would be helpful against 1 unit at the rate of fire whereas before it was helpful against a lot of units (albeit, that helpfulness could also translate into 0 kills) but the prior system could kill many, many units in a short period of time. The prior system also introduced multiple variables when a player would have to decide whether or not to pushback (health of units and number of units) whereas the proposal makes it a single a variable calculation (just the number of units). I also like the overlapping CCs, forts, and towers "issue" because that encourages more strategic building (even if you dislike this, I think more sense to modify the towers themselves than change the AI).

I don't think your suggested examples are relevant because your proposed system really discourages garrisoning more than a few units (because of the overkill issue). Changing the number of ungarrisoned arrows is beyond the scope of this imo.

One suggestion I do have is that you should increase the dmg of forts, towers, CCs to compensate for lower accuracy. Otherwise, something like a sentry tower will be pretty useless because they will keep missing (warning: this could still be unhelpful and make sentry towers like skirm cav in a21).

I'm not trying to hijack or hold the process hostage. Do what you will, but that's just my opinion (and of some others). I don't know if I right or if you are right (and I don't think we can know until it's extensively played with), which is why I suggest it for community mod

In D4964#211534, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4964#211533, @chrstgtr wrote:

I’m a no for the reasons stated in the forum thread. (I would be a yes in the community mod to experiment). No need to rehash debate here.

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/106469-non-random-buildingai/

Mainly for the fort vs tower differentiation with respect to overkill right? Feel free to suggest changes, for instance, I can increase the ungarrisoned arrows of forts while decreasing the max arrows of CCs.

I’m a no for the reasons stated in the forum thread. (I would be a yes in the community mod to experiment). No need to rehash debate here.