- advanced and elite each get +10% ranged attack damage
- champion ranged attack damage down from 200% to 150%
- hero ranged attack damage down from 400% to 200%
- all javelineers get the same reload time
- cattle time to 45 s, as discussed with @Feldfeld
For the record, the new food-to-time values for single animals are:
goat : (70 - 35) / 20 = 1.75 sheep : (100 - 50) / 25 = 2 pig : (150 - 75) / 30 = 2.5 cattle: (300 - 150) / 40 = 3.75
Maybe cattle time ought to be raised to 45 s (i.e. a 3.333:1 ratio).
Thank you for the clarification!
So the new values are acceptable to you?
- raised quinquereme cost per @borg-
- made triremes a bit cheaper, since they're not twice as good as biremes
- tweaked merchant ship cost, per @borg-, but kept their old trader gain multiplier
- standardized experience loot to 10% of health (also for brit, gaul, maur)
- standardized resource loot to 20% of costs
Thanks! The unnumbered icons could have been kept, though.
I'd have liked it if numerals were also used for grain gather technologies, but I can understand why you didn't.
It could work, although i'd prefer 25%, but I think an additionnal problem with this approach is that train time values are supposed to look good in the beginning if you see what I mean
Could you elaborate? I'm confused now, 25% of what? And 20 to 40 s looks better than 30 to 60 s, doesn't it?
(and it was already difficult and arguably subpar against farming)
Currently cavalry's meat gather rate is 20× (yes) infantry's grain gather rate.
It's up to you, I'm fine with either.
And lower champion attack damage accordingly?
There's also a patch improving their accuracy: D3374
Perhaps you could explain what's wrong with it?
Thanks for testing!
Should it be reverted? Or perhaps remove the starting cavalry to compensate?
- reduce domestic animal training times, per @Feldfeld
Or you could just keep the current cavalry and infantry technologies for now but make them more affordable.
Currently they cost 40, 40, 30, with this patch 50, 40, 35.
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.
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.
Perhaps a cost increase for elite / advance units can be added directly to the tech?
Yes and no: mercenaries have a technology that upgrades them to the advanced rank.
- damage resistance
- messenger pigeons
Factions with pikemen also have other units, including swordsmen.
While I understand the reasoning behind it, I'm unsure about it, since it changes the pikeman's effectiveness against about everything, not just rams, so I would recommend postponing this to A25.
We could think of an upgrade mechanism from house -> apartment, e.g. available from city phase, in another patch (similar to towers).
Upgrading does not involve any workers, therefore the time is basically free.
@Feldfeld seems to think this is a move in the right direction.
Fine by me then.
So I should change everything to 4?
All melee cavalry attacks, yes. In my opinion that's something that should have been done anyway, regardless of this patch.
I'd rather not, it's already really fast compared to infantry and others.
Changing ranged cavalry movement speed alters their effectiveness vs infantry. Melee cavalry can't hit from a distance, so their movement speed affects other entities (e.g. melee infantry) less strongly.
I reduced the range of the Melee cav to the same as the Melee infantry because, on second thought, this probably gives an unfair advantage to cavalry against melee, particularly since their counter (spearmen) have a range of 4.
For comparison, cavalry has a footprint radius of 3, infantry of 1.5, so a range of 4 means two rows of infantry spearmen could hit the unit in front of them, at least in theory; the equivalent melee cavalry range would be 7.
A range of 4 for all melee cavalry is actually better than 3 and it's fair, it's basically half their footprint + 1; that's also what I've been using for animals.
It doesn't make sense to keep units idle, you're wasting time / resources.
That's precisely the point: rather than sending wounded troops back to work immediately, give them time to rest and heal, sacrificing a bit of income to save men. The trade-off seems rather reasonable.
@Stan, I know, but the files I posted were not meant for inclusion, they're just an example of how I think they should look. For the public repository one probably wants to use different I, II, III. And the healing icons are probably unnecessary.
Moreover, the icon changes (i.e. art) should be done separately from this patch (i.e. balance); they are an improvement regardless whether this one is committed. Likewise, you should just include the apartment icon; D2917 doesn't introduce a new entity, it just makes an already existing structure buildable, and having a proper icon is worth having indepently of this.
Mon, Jan 18
Yeah, I thought about it, but it felt kind of “hacky”. (I also dislike how the Athenian metal gather bonus is implemented.)
That unit is a leftover from the past, it's untrainable and ought to be deleted.
No. That unit is a leftover from the past, it's untrainable and ought to be deleted. It used to be the starting ranged infantry in A21, but was replaced in A22 with a mercenary javelineer in the village phase and a Cretan mercenary archer in the town phase. In A23 the Kushites were introduced, who have better looking Nubian archers.
Well, I like having champion spread proportional to that of their citizen counterparts.
Yes, javelineers have rather high base damage, but they did so in A23 too, the value hasn't changed; infantry movement speed has changed, so I'd expect javelineers to be actually a bit less effective than they used to be, if anything. I haven't seen people complaining about it recently either, so it's probably best to leave it as is. Changing javelineer damage without testing by others doesn't seem a good idea.
Archers have about half the damage but twice the range of javelineers. Their range has been reduced recently and I'm not sure what the effect of the spread changes will be in practice. I'd be more comfortable with having this committed as is and tweaking damage later, if necessary.
Discount on merc sounds good actually.
So I gave it a try with a cart_mercenaries.json autoresearched civ bonus, but apparently the replace of the autoresearched unit_mercenary.json is applied afterwards, so it giving them a metal cost discount doesn't work this way (food does).
How about making melee cavalry a bit faster instead?
If you are not going to change the technology gain 2, then the amphore icon should be applied to technology 2, not 1.
Not done: pottery is significantly less sophisticated than metal or glass, therefore it should be used for the first technology.
- purged animal resistances, per @wraitii
Outdated and unimportant by now.
This patch is heavily outdated, rebasing is more work than just doing an entirely new patch, all civ templates have been moved, many renamed more than once, most recently in D3384/rP24657, which partly implemented what was proposed here, though for different reasons.
Is it still possible for this to be included in A24?
As @ValihrAnt wrote elsewhere:
@ValihrAnt wrote:@wraitii wrote:
With the now reduced archer range I don't think it's needed as tower defense should now be viable to defend the Phase 1 Ptolemie camel rush.
I'm not sure the movement speed reduction is necessary either.
@Stan we can have new ícons I, II and III?
That's something I've been asking for for years!
Here's what I managed to come up with:
I'm sure you can do better.
By the way, could you commit that nice apartment icon you showed earlier in D2917?
Thanks! Soldiers attempting to capture siege engines was something numerous people complained about on the forums over the years.
- specify resistances, per @Freagarach
Attack range is useful when units are massed. While I'm not opposed to giving melee cavalry a bit more range (or at least standardize to 4), I fail to see how this helps with chasing: it's simply the distance at which they stop moving and start attacking, isn't it?
- giraffe health lowered to 80, deer and gazelle to 25, rabbit to 5.
- spearmen (but not pikemen) 3× vs animals
They already have the “Parade of Daphne” technology, though, reducing champion training time by 20%.
- lowered health of some huntable animals
- doubled walrus attack time
- moved out <Health> out of template_unit_fauna_hunt.xml etc. for clarity and consistency, making it easier to compare and tweak individual animals.
Actually I'd prefer a resource cost (e.g. 400 metal) and 0 time over 0 resource cost but with a time.
Besides, the Seleucids currently don't have any civ bonuses, so I don't think they'll suddenly dominate just because of this.
Anyway, if others think it's necessary too, then I won't object.
Don't be fooled just by the modification number. Even if it were +30% (village), +25% (town), +20% (city), the last one would still be more effective than the first, because:
- modifications stack, so the absolute gain per worker is actually higher;
- players tend to have more units in late game than at game start, hence more workers benefit from the increase;
- their economies are stronger, so technology costs matter less (unlike unit costs, because units die).
Maybe not all technologies will be researched in every game (especially tiny maps I expect to end earlier), but that's fine, they'll still certainly give a clear advantage in some games, e.g. on giant maps.
I'm fine with both 25% each and 20% each, as well as with diminishing increases (e.g. 25%, 20%, 15%), but I'm opposed to raising later increases (e.g. 20%, 25%, 30%).
As I wrote in the summary of D3384:
The Seleucid unlock pikeman vs unlock swordsman technologies are still free. They have to choose one, whereas some other civs can have two or three infantry champions. Besides, the Seleucids have two non-free unlock technologies at the stable.
Unlocking both champion cavalry and chariots already costs 1200 food together and having to choose by excluding one is already a penalty.
Since there are now five damage types (fire and poison have been added), just inserting “damage” would be incorrect, so I guess the proper solution is the more verbose “crush, hack, pierce resistance”.
If that's to be done, then maybe some technologies need to be rephrased too, I'll check.
Sun, Jan 17
That's beside the point.
If a civ has multiple similar entities, then each of them ought to viable choice. If one is always clearly better, then it will always be chosen, and the alternatives might as well not exist. Carthage has three embassies, but none of them is better than the other two, so it's fine.
Likewise, if Carthage can build both houses and apartments (the purpose of this patch) then they ought to be balanced with respect to each other (irrespective of other civs).
Anyway, as usual, feel free to click “Accept Revision” or “Request Changes”.
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).
Don't forget the champion and hero templates.
Not my favourite cost, but I could live with it.
Nor mine, I think it's too cheap.
- restore ordinary house
- apartment population to 20
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.
In case it wasn't clear, yes, normal houses will be restored.
For the apartment, town phase, 200 wood, 50 stone, and 20 population?
I like second too but 100w 100s +5 extra pop and town phase.
With +5 do you mean 10+5 or 15+5?
Some general remarks: [...]
I'll answer those later.
Angen pointed out in rP24605 pointed out the current descriptions of these two unlock technologies do not reflect they're essentially diplomatic, hence the need to rewrite them.
I think we're losing a little flair with the 'messengers' techs. Cartography, even if it's unrealistic, made sense in context because our game's interface is a map. And I liked the description more, the new one is very utilitarian.
Yes, I agree the name is a bit boring. How about “messenger pigeons" instead? We could mention the Olympics and the icon is already a biblical white dove with olive branch or something.
Cartography, even if it's unrealistic, made sense in context because our game's interface is a map.
The minimap is also there without researching this technology.
+25% health was chosen because it's closest to +2 resistance. Trader health isn't particularly important, I don't object to +50%, if you think that's better.
I guess a flat 5% bonus to metal gathering would be considered OP?
Athens have +10% metal gather raise per phase advance. However, the question is what's the justification for giving Carthage a better metal gather rate? If it's just because they have mercenaries, then we might as well give them a minor discount on mercenary costs.
These attack values remain really high, but I suppose that's still intended?
It's per 2 s, whereas most soldiers have an attack time around 1 s. Besides, animals have a vision range of either 10 or 0, so they'll only start attacking when melee units are really close (and melee troops have a lot more health and resistance).
Anyway, values could be adjust further later, but for now let's not make animals meaninglessly weak.
- add “on most maps” to iber bonus
It's clear the ordinary house should stay at 10.
As for the apartment, there are the following options:
- keep the old values (225 wood, 15 population)
- keep the proposed values (200 wood, 50 stone, 15 population, town phase, double capture points)
- increase the population to 20 but increase cost and health accordingly (making it as costly as a barracks)
- increase the population to 20, keep the cost as in 2, making it more cost-effective, but postpone to city phase (@Palaxin's A)
- increase the population to 30, increase the cost, making it more cost-effective, but postpone to city phase (@Palaxin's B)
Also keep in mind that with the two house population technologies, its actual population limit is +44% higher.
I came up with another interesting mechanic:
The idea is interesting. However, those who'll benefit most are the rich and powerful, making it even harder for players who're already behind to catch up.
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.
Sat, Jan 16
Age of Mythology is a nice game, but temporary effects like god powers are not (yet) possible in 0 A.D., to the best of my knowledge: auras last as long as their entities last.
As for your last point, +2 resistance, +25% health, +25% attack damage, and −20% attack time are more or less equivalent: they allow your troops to inflict a quarter more damage before they're killed. I'm unsure how another one would make gameplay more interesting, but if other people want it too, fine by me; technologies are easy to add or remove.
@Palaxin, if you fully agree with a patch, feel free to click “Accept Revision”.
A fair question! (And yes, I do value consistency.)
Without this patch the cart house is a level two house and the cart apartment basically a level three house.
I'd be fine with 20, if the rest is adjusted proportionally, i.e. doubling the cost and health too; but then it would cost as much as the barracks and have more health, something to which @borg- objected earlier. Hence why I kept it at 15 and decided to further the gap by lowering the ordinary house proportionally by 20%.
+15 is not exactly doubling +8 and neither of them is comparable straight forward with other civs...
The 8's values are proportional: 15 wood and 5 seconds per population and 80 health. The 15's cost is slightly different (200 wood and 50 stone instead of 225 wood), but this is compensated by the having twice the capture points and counting towards the city phase requirements.
Basically the idea is that they're different yet roughly equivalent: if one were clearly better, the other wouldn't be built, which would be a loss; player should have reasonable choices.