- User Since
- Sep 21 2019, 3:08 PM (96 w, 7 h)
Thu, Jul 22
Yeah, my issue was taken care of
Jun 12 2021
I don't mind a slight reduction in cost. Probably better to just remove metal cost and keep stone cost the same. Should then also include mil colonies. Balancing @StarAtt would be nice to get more opinions.
Jun 11 2021
Definitely, something I'd love to see.
Also, it's hard to tell from this small number of gens, but it looks like there will now be at least 4 metal mines per every player. If so, that seems high to me.
It's about the same for 1v1s currently, 30-35k metal generated on average. Just sometimes the mines would really gravitate towards one of the players. For TGs being able to have about 3 metal mines per player is a great improvement. Too often I haven't been able to do anything fun with champs/mercs or even swordsmen because I've just no metal.
Jun 8 2021
Spear cavalry counters other cavalry, so if we have a cavalry battle between the Seleucids and Persians now, the Persians will kill all of the Seleucid horses quite easily with a few Cappadocian Cavalry Spearmen. The Seleucids cannot do the same to Persians without spending huge amounts of metal on champions or mercenaries. Therefore as a Seleucid Player you have a weakness against the Persians and you will refrain from using cavalry if you see the Persian Opponent making a lot of them.
I think you overestimate how well spear cavalry counter other cavalry. Best comparison is Camel Riders from AoE2. If outnumbered they will lose to Knights, but in about equal numbers they'll take a pretty convincing fight. A major factor in such matchups, at least in my experience, is that players want to keep massing their power unit and spear cavalry interrupts that. Keep in mind that spear cavalry are still countered by spearmen and it's not difficult to bring forward a few of them. So that forces the enemy to either commit to spear cavalry, which deviates from their game plan and is vulnerable to opposing spearmen, or continue going for their initial power unit and maybe mix some spear cav as a threat if the enemy tries to push too far out. Also, the military colony plays into a strength of archer cav, which is securing map control. They're much cheaper than CCs and let you secure vulnerable spots of the enemies base or just get access to metal/wood.
Cavalry is generally underused in A24, and if the Seleucids are now almost as good as the Persians in cavalry, then we can perhaps change that dynamic, also more people will play the Seleucid civ, which is actually capable of many surprising strategies, especially if spear cavalry is added.
From the very few MP games of A25 I have tested, I really liked going cav so that should hopefully change, but hopefully not into the cavalry is op territory. I'd also say that a reason for Seleucids currently being rarer is that many hosts ban archer play and that includes cav archers. The Seleucid hero is also superior in terms of making your army much more sustainable while under fire of enemy towers, forts, etc.
You can't spam military colony like stables so you will always produce less mercenary spear cavalry per minute no matter how rich you are.
Mercs do have a faster train time, but it doesn't make up for not being able to put down as many production buildings, true.
Mercenary cavalry is too expensive and can only be trained from Kleroukhia, which is not always accessible.
It doesn't make much sense to me to replace the mercenary unit with a citizen counterpart because mercenaries are currently underpowered. The unit being a mercenary adds a different dynamic compared to the Persians.
This change enables the Seleucids to rival the Persians in the cavalry department meanwhile being able to protect themselves from an archer attack, and hence the Persians and archers will not always be OP compared to other civs.
Can you explain more what you mean with this as I don't understand.
rP25721 already makes elephants weaker to pierce attack. Probably overkill to have this too?
Jun 7 2021
Jun 6 2021
The hit and run they could do with their now lowered prepare time was absurd as the reload time can be waited out whilst moving. This makes them weaker at that and also should help cavalry become a bigger threat to them.
Jun 5 2021
Update -> Maur/Iber get the normal tech but 20% additional swordsman damage on top, so they effectively safe one tech (200W/200M). I'm thinking it might be worth making the tech a bit worse because of that ?
It does only affect swordsmen so it shouldn't be too extreme. Can do 15% to be safer. Other than that I don't think it's necessary to push the second level to Phase 2, at least not for a25.
I agree on getting rid of the root.
Don't really feel like they need a change. They're a difficult and slow unit to mass but if you do manage it they're also strong enough to make it worthwhile.
I feel like these changes will make them quite weak and remove some identity. Going from a unit that's threatening to a unit you try to target last as they're so tanky. Also, this gives them less armor than the worker elephant.
Jun 4 2021
Had animals spawning inside of mines. Only happened to me on Sudanian Savanna so maybe biome specific
Like this a lot. Adds opportunity for Phase 2 aggression and hopefully gives incentive to aggressive play which values the quality of units over quantity
I wouldn't require a tech to get siege because that will make siege from camps quite a bit slower than siege from siege workshops, which is what will be built and to counter Roman camps. It could create a situation where Roman camps aren't useful for siege because enemy siege destroys the >camps too quickly.
As the Romans, you still have very easy access to swordsmen to counter rams. Should also try to avoid a situation where the military colony is just a superior siege workshop. In general, I don't mind either solution.
This is the file
Should probably be in the patch then.
I'd rather just have the siege come back and not change anything else or have a basic tech to unlock siege in the workshop.
To clarify -> you do have to wait for the repeat time, but the units can move during that time right ?
Wouldn't that just be fixed by increasing the repeat time further still?
That would lead them to being much weaker in normal fights.
Archers and Javelineers are no different that you can 'hack' the repeat time by moving the units.
Yep. For archers it is very minuscule. For skirmishers, it's similar to crossbows while not quite as extreme. Them also having the least range of all ranged units makes them unable to hit and run any other ranged units. Obviously still can endlessly kite melee.
Messed with crossbows a bit and the prepare time is severely flawed. It opens them up to absurd hit and run as you don't have to "wait" for the repeat time if you just keep them moving for the duration of it. The obvious solution is to have them stop reloading if you move them and force them to continue reloading after stopping, but don't know how feasible that is, especially on short notice.
This moves away from D3668 entirely. It also makes the building superbly weak defensively. Also reducing the batch training time modifier leads to a much faster train time rather than slower.
I might be missing something but where is the tech itself, to see its values?
Jun 3 2021
Jun 2 2021
I'd prefer to up the pierce armor to 5.
3x bonus is way too much. It'd make them far weaker than they were in previous releases. I prefer to give a bonus to spearmen/pikemen or to simply reduce the armor values of elephants by 2 or 3.
May 30 2021
May 17 2021
Are these the same rotation times and speeds in the mod you created? If so, I like the balance.
You're not changing elephants, is that just on purpose?
Yes, I'm not changing champion, elephant, hero, and siege rotation.
For what it's worth, I dislike these rotation values, since they feel too fast.
I'm not sure how to go about this problem. There is obviously a fundamental disagreement between the 'competitive' scene and more casual players, and I'm not sure it can be fixed...
Yeah, it is difficult to find values that would have consensus.
May 16 2021
May 5 2021
I think the +10% health tech would be too cheap/too quickly researched.
This would make the tech very cheap compared to training more cav units. +10% health is a really good upgrade for the relatively cheap cost of about ~3 cav right now. This would give +10% health for the resource cost of less than 2 cav, which just feels super cheap. Research time would >also be similar to the training time for 2 cav.
This would also make tech very cheap compared to similar blacksmith armor techs available in p2. Blacksmith armor techs are both much more expensive (400w/400m) and have a longer research time (40s) than the proposed values despite providing a benefit that is similar to a +10% health >increase. Additionally, blacksmith armor techs only provide a benefit against either hack or pierce whereas the +10% health boost provides a benefit against both.
I think the reason why this isn't researched more in p2 right now is because so few people actually fight with cav in p2 (which is largely the result of rushes not being very viable this alpha).
May 3 2021
Apr 28 2021
This is something I really like. It's an easy way to add more diversity to the civs themselves.
Apr 27 2021
Changed from a cost reduction to a research time reduction of 15%.
Added an icon.
Added a description. Probably a bit reaching on it though.
Removed now useless classes from player.xml file as per Stan
You also need to edit the player files to remove that limit
That would be needed for multiplayer? In singleplayer I could put down as many of the buildings as my heart desired
Apr 21 2021
I don't see a reason to remove the ability to train worker elephants in the CC. It rewards players who aren't scared to expand over the map and take map control. I think the reason Mauryans are seen as so strong is that their nice early game, aided by 75 wood houses and the elephant, transitions into a very strong early late game, with a 10% population boost and a hero that lets players get blacksmith upgrades super quickly. That works out to let the Mauryans outnumber and out-tech their opponents.
Apr 5 2021
Agree with this.
I have never been in favor of different speeds for common units, for me ranged/melee must have the same speed, varying only in some cases. Anyway, it is a more pleasant situation that D3735 about camel rush.
I don't think there's a need to have all common units types have the same speed. In my opinion the more range a unit has, the slower movement speed it should have. That avoids endless hit and run opportunities by archers or slingers.
I think it's one of the main reasons why so many complain about archers in this release, as they can safely pick the fight, get a few free shots in and if they realise that it won't be favourable just run away. And unless the enemy was massing cav they can't be caught up to.
I'd rather have the wood gather rate matched to infantry not citizens.
I think it is unrealistic for men/women to have the same gather rates. Cutting down trees requires a lot of strength. Mining is requires a lot of strength. History shows that men were mostly in the woods/mines while women were mostly in the fields.
While it might be unrealistic, I think citizens/women having a better gather rate than men would make for better gameplay. Currently booming = turtling. That way greedy players going for a fast boom would atleast leave themselves more vulnerable and encourage aggression from other players, making the meta more than just full boom.
Definitely agree that the stonethrowers require a buff. They're currently much too vulnerable for how expensive they are and for their damage output. Increasing range should make it riskier for the opponent to try and snipe the stonethrowers. I also like that hp is increased instead of armor as it means that ranged units will still be capable of destroying them, but not as efficiently as melee units, hopefully making it less frustrating for newer players.
Mar 27 2021
I always wanted cavalry archers to be slower than javelin cavalry with the main culprit being the camel archers. A camel archer rush currently still is nearly a free win over the Athenians, Britons, Gauls, Iberians, Seleucids and Spartans as their infantry units have less range and movement speed, and their cavalry have less range with the same movement speed, allowing the camels to micro them down or force much heavier investment from the opponent, which leads to a hefty economy lead. This should mean that javelin cavalry are a bit more capable of catching up to them and fighting back.
Why withhold cavalry upgrades from them though? The 20% hp bonus might be a bit much, with 10% being a safer value but without testing can't be sure.
It makes it very easy to afford this upgrade. The most difficult part was getting the metal and stone for it, as for food and wood you can simply stop unit production temporarily. Food in this release is the easiest resource to obtain as it's the least affected by rotation times, which severely slowed down gather speed of all other resources.
Mar 25 2021
This would mean that the hoplites can become champions before phase 2 right? What about it being a technology in the Gymnasium?
2- phase up techs moved to prytaneion.
3- phase up search 50% faster. Town phase needs 4 village buildings + prytaneion. City phase needs 2 + prytaneion. D3686 decrease to 3, so it seems more reasonable to decrease to 2.
The idea here is to be able to advance from a faster phase with athens, making an analogy to faster growth and technological advance ahead of its time.
Mar 20 2021
From what I know this technology affects temples too and Carthaginians train their infantry champions from there. So this would also be very useful for setting up champion production.
In general I like this as a unique technology. It would help set up infantry champion production more easily and help in taking map control with cheaper CC's. It's hard to say exactly how useful it will be at current values, but I doubt it's op.
Greater concern is a possible economic boom due to reduced training time.
Well, being only researchable in Phase 2, in the Civic Center, at a pretty high cost, I doubt it'd be worth it to rush to this technology and try to use it for booming. It certainly does incentivize utilizing hoplites more for these civilizations and I like the idea.
I think all cavalry in general need a slight speed increase. While at it, though, I believe archer cavalry should be a little bit slower than javelin cavalry. Nothing major but like a 0.5 speed difference.
Mar 18 2021
Would metal still be an issue if the norm were 2 metal mines (10k metal) instead of 1 metal mine (5k), like it's currently done in the balanced maps mod (guaranteed to start with 2 metal and stone mines)?
Mar 16 2021
Removed changes from athen.json file, ajdusted the tooltip and hopefully gave the bonus a better name.
Mar 15 2021
I'd prefer all of the attack techs remaining at 15% and just having the last armor upgrade provide +2 armor to avoid the kill times becoming too low after all techs.
I dislike increasing the base arrow count of stone towers to 2 and removing the Sentries upgrade. I'd rather have the base arrow count remain at 1 and halve the cost of the Sentries upgrade.
I would like to keep a late-game tech to increase tower base-attack
I think such an upgrade/s can be put behind the Sentries or Crenellations upgrades, like how it's done in the blacksmith.
Mar 14 2021
I like it. It makes going for a very fast P3 more dangerous as previously players would tend to do 2 towers due to them being cheap and also giving some security.
Athens was the home to many philosophers and had a pretty decent education system.
Why all resources? Why all technologies?
It doesn't necessarily have to be all resources or all technologies, nor is the value set in stone. Though, the bonus has great utility in allowing players to get both economy and military upgrades more easily. Having cheaper phase-ups and cheaper military upgrades can give them the identity of a very aggressive civ.
Moved to a static cost decrease.
Mar 13 2021
I definitely agree that cavalry need higher movement speed and train time adjustment, but these two things are also very dependant on other stuff. For cavalry train time it depends on general unit train time and I'd prefer it to be moved back to around the old values currently. For movement speed it also does slightly come down to rotation times. So this patch is probably best left for later?
Semi related: Persians and Mauryans have their hero buildings limited to 1, which also limits the champions trained within those buildings and makes them an unrealistic unit choice.
I like it being just an attack range buff, but I would prefer the technology becoming cheaper. Don't really care if it remains a wood + metal cost combo or if it's switched to food + wood.
Moved to using a more correct implementation by putting the bonus under civbonuses. The hope was that the technology costs (in the Structure Tree) would now be displayed correctly, instead of them all being displayed with a 5% discount, but now they're all displayed with a 15% discount. That includes phase up upgrades, which can't be skipped. So I will need help in fixing that. Also the naming of the new files can probably be improved.
Mar 12 2021
Feel like the bonus could be upped to 100% or even 150% as it provides no early benefit and would come into effect quite infrequently.
I prefer an "active" bonus that doesn't "depend" on your opponent. the main economy of kushites was livestock, so a bonus in corral would be more productive for me.
Can still have more bonuses for them, this doesn't have to be the only bonus they get.
This is good in my opinion. It ensures that there aren't going to be cases where only women can be trained in a captured Civic center.
Didn't check if it actually works ingame, though.
Jan 19 2021
I'd rather revert. We can experiment with this for a25
Me and Feldfeld tried this out in a 1vs1 and the champion provides an early advantage that is very hard to deal with. The early champion forces the opposing player to either abandon his starting woodline or take heavy loses fighting back against the champion.
"Only Walk" & no default formation -> You can put units in formation manually, but giving a 'gather' order disbands the formation.
This one is very nice.
In test games we had players confused on how to change the default formation so making it more obvious would also be good.
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.
Jan 18 2021
The only way i see this being used is to send the unit over to the enemy right away and cause guaranteed idle time. Kind of like the briton war dog just with less mobility, more hp and higher damage output.
Jan 17 2021
Playing without this made early aggression much less viable
Dec 28 2020
Ranged units already dominate gameplay and this would make it worse. If we really want consistency then either ranged units need an overall nerf or this needs to be removed from melee units.
@ValihrAnt what you think about this patch?
Seems fine to me, I don't know how exactly it will impact gameplay, but it's moving towards the right direction - where strategic choices are more impactful.
Dec 24 2020
Me and borg had a quick test game on r24446 and encountered some issues. The biggest one was with formation and unit rotation. In the fight starting at min 5 the archers entered a formation. Whenever a soldier from the formation was killed the archers went to regroup and due to the rotation often lost out on multiple seconds of attacking. Over a fight this adds up to a huge amount and was probably the deciding factor in him losing that battle.
Secondly, I had an issue in get my wardog unstuck from between the berry gatherers. The reason is probably what borg mentioned earlier that spam clicking doesn't work and considering that, at least in my case, the method for getting units unstuck is to spam click small distances ahead I was unable to free it. So I had to move my berry gatherers away for a second.
In general, we both came to the conclusion that the current amount of rotation feels too much and too clunky. I think a bit of rotation is good, but it needs to not interfere with gameplay too much and keep it feeling smooth. Now whether that is achievable without leaving dancing alive I don't know but it could also be tried in combination with the units have some bit of 'aimbot'.
Dec 23 2020
Personally not a big fan of adding increased cost. What about getting rid of that and reducing the health increase by 5 or 10 percent?
It's a tech I've never used and see no real point in, at least not currently.
I like it, it gives the macemen a clear role in being the 'siege' weapon of Phase 2. Combined with the nuba village being buildable in neutral territory this can lead to some very cool aggressive strategies.
Dec 22 2020
Definitely an upgrade in seeing enemy units on the minimap. For an extreme example, currently, the black color is nearly invisible on the map Volcanic Lands.
Obviously consistency between player colors on the minimap and elsewhere won't be there anymore, so doing 50% contrast seems safer than 100%. Also, is it possible to change the border contrast too? Because the black border color still remains invisible on Volcanic Lands.
Dec 20 2020
For example, it is ridiculous to have a champion archer with a rate of 500, on the other hand, with the rate of 1000 proposed by the patch, it is below an edvance or elite level archer.
Ranged units on promotion don't gain faster attack speed, but maybe I'm missing something.
Dec 19 2020
It's a small change meant to be a start for a series of multiple smaller changes that aim to improve the balance between cavalry units, which I think is good.
Dec 18 2020
To adjust this I prefer to divide it into small patches to facilitate the analysis.
Can I ask what else you plan to change? If you want to make spear cavalry excel mainly at countering other cavalry then it makes sense for them to at least match the speed, but they should also struggle a bit more in fights vs non-cavalry units then.
Dec 17 2020
Looking at the animation things are fine. Balance wise, I don't know, I doubt it will be able to make them much better or worse but might as well see.
Nov 20 2020
(They _are_ in the game already.)
What I meant is available to be trained by a civilization, so we can see how they actually behave in a real game.
pierce damage / reload time = damage per second ; maximum range
champion archer (unchange): 6.5 / 0.5 = 13 ; 76
current champion crossbowman: 6.5 / 3 = 2.2 ; 76
proposed champion crossbowman: 40 / 3 = 13.3 ; 60
I think having their dps be about the same as archers is fine for now. When they are in the game we will be able to see how their lower fire rate plays out and adjust accordingly from there.
Buildings giving loot is rarely a factor due to buildings generally being destroyed by siege weapons.
Should changes be requested? Or should we go with this first?
I'm happy either way. Though, I think it would be better to remove xp from buildings entirely rather than increase it, due to how rarely it comes into play.
Nov 19 2020
It's an interesting change and will be good to see how it plays out in multiplayer.
It's an improvement. While it's rare that any unit which benefits from experience will attack buildings it still happens occasionally. Could probably even increase the amount of xp by multiple times, because players will only try to destroy buildings with units when they have an overwhelming mass, so each unit getting an average of 5 experience for destroying a fortress seems very negligible.
Some civilizations do not have bireme it does not seem like a problem with the patch, this makes players make better decisions about which civilization to choose on water maps, maybe brit/gauls not a better choose.
I very much dislike that some civs can have an automatic civ lose situation.
I did a test game with ffm (Britons) vs me (Carthaginians) on Islands. Obviously I was able to get a big mass of ships before he reached P2. While he probably could've fought back if I left my ships ungarrisoned there was no chance with just 2 being fully garrisoned and a bunch of empty ships around them soaking damage. Another little problem is that if I wanted to I could keep him from fighting back at all, that is by putting 3 biremes around a dock I can deny his warship from ever being released.
With this change Gauls and Britons will become nearly useless on water, while I think Iberians could be fine due to having the fireship. So, either biremes need to be nerfed further or the Celtic civilizations could receive some sort of early game buff on water.
If territory root were to be enabled for the fortress then I think the territory radius should be lowered. That way it will still let players keep the buildings nearby the fortress, but will make it much harder to go on without a new Civic center. I think it will still be frequent that players will not lose hold of a majority of their buildings as the buildings will just chain territory and thus the territory root, but will make it a bit more unlikely.
Nov 14 2020
Increasing your cost is also interesting.
Don't think cost should be increased.
with this patch, one trireme defeats two biremes, but loses to three
I think that's a good spot for now. I presume you did the testing with the ships ungarrisoned, in which case the arrow count difference is 200%. When the ships are fully garrisoned the difference is 18%. Keep in mind that going up to Phase 2 costs the same as 10 soldiers. I'd presume the stronger eco of remaining in Phase 1 would also allow to get the armor upgrade much more easily.
Basically I'm unsure how this would play out without some testing.
What about giving them an attack bonus vs siege? They are already the strongest infantry unit in the game by far due to how tanky they are. Giving them the attack bonus would make them a little bit better vs siege while not buffing them too much.
I'm not a fan of this unless some test games show it to be and improvement. Islands games become super simplistic. It's all about just doing biremes from the get go and the snowball effect will be massive. You can't do fishing ships because then you get outnumbered and lose. It also pretty much means that very rarely will games go to Phase 2 since players won't have the eco for it. Even if they decide to sacrifice all map control for Phase 2 and Triremes it's not worth it due to Triremes not being so much stronger than Biremes.
In other maps where water control is an extra it could be an improvement over the current Phase 2 only warships, by adding another early point of contention. Although at the same time it could be a detriment because the defending player will always be ready to defend, because the attacking player can't rush to Phase 2 and catch the enemy offguard.
Nov 2 2020
Vali patch is outdated.
The speed of jave cavalry is the same as that of archers, the path does not change this.
That's exactly the problem. Why are the Ptolemies so strong? Because most civs don't have a counter to their cavalry archers in p1. What am I meant to do if I'm the Athenians, Gauls, Britons, Iberians, Seleucids or Spartans? I can't counter with javelin cavalry or any infantry due to hit and run. I can't counter with towers because the camel archers can either outrange them or take an alternate angle. The only chance for me to win in that matchup is hope the enemy makes a very big mistake either in their micro or macro.
Jun 19 2020
Changed Carthaginian trade bonus name to "Commercial Acumen".
Jun 16 2020
To be clear, those I listed earlier were the once I remembered; I didn't check all templates, so there are probably a few more.
I guess if more are found they can be added later.
Also, what's your opinion on "Special": → "Description": (to display the structure strings in the civilization overview)?
Wouldn't screen constraints be a problem? With this patch, the Persian Special Technologies alone go almost to the very bottom of the tab. Though in general, I think it would be best to display a description of what the building does because just the name of the unique building may not convey its purpose.
Moved the listed order of some buildings to fit with the Structure Tree.
Removed build limits from the Special strings.
Added bonuses that were hidden in template files. I struggled in thinking up names and descriptions, so plenty of room for improvement there I think, especially for the Iberians.
Changed "Special" for the Lighthouse, removed it from the Library.
Jun 15 2020
Fix an unnecessary space.
Adjusted wording for Gaul, Briton, Roman, and Ptolemy bonuses. About half of the Celtic buildings provide a population bonus, if not counting the house, CCs, Wonder and Fort so I used "Some" instead of "Most"
Removed incorrect history from Rotary Mill, removed unnecessary text from Revered Monument.
Split Kushite pyramids
Adjusted "Archery Tradition" to reflect that it affects all archers not just infantry.
Sorry, I clearly made the changes quite hurriedly and didn't carefully double-check for mistakes wasting your time. I also added some inline comments for the things I'm unsure about.
Wrt rams vs rams: Afaik swordmen are quite effective against rams aren't they?
Macedonians don't have sword units at all, which is the main reason they are almost never seen in MP. A similar story for the Seleucids and Ptolemies, but they get them from the Military colony, which is a big investment to set up and even then takes a while to mass up enough swordsmen to counter siege. The good thing for the Ptolemies is that their early game is so strong they'll be way ahead and already have elephants before rams will generally arrive.
Isn't this another step into making the different civs indistinguishable?
In my opinion rams are a unit that should be available to all civs. Civs should be distinguished by unique bonuses, buildings and units, and the unique strategies those make available, not by lacking an, in my opinion, base unit. All civs having rams doesn't mean they must be the same either as upgrades for them can be withheld from some civs to incentivize players to opt for other siege weapons unless they see a good opportunity to use rams.
All structures in the Civilization Overview tab now use the generic name.
Added the buildings I had missed and Nescio mentioned.
Added Civilization Bonus entries for the Britons, Gauls, Ptolemies and Romans. Feedback and suggestions on how to better word them would be appreciated. Another problem is that the Roman siege engine bonus is inconsistent between the siege engines so the Civilization Overview entry has to be vague or very, very long.
I don't know about historical accuracy, but from a gameplay perspective, this makes a lot of sense. Currently, Seleucids and Ptolemies need to use elephants, which are much easier to counter, as rams if they want to go for a quick push. Kushites are forced to use elephants if they want to push at all. This patch would free up elephants to be used more like they were in history and will make seeing elephants used as alive rams rarer. This will also hopefully incentivize players to play a more diverse field of civilizations.
Jun 14 2020
Take for example Acharya, the mauryan healer hero, you will almost never see him being used for his effect (technology speed and cost), even though in theory it seems quite decent. A global effect would make more sense for him. When he is used, it's as a very bad replacement for Cunobelin.
I don't know what heroes other people train when playing Mauryans, but for me Acharya is the only one I train and definitely doesn't need a buff. Being able to get techs for cheaper and faster is huge for gaining a military advantage over the opponent. The resources saved on the blacksmith upgrades allow to pick up Will to Fight much more easily and then he still has great use on the frontline.
I can include this patch for D1400, however before doing so we could agree on the changes here.
I think Caratacos is fine at 60m. Maximus having a larger aura would be beneficial.
The main thing that doesn't make much sense are heroes that give +20% extra attack to all units vs the ones that give +20% attack to only champions. Being more specialized means the bonus should be better too right?