- User Since
- Sep 21 2019, 3:08 PM (108 w, 4 d)
Sun, Oct 17
Switched to directly modifying templates instead of using a tech
If you move the Athenian Marine to the barracks or gymnasium, then I suggest you rename the unit back to its original name from years ago: Athenian Ekdromos. Full circle.
If you have it trained from the dock, then "Athenian Marine" still works, but I'd keep it trained only from the dock. Keeps it unique and also keeps it thematic (marines make sense trained from a dock or ship from an in-gameworld perspective).
Sat, Oct 16
Fixed a string
Fri, Oct 15
I think the tech needs to be rethought for it to get used as more than a late-game stone sink. I absolutely don't care about health or capture points for civic buildings, especially if it also increases the build time. Getting this tech forces me to waste more time setting up temples for champion production while also affording fewer of them. Looking back, it actually used to reduce build time but was changed due to fear of being op. Going in a circle and just having it reduce build time is one idea or could probably have it give a health boost to defensive and civic buildings as another.
It’ll be interesting to see how the bonus applies to 10 pop house civ.
It pretty much negates the early disadvantage of being forced to have idle time or skip baskets and afterwards it plays the exact same as it did for the Celts. Additionally, it allows them to execute the instant spear cavalry rush more comfortably.
Fri, Oct 1
Correct way of applying the bonus by @Freagarach
Thu, Sep 23
more redundant lines, from unit templates
Moved the icon location to be after the house and removed now useless lines.
One thing to consider is to make pyramids easily captured.
They're already captured in the same time as a house or storehouse but can't be garrisoned at all, so if you get pushed off a resource they're an easy target.
Their cost is reduced to 150 stone, build time to 120 seconds. Can someone elaborate on why this is good costs?
It makes the pyramid more affordable. What's the point of moving it up to village phase if players will at most build one at their farm economy and then forget about them existing like currently. The idea is that the reduced build time allows players to place it early on and the reduced cost to afford 2 in the village phase after some minor stone collection.
I would like to see 75 or 100 metal added to the cost, so you can still build one with the starting metal. However the metal cost makes it less spammable and thus less easy choices.
I don't think it really needs any cost increase. It could be maybe given 50 metal on top of the current cost but not more I think. The fact that it is a capturable building already gives it a risk factor. If you balance the cost for it not to be spammable in the late game you simply won't see any in the early game and if we go by how it is currently, you'll rarely see Kushites build them in the late game either. Also, keep in mind that the reduced aura indirectly increases the cost, and the funny thing that placing a pyramid in the best spot steals away the best spot for a storehouse.
Wed, Sep 22
Sep 19 2021
I suppose the bigger problem is that there isn't really a design plan/idea for how the civs should play and how many bonuses, unique techs a civ should have
Therefore this should be fixed first. Unless there is a real need don't change things until this is sorted out.
It'd be great but who knows how long it will take for someone to go out and make it. There is this https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Design_Document#PlayableCivilizations, but it doesn't detail anything for gameplay in generic.
Until then, I think it's fine to start adding a base of bonuses/techs just to differentiate civs more than by only their architecture.
And I agree that boni like additional pop for storehouses etc as we had in the past are preferable as they are also apparent to non (semi-) pro players and as such make more sense to use for the "differentiate civs" purpose.
The Britons can be given the structure population bonus and this woodcutting bonus moved over to the Mauryas maybe or just gotten rid of.
Sep 18 2021
Economy bonus not only affects the early game but the late game, which is not the intention in a good rush civilization and weak late game.
I think we're also looking at this very differently. A ''rush'' civilization for me is one that has wide-open options and opportunities for early and sustained aggression. The weak late game part doesn't refer to them being directly inferior to other civs but just simply lacking as many late game options. Otherwise, we create civilizations that are only seen in 1v1s and vice versa for only strong late game civs.
So in this case a wood bonus allows the Britons to more quickly get a stable and fields for war dogs/cavalry, or a stronger slinger rush as they can afford to have more on stone from the get go. And then the Britons can have an 'inferior' late game by missing cavalry upgrades, having weaker siege, and being reliant on infantry (Probably missing an inf armor upgrade too as they'd have better wood eco and thus would be able to field a bigger army). So in a 1v1s late game, the opponent can counterplay their strength and force them into playing suboptimal units but in team games their infantry is already accompanied by supporting units. This way they're still focused on the early game but aren't a crutch in late game.
Sep 17 2021
Britons/gauls must be a rush civ, so there may be a bonus for that, like, brit can build fortress and barracks on neutral territory for example.
For a rush civ, an early economy bonus is the most important thing. I don't see any value that being able to build a barrack in neutral gives early on. It's why the Mauryas and Ptolemies like to play extended early aggression much more than other civs.
Sep 16 2021
Switched the bonus from the Gauls to the Britons
Sep 15 2021
Is there a reason why we are applying this to Gauls instead of Brits? I only ask because Gauls already has some nice bonuses while Brits doesn’t.
It's such a generic bonus that it can be justified for basically any civ, Gauls were just the first ones I thought of.
Also, this wood tech paired with Gauls’ food tech makes Gauls the best wood/food civ on the game by quite a bit.
I suppose the bigger problem is that there isn't really a design plan/idea for how the civs should play and how many bonuses, unique techs a civ should have. So I'd imagine the celts having an eco advantage which transfers to a numbers advantage to make up for inferior unit quality, but obviously, that's not the case currently so it would make sense then to switch this over to the Britons. Then they'll have an eco bonus and their unique tech, unlike the Gauls, could be military focused and the Gauls can just receive a different eco bonus later.
More appropriate name and improved history
Sep 14 2021
Added a . I had forgot.
Extended the bonus to corrals and fishing ships.
Aug 28 2021
Aug 27 2021
I would make the fields free. That by itself wasn’t super OP when ptol had it (it was the free storehouses and farmhouses that were the main eco benefit).
Maybe it's something from before my time but in a23 the Ptol farms were completely normal cost. I think you're also underestimating how useful this proposed bonus is in a no extra food start or when you're playing aggressive.
As I said on the forum, the main source of kushite economy was husbandry, and we don't have any bonus like this, so I would give a bonus to the corrals/animals, or I would increase the hunting power of the kushite horses.
It seems to me that Kushites had both good farming and pastoralism so what about having the bonus affect both farms and corrals?
I think the most appropriate is "Fields -50% resource cost".
Yep, will do.
kushites is currently an economic/defensive civilization, I think this bonus adds to the style of play.
I'm not completely sure about the value, it can give you a big early game advantage.
Giving a unique early advantage is the point. You actually piqued my interest about how this compares to the Ptolemie wood saving bonus. Generally you will get to 8 farms, and remain at that count for the rest of a match, at around 80 population, which will save the Kushites 400 wood. The Ptolemies in that time will have saved 440 wood (1 Storehouse + 1 Farmstead + 12 Houses) and will continue saving wood as the game goes on. Additionally, for Kushites the bonus will come into effect later if extra berries/hunt are involved. Makes me feel like this bonus should actually be increased to like 75% or also reduce build time.
Jul 22 2021
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?