- User Since
- Feb 17 2017, 7:33 PM (226 w, 3 d)
Tue, Jun 1
I think it's unrealistic, but following the idea of the patch, isn't it more interesting to just lower the elephant's pierce shield?
May 11 2021
Definitely not a good idea.
I do not think it is necessary to use a technology to increase vision. Vision range aura should work much better and be more useful. The rest of the patch is required. The current situation was not well accepted by the players.
Apr 8 2021
Apr 7 2021
Apr 6 2021
Apr 2 2021
+5 pierce armor > +50% health
Range increased from 80 to 100.
Apr 1 2021
"none" can be an interesting addition.
"Deathmatch" must have the values proposed by "Millionaire".
it's an improvement.
Yes, I agree that historically a higher ange or crush damage is wrong. However, I don't want to be just an archer with another look.
Increase health and range can be quite interesting. If we keep the current range then I think we should increase the damage.
Mar 31 2021
I'm not sure if 70 is enough for archers with archery tradition for example.
I think these little diversifications between chariots, camels and horses are unnecessary.
I would be happy if we had a unification between infantry and cavalry. I think 75 is a reasonable number for everyone, although elephant and siege weapons may have different values.
Fine by me,, I never saw anyone build this amount of tower or fortress in MP.
Well i think unrealistic that women have the same mining power as men for example, but for gameplay it can be interesting to have the same collection rate for all resources, perhaps this would encourage players to take more attacks during the game, as women can supply the economy now. We would also come to CCs with men farming instead of just women. what should be better to defend.
Idk, maybe 40, but i think is not a good number for this patch, so..
Two reasons why I agree with that.
I like to standardize the number, but I do not agree with the choice of 80. They are very important units economically, increasing your vision makes it very difficult harassing.
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.
It's good for consistency.
Although I want to see hack damage as well. Should be better in another patch, since changes in health are necessary.
Mar 29 2021
The rush/harras is very difficult in a24, but on the other hand with pacth it can be very easy. Balanced should work better, instead of 0 default arrow, I would choose 1 and keep <Capturable / RegenRate> 5, so we would have a total of 4 default arrows with the 3 technologies, greater than the current number. Instead of Capturable / RegenRate, we could have another more interesting bonus, like shorter training time for soldiers in the CC, increase cc range attack, etc...
Mar 27 2021
No problem with these changes.
What do you think of the defense structures having hack 20? I think that soldiers should be better able to damage these structures, not just depend on siege or special units.
I think it's fair, but two possible problems:
tooltip by @Nescio
I would actually prefer putting it in an Arab mercenary camp. To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence for the Ptolemies fielding camel archers. That's a different discussion, though.
Wouldn't that bring it too close to forge technologies, though? (Those increase attack damage by 15% each.)
Mar 26 2021
I thought of a wider range than archers, like 72/74. Historically it was a defensive unit, behind the walls, so I think that a wider range is good in this sense, mainly because it will be a slower unit, proposed by this patch.
Maybe some changes on range attack?
Mar 25 2021
I didn't find anything about cretan archers, does it make sense that this unit should be trained only in docks and triremes or should it be moved to barracks?
Mar 24 2021
The values proposed in this patch are the values that were ideal for me. The main idea is that you can keep more soldiers fighting/training and less collecting.
The patch is correct and complete.
Other camel attributes can be differentiated too (e.g. cost), if necessary.
Since continue being affected by general techs like forge, then i'm ok with that. My concern is how much increased health makes the camel rush stronger for pto, at counter point makes kush camels more interesting.
This is a necessary change to make archers less op, especially at the beginning of the game. I agree with the addition of technology in contrast, my only doubt is where the tech is. I don't know if the forge is the ideal place for that. particularly I like the forge only for techs that involve more types of units together, not just one in particular, in this case I prefer it to be in the cc. Maybe other ícon?
I think you forgot the tech.
For me the health of the wall towers are not very relevant for this patch and should be done in another one if necessary. The patch is complete and correct and an improvement to the gameplay.
With the possible increase in gain from 20% to 25% (D3703), I would be satisfied with only metal reduction. I do not think it is necessary to change other resources, the problem really is the metal.
As it is not possible to do this correctly now, we can add more health by rank, +50 health per new archer/rank.
Removed the 20% discount on the cost of technologies. The patch proposed by @valirant D3675 should already give a reasonable discount.
Decreased the amount of construction for city phase from 3 to 2 + prytaneion. D3686 decrease to 3, so it seems more reasonable to decrease to two.
Heroes moved to phase 3 again.
New Prytaneion aura.
Phase tech moved to prytaneion.
Phase up techs cost less resources and search faster.
Mar 23 2021
Mar 22 2021
In practical tests I did, the new aura looks worse than the old one. It does not seem to push the enemy edge as desired.
The patch looks complete and correct. It is more consistent and easier to understand than the current scenario. For me a clear improvement.
Mar 20 2021
Just add a description.
Mar 18 2021
With technologies, a fully garrisoned small tower could fire 6 arrows, a large tower 9, an Iberian tower 14. With this patch the small tower gets a hard maximum of 3, as you requested earlier. The garrison capacity could be lowered instead, but I don't think it's a good idea to do both.
I would really like to add a new archer techonology to these civilizations, the proposal by @wowgetoffyourcellphone of +10% firing rate and +10% accuracy is a good one, I wouldn't risk a faster rank tech for ranged units now.
Decreases the cost of buildings by 20% --> 25%.
Wood and stone cost 300 --> 250.
I really like this. Ok, is less realistic but for gameplay it is better, gives the towers greater importance and also makes less op turtle maps.
To be honest I had no economic difficulties with wood or food with these technologies, the difficulty unit is really metal. The demand for metal in a24 is higher, so I am happy to reduce the cost of metal, but I don't know about the other resources.
These are the original values proposed by me, so I am fine with this revert if necessary.
Mar 17 2021
For consistency, should the limit of garrison units in the sentry tower decrease to 2? This would affect the capture for sure.
To make the rush a little more viable in the beginning, wouldn't it be interesting to give the civic center arrow default 1? This would make future technologies more interesting as well.
For me, health like 375/425/475 would be the most interesting. Values similar to what we have today.
I think it is unnecessary changes of the cost of popupalation just because it is a little higher or lower, I think this brings possible future problems.
Capacity I would also maintain the same, being more robust and larger does not mean more internal space. I find an unnecessary change.
The cost of wood and the speed I like is different.
Mar 16 2021
Well, I think the patch proposal is fair. I am accepting it believing that we will look more carefully at merchant ships, improving their commercial gain. I don't usually accept or reject a patch based on others, I like to do it individually, and that patch is correct and fair.
What I would really like to see is to take the bonus for garrison, and increase the real gain a little bit. Decreasing your size a bit would be great.
> I would like to have the approval of an experienced player as well, what does @borg- think?
I would prefer an additional set of forge technologies ("level III") succeeding the current ones ("level I+II"). Maybe only attack upgrades, not sure. They would be resource and time heavy but could be the edge in extended games.
Let's wait a few days and see what others think, though. And more testing is needed, these changes go rather far.
There is a 180% increase in cost and only a real 60% gain. To be honest, the gain for garrison units is basically useless, I have never used it and I have never seen anyone use it, it is a need for huge micro and merchant ships are clumsy, so it is a problem.
For me the addition of wood is valid, but I support a cost like 60 wood 60 metal and the proposed gain of 60%.
Is possible to reduce the size of the model so that it is not colliding so much with other merchant ships?
Mar 15 2021
Are the numbers reasonable for you?