If scout is implemented, it may make sense to slow down hunting rate for the rest of the cavalry, while scout maintains the same current rate.

I'm willing to give this patch a chance, for me it brings positive points.

I like the changes in this patch, especially with the idea of having scouts, a specific unit for vision.
It doesn't seem a disadvantage to me being hit by boolt shoters and not being able to see, it's part of the game, improve your scout.
Why the difference between camel and cavalry?

Well my opinion here should not be very useful here, but anyway, it seems to me much more correct and consistent.

A nuub question. Is possible to have the option to have the ping of each player on the screen, as age of empires? Currently we have to give like 4 "f11", and it is not something that stays permanent on the screen.

To me it looks good enough and a nice addition.

Certainly the patch encourages the use of new ccs and military camps and makes the use of theaters more interesting. It also opens up a possibility for new auras / technologies to gain territory.

Good patch. I will include only quinquireme.

I am not in favor of increasing the vision range and also the same vision range for all units.

I am willing to accept. I really like this change.

The unit that really bothers me is the ranged cavalry, they are very slow.
Tor infantry I would be willing to see it a little faster, but I have no problems as it is now.

Some players are reporting that the game is "slower" now, due to the movement speed of some units, which goes against this patch.

For me are nice changes, nothing against this patch.

Well, now we have time haha.
I did some tests and in general it looks good, but the damage of iber champion fire should be increased a little.

After some tests, the attack is really very strong.
It is not an op unit because they are slow and expensive (champions can easily kill for example), but the patch is very valid for me.

I will test it, but being a strong unit is not enough for a nerf. They are relatively expensive and need elephant stables, so it is just that they are strong, what cannot be op, enough to win all games, like slings in the past alpha for example.

In D3602#157030, @Freagarach wrote:

Kinda makes sense: Strengthening own culture.

I would like the opinion of @ValihrAnt and @Feldfeld

I haven't played with mauryans or against, but I can't say if I will be op or not, although I'm almost sure not. However, the current health and attack are bad. The attack must be the same as other archers and the health must be greater than the cavalry, so this patch seems good to me.
The cost I would keep as is or 150 food 100 wood.

Foundations with different values don't really make sense. The patch does not change the balance and introduces a pattern. I don't see anything negative.

Any opnion @Nescio ?

I agree here with @Nescio.

@wraitii some look here pls

Yes, it is not something terrible, but it can be fixed with a certain "ease" and makes a24 even better.
I thought of few changes, just pop cost and health.
Health +30% and pop cost 2? No affect heros.

In D2965#155513, @Nescio wrote:

What do you mean with “status changes”?

It doesn't make sense to me to have unlock_champion_chariots and unlock_champion_cavalry (both are cavalry). It is the same as having a techonology for swordmen and another for spearmen, or archer, both are infantry. So to make sense of unlock_champion_chariots i would like to see these status changes in the templates already for a24.

It makes no sense to me that chariots do not benefit from hourses techs, auras etc.
I think the status changes can be made directly in the templates without the need to create new ones.

@wraitii we can have this for a24?

For me it still doesn't make sense the cost 0 and time 0.
If it has no cost or time then shouldn't this technology exclude seleucides? It seems to me a useless click the most.

@wraitii opnion?

Well i guess i don't agree here. If the stable is the problem, just change the stable, I'm fine as the arsenal is now.

500 food 500 metal?

I think the change in the elephant stable is fair, but I prefer to keep the arsenal as it is. It seems to me that he used arsenal just for comparison.

Well, anyway i am in favor of the changes.

I am in favor of adding wood value to merchant ships. I prefer only 150 wood over 100 metal for example, or a mixed value like 60 wood and 60 metal.

It gives the chance for a player who lost his city, to be able to rebuild his economy. I have no idea if this is good or bad.
@Feldfeld @ValihrAnt ?

Small maps are preferred in 1v1/2v2 because they are faster, easy early attack, harass etc ...
I particularly like rts games where the units move faster. If it is accepted by other players, I will have no problem accepting it, but my vote is no.

I can't prove it without a lot of games, but I'm pretty sure that the reduced speed of the champion cavalry is a good change. I know that is not the focus of this patch, but it is an improvement anyway.

To me it looks good for melee cavalry, safer, especially for champion cavalry, but not sure about ranged cavalry, maybe it seems a little too slow, are you willing to accept 15.0?

In D3458#153567, @Nescio wrote:

The current patch (a food cost increase) seems fine, I have no objections.
As for the original patch, though, why is it necessary that these two Persian town-phase technologies must be superseded by the shared city-phase technologies? Soldier training time and structure batch training time modifier are not exactly the same thing.

REBASE

In D3480#153505, @Stan wrote:

@ffffffff @borg- @nani @badosu thoughts on this?

@Feldfeld @Nescio opnion?

Set champion cavalry build time to 30.

Reducing overall speed to 1.9 or 1.8 like first patch, still keeps melee cavalry proportionally faster than ranged.

So let's simplify, 1.9 to all cavalry, it's an interesting value and less risky.

I think that a change in speed at that moment is a little risky, we have little time to test, I would just be with the increase in the cost of tech and training time.

I would like to decrease melee too, maybe 19,0 melee and 16.5 ranged.
Is the training time of champ cavalry adequate with the new citizen time?

One of my fears is about champion cavalry, so the patch helps a little bit.
I would reduce it to 1.9 for now, it seems a safer and sufficient value.

In D3476#153308, @Feldfeld wrote:

In general the ranged cavalry was very nerfed compared to the a23. Now you need stables for mass training, range and attack is reduced, spear cavalry has its bonus increased and sword cavalry is more effective against ranged units, including cavalry of course.

To compensate there are 2 new technologies for cavalry (speed and health) whereas infantry doesn't get any of this. Also now forge technologies that affect cavalry also affects infantry so it makes it a bit easier for cav player since sometimes they will want to fight with infantry too.

@wraitii any opnion?

In general the ranged cavalry was very nerfed compared to the a23. Now you need stables for mass training, range and attack is reduced, spear cavalry has its bonus increased and sword cavalry is more effective against ranged units, including cavalry of course.
I think these changes are very aggressive.
I think we can keep the range and training time as how is it, just lowering the general cavalry speed so that units like spearman have more chances and increase the price of movement technology, but keeping it at p1.

Cavalry javelin and Archer with less range than infantry? No make Sense.
I dont agree with more expansíve range cav and tech p2.
I agree with Nerf move speed.

I see no reason to reduce health to 1000. In general, they are bigger than a town tower and also the walls. Decreasing the max range / vision is bad because they are the same height as a tower. What I would do is add garrison attack/vision depends of units like a outpost, decrease health by 10-15%, increase stone cost and construction time.

The champion could have been kept just by removing one citizen spear, that would balance the economic damage done to the enemy.

@wraitii. Smaller hack attack compared to the previous patch.

Haha, np.
Thanks for making the changes, I was at work and couldn't do.

New values by @Freagarach

@wraitii some opnion?

@wraitii opnion?

Well, in this case I think it is very risky to keep this high cost.

I cant make this changes now, sorry.

I can accept new values.
Tnx @Nescio

Anyway, I like the numbers proposed, they are better than the current situation.
@soloooy0 asked for this armor reduction because it looked a little mean, giving so many hits in an animal unit that cannot defend itself.

What about armour 2/2?

@Feldfeld can rebase?

In D3430#151869, @Freagarach wrote:

How about doubling the damage and changing the interval to 3000 and duration to 9000?
Without patch: Total damage of 2 (8000 / 4000 * 1).
Current patch: Total damage of 6 (8000 / 4000 * 3).
Proposed patch: Total damage of 6 (9000 / 3000 * 2). The advantage is that it is more visible that the entity is losing health due to a SE.

Well maybe we can lower the hack ttack from 4 to 3. it was still less efficient than a woman, but better than the current state.

I can't update for the next 12 hours, so @Nescio can commander this patch if necessary?

edit

How can it be expensive? in alpha23 you need approximately 2500 resources to have 20% attack for melee cavalry and infantry, with patch cost 1400 town and 2000 city.

This is blatantly untrue. They had 150 crush / 1.5 s in A21, A22, A23 and still do in A24.

We don’t have more time to test, and I believe that the changes in the champions take time to test, so I think it’s better to remove the champions from the patch, sorry about that.

Correct tooltip per @wraitii

Rebase

Cost reduction suggested by @wraitii

We have a 25% increase in health for merchant ships and a 140% increase in cost, does not seem fair.
100 of metal is also problematic because it is difficult for you to spend that high amount of metal when you need metal.
I agree that a wood value has been added.
So i'm suggesting a value of wood 120 and metal 60, same as bireme, it seems fair, adds wood and reduces metal.

Well, the icons are welcome (tnx @Stan ) but I still maintain my values. If there is a consensus, I accept 20%.

In general, the efficiency of ranged units is lower than a23. Ranged units gain less armor, +25% time to up level, less range etc... This patch is not enough to leave something op.