Page MenuHomeWildfire Games

ValihrAnt
User

Projects

User Details

User Since
Sep 21 2019, 3:08 PM (85 w, 5 d)

Recent Activity

Wed, May 5

ValihrAnt updated the summary of D3930: [Gameplay] Make Athenian Marines and Merc Archers accessible from the Town Phase and in the Barrack.
Wed, May 5, 9:50 PM
ValihrAnt requested review of D3930: [Gameplay] Make Athenian Marines and Merc Archers accessible from the Town Phase and in the Barrack.
Wed, May 5, 9:49 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3919: [Gameplay] Make Stable technologies more affordable.

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).

Wed, May 5, 6:07 PM

Mon, May 3

ValihrAnt requested review of D3919: [Gameplay] Make Stable technologies more affordable.
Mon, May 3, 12:49 PM
ValihrAnt retitled D3897: [Gameplay] Remove build limits of structures that train champions. from Remove build limits of structures that train champions. to [Gameplay] Remove build limits of structures that train champions..
Mon, May 3, 10:06 AM

Wed, Apr 28

ValihrAnt accepted D3899: [Gameplay] - Let team bonuses also apply to themselves..

This is something I really like. It's an easy way to add more diversity to the civs themselves.

Wed, Apr 28, 2:51 PM

Tue, Apr 27

ValihrAnt updated the diff for D3675: [Gameplay] Athenian bonus - cheaper technologies.

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.

Tue, Apr 27, 8:20 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D3897: [Gameplay] Remove build limits of structures that train champions..

Removed now useless classes from player.xml file as per Stan

Tue, Apr 27, 6:58 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3897: [Gameplay] Remove build limits of structures that train champions..

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

Tue, Apr 27, 6:47 PM
ValihrAnt requested review of D3897: [Gameplay] Remove build limits of structures that train champions..
Tue, Apr 27, 6:34 PM

Wed, Apr 21

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3867: [gameplay] remove worker elephant from civic centre.

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.

Wed, Apr 21, 8:09 PM

Apr 5 2021

ValihrAnt accepted D3758: [gameplay] differentiate movement speeds of ranged cavalry.

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.

Apr 5 2021, 11:10 AM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3779: [gameplay] unify wood gather rates.

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.

Apr 5 2021, 10:47 AM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3781: [gameplay] Balance stonethrower.

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.

Apr 5 2021, 10:40 AM

Mar 27 2021

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3735: [gameplay] differentiate camels.

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.

Mar 27 2021, 11:01 AM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3680: [gameplay] tweak will to fight technology costs.

I would like the opinion of @chrstgtr and @ValihrAnt. 2500 food makes it difficult to research this tech?

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 27 2021, 8:11 AM

Mar 25 2021

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3738: [gameplay] Athen elite hoplite can promote to champion hoplite.

This would mean that the hoplites can become champions before phase 2 right? What about it being a technology in the Gymnasium?

Mar 25 2021, 9:17 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3727: [gameplay] differentiating athens: democracy.

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 25 2021, 9:15 PM

Mar 20 2021

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3698: [gameplay] Make colonization tech more most useful.

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.

Mar 20 2021, 9:34 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3688: [gameplay] hoplite_tradition tech.

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.

Mar 20 2021, 9:22 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3664: [gameplay] Cavalry training time and movement speed for ranged cavalry..

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 20 2021, 9:07 PM

Mar 18 2021

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3704: [gameplay] cheaper economic technologies.

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 18 2021, 7:23 PM

Mar 16 2021

ValihrAnt updated the diff for D3675: [Gameplay] Athenian bonus - cheaper technologies.

Removed changes from athen.json file, ajdusted the tooltip and hopefully gave the bonus a better name.

Mar 16 2021, 7:47 PM

Mar 15 2021

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3679: [gameplay] lower forge technology costs.

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.

Mar 15 2021, 4:32 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3668: [gameplay] unify damage of arrow-shooting structures.

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 15 2021, 10:37 AM

Mar 14 2021

ValihrAnt accepted D3686: [gameplay] exclude towers from phase requirements.

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.

Mar 14 2021, 7:58 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3675: [Gameplay] Athenian bonus - cheaper technologies.

Why Athens?

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.

Mar 14 2021, 4:12 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D3675: [Gameplay] Athenian bonus - cheaper technologies.

Moved to a static cost decrease.

Mar 14 2021, 12:52 PM

Mar 13 2021

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3664: [gameplay] Cavalry training time and movement speed for ranged cavalry..

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?

Mar 13 2021, 9:20 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D3666: [gameplay] Remove embassy limit.

Agree.
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.

Mar 13 2021, 9:03 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3671: [gameplay] remove training time discount from archery tradition.

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.

Mar 13 2021, 3:34 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D3675: [Gameplay] Athenian bonus - cheaper technologies.

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 13 2021, 10:34 AM

Mar 12 2021

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3392: [gameplay] new kush civ bonus.

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.

Mar 12 2021, 7:59 PM
ValihrAnt requested review of D3675: [Gameplay] Athenian bonus - cheaper technologies.
Mar 12 2021, 7:45 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3597: allow training starting units at any civic centre.

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.

Mar 12 2021, 2:54 PM

Jan 19 2021

ValihrAnt added a comment to rP24693: [Gameplay] - Let Spartans start with a Champion..

I'd rather revert. We can experiment with this for a25

Jan 19 2021, 6:57 PM
ValihrAnt raised a concern with rP24693: [Gameplay] - Let Spartans start with a Champion..

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.

Jan 19 2021, 6:43 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3413: Add an option to force "no formation" for non-walk orders, but not have a default walk formation..

"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.

Jan 19 2021, 5:11 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D3366: [gameplay] Rework attack forge techs.

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 19 2021, 1:13 PM

Jan 18 2021

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3412: [gameplay] let spart start with a champion.

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 18 2021, 2:12 PM

Jan 17 2021

ValihrAnt accepted D3401: [gameplay] restore civic centre garrison healing.

Playing without this made early aggression much less viable

Jan 17 2021, 7:39 PM

Dec 28 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3246: [gameplay] increase advanced and elite and lower champion ranged attack damage.

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.

Dec 28 2020, 9:29 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2801: [gameplay] enable stable for all civilizations.

@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 28 2020, 3:34 PM

Dec 24 2020

ValihrAnt raised a concern with rP24415: Let units take time actual time for turning while moving. This limits the….

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 24 2020, 9:50 PM

Dec 23 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2856: [gameplay] redo nisean_horses technology.

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?

Dec 23 2020, 7:23 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2939: [gameplay] delete armor_hero_01 technology.

More opnions?

It's a tech I've never used and see no real point in, at least not currently.

Dec 23 2020, 7:12 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D3234: [gameplay] tweak maceman attacks.

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 23 2020, 7:08 PM

Dec 22 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3242: [Proposal] Make player entities more visible on minimap.

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 22 2020, 11:49 AM

Dec 20 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3235: [gameplay] standardize archer attack speeds.

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 20 2020, 12:05 PM

Dec 19 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D3231: [gameplay] sword/axeman cavalry balance move speed.

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 19 2020, 9:32 PM

Dec 18 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D3231: [gameplay] sword/axeman cavalry balance move speed.

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 18 2020, 3:17 PM

Dec 17 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D3232: [gameplay] slinger attack speed adjustment.

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.

Dec 17 2020, 3:04 PM

Nov 20 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2886: introduce crossbowman templates.

(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.

Nov 20 2020, 8:57 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2886: introduce crossbowman templates.

@badosu, @borg-, @ValihrAnt, any opinions on the proposed values?
For comparison:

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.

Nov 20 2020, 4:38 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2992: [gameplay] remove structure <Loot/xp>.

Buildings giving loot is rarely a factor due to buildings generally being destroyed by siege weapons.

Nov 20 2020, 1:23 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2992: [gameplay] remove structure <Loot/xp>.

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 20 2020, 10:18 AM

Nov 19 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D1762: [gameplay] give Fortress a territory root.

It's an interesting change and will be good to see how it plays out in multiplayer.

Nov 19 2020, 9:32 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2992: [gameplay] remove structure <Loot/xp>.

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.

Nov 19 2020, 9:14 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2996: [gameplay] Move bireme to village phase and balance..

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.

Nov 19 2020, 4:56 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D1762: [gameplay] give Fortress a territory root.

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 19 2020, 4:20 PM

Nov 14 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2996: [gameplay] Move bireme to village phase and balance..

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.

Nov 14 2020, 3:44 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2972: [gameplay] Increase hack damage of pikemen.

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.

Nov 14 2020, 11:32 AM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2996: [gameplay] Move bireme to village phase and balance..

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 14 2020, 11:19 AM

Nov 2 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2955: [gameplay] more realistic cavalry speed.

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.

Nov 2 2020, 10:52 AM

Jun 19 2020

ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Removed kennel.
Changed Carthaginian trade bonus name to "Commercial Acumen".

Jun 19 2020, 7:05 PM

Jun 16 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

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.

Jun 16 2020, 9:13 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

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 16 2020, 12:21 PM

Jun 15 2020

ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Fix an unnecessary space.

Jun 15 2020, 2:30 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Removed "."
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.

Jun 15 2020, 2:26 PM
ValihrAnt added inline comments to D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.
Jun 15 2020, 12:45 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

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.

Jun 15 2020, 12:34 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2815: [gameplay] give all civs rams.

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.

Jun 15 2020, 10:15 AM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

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.

Jun 15 2020, 10:01 AM
ValihrAnt accepted D2815: [gameplay] give all civs rams.

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 15 2020, 7:47 AM

Jun 14 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2648: [gameplay] make Caratacos and Maximus auras local.

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?

Jun 14 2020, 11:34 AM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2816: [gameplay] tweak champions costs.
IIRC, @ValihrAnt disliked the idea of keeping a high metal cost due to map imbalances.
Jun 14 2020, 11:06 AM · Restricted Project

Jun 13 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D2628: [gameplay] tweak champion infantry javelinist walk speed.
Jun 13 2020, 7:38 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2628: [gameplay] tweak champion infantry javelinist walk speed.

Yes, slowing these guys down a bit is good. The speed they move at makes no sense currently.

Jun 13 2020, 7:38 PM

Jun 12 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2801: [gameplay] enable stable for all civilizations.

As far as I remember @Feldfeld and @ValihrAnt agree that it should be cheaper.

Yes, as we move on to more production buildings for the same amount of units I believe that the cost of the production buildings should also become lower to allow for easier switches between units. Cavalry, in general, are much more dangerous and difficult to field in this game as they don't provide any economic capabilities, except for hunting. So using cavalry is much riskier than infantry.
Investing in a stable and then cavalry is a big expense and as I said risky because you must do damage to the enemy. Even more so with cavalry being separated to a stable as making your own barrack will cost an additional 300 res + time to start booming if you recognize that cavalry won't work, and if the opponent went for a barrack instead of a stable that will be a very likely economy lead for the opponent, which can snowball.
Basically, outside of early rushes with cavalry all made from the CC, I think stables at 300 cost will mean that cavalry will become mostly unused in the midgame. Even at 200 cost I think that will be the case. The reason players still did cavalry in borgs mod was that defending them generally required the enemy 2 production buildings - barrack and archery range to counter the javelin cavalry, which was high early investment to be ready for the cav in time.
On second thoughts I've no clue what's the best approach so just experiment and see what works I guess.

Jun 12 2020, 5:28 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2798: [gameplay] Increases the number of embassy..

The limit of 2 embassies is very annoying as you only have 3 units in the barrack and you're reliant on the embassies for everything else. A limit of 2 is terrible for being able to get a decent amount of any unit out, especially if you go for Expertise in War which slows down train time.

Jun 12 2020, 1:58 PM · Restricted Project

Jun 8 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2507: [gameplay] allow building palisades in neutral territory.

I can already feel all the trolling with palisades being buildable in allied territory. Good luck booming when I wall in your Civic center, barracks and resources.
Regardless, I'm unsure about this change and would really want playtesting to be done if this is moved forward with.

Jun 8 2020, 5:33 PM

Jun 6 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2536: [gameplay] make embassy mercenaries native.

(I didn't check if the patch works properly and am just talking from a gameplay perspective)
This patch is quite necessary if D2534 gets committed for two reasons. First of all, it can be very annoying to capture a building only to find out that you are unable to train any units there and thus it is useless to you. Secondly, it adds some risk to the Kushite player because the only drawback to their camps getting captured is having to make new ones, the enemy will never be able to use them to their advantage.

Jun 6 2020, 5:41 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2534: [gameplay] allow building Blemmye camp and Nuba village in neutral territory.

I have one last question/suggestion. Currently we can only build 2 camps, with this change it would be interesting to increase the number of camps that can be built, like maybe 3?
They are considered embassy, so I think this also affects the Carthaginians, they have 3 embassies but can only build two, which seems wrong too. What do you think?

Having higher capacity is something I've wanted for a long time, though I think this might be out of scope for this patch.
Another thing to note is that the camps won't switch loyalty to another player when completely surrounded by their territory even if completely ungarrisoned. Although, they are easier to capture by units than barracks due to a larger footprint (can have more units capturing at once) and a smaller garrison size.
Overall, I like the change. It adds some extra strategy options and differentiation between civs.

Jun 6 2020, 5:34 PM

Jun 4 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2782: [Gameplay] make ram less effective.

@ValihrAnt Do you prefer to prevent attacks against organics altogether or simply debuff them?

I think the optimal approach would be to reduce damage against organic units. If I understand correctly siege weapons don't count as organic so the damage to other siege weapons should still remain the same, which is what I'd want.

Jun 4 2020, 2:21 PM · Restricted Project, Contributors
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2533: [gameplay] deprecate kennel, train war dogs at barracks.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this would remove the buy-in cost for war dogs and would thus be a big buff to the britons. Previously you needed to invest plenty of res into setting up the kennels to then be able to train the war dogs when pop capped. Now you can simply train war dogs when pop capped from the barrack/house, so not only would there be no buy in cost players will be able to spam them out quicker from more buildings.

Jun 4 2020, 8:43 AM

Jun 3 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2782: [Gameplay] make ram less effective.

The patch changes ram speed from 8.1 to 7.2, so from the same speed as an unpacked bolt shooter to the same speed as an unpacked catapult, making it easier for infantry and elephants to catch up to them.
Overall, I'm not sure if rams seem OP due to the ranged unit focused meta and some civs simply not getting good counter units to siege weapons or if they're actually OP. Still, I'm for this change as rams can be buffed again when some other meta changing balancing is done.

Jun 3 2020, 9:16 AM · Restricted Project, Contributors

Jun 1 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2575: [gameplay] tweak war elephant costs.

@ValihrAnt @borg- would this be okay if I only committed the cost change? Or is there a good reasoning behind the team bonus change?

I think it can be included without the team bonus. The patch originally lowered war elephant overall cost and the team bonus change was there to make sure they don't become too cheap, but then I changed the values to reduce the metal cost and increase food cost while still leaving overall cost the same as it was originally. So the team bonus change isn't as important anymore.

Jun 1 2020, 12:17 PM

May 31 2020

ValihrAnt accepted D2669: [gameplay] new Gaul team bonus.

Still agree with this and 15% over 20% discount is a safer approach.

May 31 2020, 3:00 PM

May 30 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2741: [gameplay] allow rome to build palisades.

Doesn't that make the factions more generic, and thus less interesting?

I don't think giving the Romans palisades will make them less interesting as they already have 2 unique things fortification wise: the Siege Walls and the Entrenched army camp, both of which can be built-in neutral and enemy territory.

May 30 2020, 8:54 PM
ValihrAnt accepted D2741: [gameplay] allow rome to build palisades.

I had always assumed Rome lacks palisade walls because of having the Siege walls, which does lead to some awkward situations. First of all, players are entirely incapable of building walls in Phase 1. Later on, it can still be very hard to wall as stone walls are very expensive and stone can be hard to obtain. Additionally giving Rome palisades won't take anything away from the Siege walls as one of the two can only be built in home territory and the other in neutral or opposing territory.

May 30 2020, 5:48 PM

May 27 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2767: Stop dodging arrows by spamclicking or patrol: Lower speed at short distances.

Do you have a replay, showing you can actually move your attention away from the dancing unit, without it getting hit?

May 27 2020, 6:52 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2767: Stop dodging arrows by spamclicking or patrol: Lower speed at short distances.

This solves dancing with patrol, but I can still easily dance other than that. It takes a quick second to adapt to having to click further apart or click in the minimap but other than that I can go for a long time until the unit finally gets hit.
It also will be very annoying when trying to micro and probably in other scenarios, I can't foresee right away. First thing is when I'm raiding with cavalry. I want to be quick and not have my cavalry suddenly slow down because I didn't click far enough in front of them. When I find an exposed group of units whilst raiding I want to position my cavalry in the retreat route to make them go a longer distance and also right by my units, this patch makes it very hard to do so as I generally will be clicking my units forward small distances. With the patch, I will have to click further away, hope the pathfinder doesn't do something dumb, and then use the "Stop" hotkey.
So currently to me, it feels like a solution that won't solve the problem entirely and will also harm other aspects of the game.

May 27 2020, 6:19 PM

May 7 2020

ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Addressed mistakes Nescio found. Also added Gaul "Tavern", Roman "Temple of Vespa" and Athenian, Spartan "Stoa" to Special Buildings

May 7 2020, 8:08 PM

May 6 2020

ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Remove "Cleruchy", "Military Reforms" and "Traditional army vs Reform Army" from Seleucid history tab.

May 6 2020, 9:16 PM
ValihrAnt added a comment to D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

There are some more things I'm unsure of:

  1. The Romans receive another unique formation on top of Testudo and that is anti_cavalry. I'm unsure if there is any better way to call it or to just leave it as "Anti-Cavalry Formation"
  2. Both of the Seleucid bonuses feel weird. "Cleruchy" is worded as if it is a tech and I want to know whether to reword it and also copy it over to the Ptolemies (the only other civilization to get the Military Colony) or to remove it. And for "Military Reforms", while it is a bonus to be able to choose 2 of 4 champions instead of just being given two, it also involves two technologies, and those are mentioned in the "Special Technologies" tab, so one of the two seems like a redundant entry to me.
May 6 2020, 3:51 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Addressed Nescio's critiques. Removed the Syntagma formation from being mentioned for the Macedonians as a bonus, because it is shared by every civilization with pikemen.

May 6 2020, 3:32 PM

May 5 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Well, it's available to three civs: kush, maur, pers; if it's listed in one civ file, then it should also be included in the other two.
For that same reason I believe it's incorrect to list the phalanx formation as a civ bonus in the spart file, since it's available to about half of all civs, not just spart.

Upon checking in-game only 4 civilizations have access to the phalanx formation: Athenians, Carthaginians, Seleucids and Spartans. Just under a third. So depends on where we draw the line of something not being unique enough, I guess. In my opinion, it's enough to be left in.

My point is that all entries in all civ files should be critically checked and corrected or removed. Patches ought to be both correct and complete, so this one could become quite large. Therefore it might be better to work horizontally, and do civ bonuses, structures, and technologies in three separate patches, to keep them smaller and more similar. I've no strong opinion either way; the choice is yours.

I'd prefer to do this one separately.

May 5 2020, 9:26 PM

May 4 2020

ValihrAnt added a comment to D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

For special technologies, please follow the strings from the technology files; many of those need to be updated as well, to follow the standardized tooltip format already used by auras and some technologies, but that is outside the scope of this patch; the entries in the {civ}.json files should match the technologies.

May 4 2020, 9:52 PM
ValihrAnt updated the diff for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.

Remove unimplemented features instead of marking them. Correct two more strings: Mauryan "Archery Tradition" and Macedonian "Royal Gift".

May 4 2020, 1:10 PM

May 3 2020

ValihrAnt changed the visibility for D2720: update information in {civ}.json files.
May 3 2020, 1:45 PM