- User Since
- Feb 17 2017, 7:33 PM (197 w, 3 d)
Thu, Nov 19
Even thought of @ValihrAnt .
I don't think it is necessary to create new models. as gaul and brit are extremely poor in water maps, putting trireme early can be interesting. we can lower the attack a bit (original design idea), or even increase the value of the gaul / brit / (iber too?) triremes in proportion to their largest hp.
Why don't we move the gaules / brit trireme to village phase? the original idea of the brit / gaul trireme was to have more hit points and less attack. We put it in phase two and reduce the attack a little bit, I think it's fair.
Sat, Nov 14
As mentioned by @ValihrAnt, pikeman is a great unit, specially with ranger units, better than spearmen or swordmen ofc. it doesn't seem bad or unbalanced, it doesn't seem bad that they are stronger, some civilizations can take good advantage of it. what cannot happen is the extremely strong unit to the point of ruining gameplay. Rome may have a best sword inf of the game or iber with slings. Some "specially" units dont seems a problem with me.
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.
We can reduce the strength of the bireme a little more, so that the snowball is not so significant, Increasing your cost is also interesting.
As I mentioned earlier, I think we should reduce the pikeman armor a little bit, so that the new attack can be balanced. Giving a bonus is not a good solution, he would still have 1 attack, which is unpreparable.
Sep 19 2020
Sep 11 2020
Tnx god, tnx angen.
Sep 9 2020
Outpost are almost not used in 2x2 games and
3x3 or 4x4. The current changes along with nescio pacth(outpost need unit to vision)outposts are more interesting and useful, as they do not need vision technology to have a considerable vision, they also lose territory slowly.
100% is not true.
Sep 5 2020
If vision is deemed “practically useless”, then I'd suggest deleting the carthaginians/special_exploration.xml and romans/vision_sibylline.json technologies.
The "add": 50 could be replaced with e.g. "multiply": 1.2 (i.e. 20%), if you think that's better. However, the effect would be exponential, i.e. with a population cap of 250 the first wonder would add 50, the second 60, the third 72, andsoforth, so I guess that's why a flat addition rather than a multification was chosen in the past. I have no strong opinion on this specifically.
Yes, but the combination of more armour, health, and, crucially, a third more trade gain for merchant ships justify their higher costs.
The patch is better than the current situation, but I still don't feel satisfied.
Sep 4 2020
Sep 3 2020
Following the idea of the patch, outpost could be just a neutral building, cannot be captured, just destroyed or garrison. Can only be built in neutral territory.
Aug 29 2020
Values by @Nescio
Aug 27 2020
I do not understand too. the pikemen were a vulnerable unit from a ranged attacks, but an armored unit attacking vs melee. I think it's fair to decrease your piercing armor and increase your attack slightly.
Aug 26 2020
2/3 is a good number for you?
Still armour 10/10?
Aug 25 2020
Aug 24 2020
New values is better.
The problem of lack of swordsmen is easily solved by decreasing the spearman pierce attack and increasing the hack for example.
Aug 19 2020
Aug 18 2020
Up without techs.
Separating the templates is a good thing for the future where we can have techonologies and specific auras, but like D2900 I don't like the fact that they are not affected by technologies or auras. Camels are considered cavalry, as are elephants and chariots (they are drawn by horses).
Aug 17 2020
@wraitii look here pls
Aug 15 2020
I think don't need review just commit
I was doing this path right now, lul.
I like the idea of the patch, but I'm not sure about Iber / Brit / Gaul.
Aug 14 2020
I can agree with that. It's a bit confusing as it is now and really + 10 pop makes almost no difference. I have nothing against it either, if "stackable" is taken out, hardly anyone converts it into a wonder.
Aug 8 2020
Aug 7 2020
New values by @Nescio
@Nescio i need make this patch on new revision?
Aug 6 2020
This patch gives different goals to stonethrower and boltshooter.
@borg- update on that?
Aug 5 2020
So much generic tech and not used.
To be clear, this technology is not new, this patch just makes it more explicit what it does.
I prefer something specific for anti siege, like +5 crush armor. This still maintains the ability of melee units to take down towers.
Tower watch can be changed to +1 garrison capacity. Make more sense than simply increase arrows.
+ 1 capacity make tower hardly convertion, i like this.
It may be interesting to keep the standard 10 armor hack. Just a Idea, but we can add technogy could increase the garrison capacity to two and we can make an aura that increases the vision capacity for each garnished unit. Vision tech can be removed and decay technology can eliminates the conversion into neutral territory for gaia.
There were three questions, so no to which part(s)?
Aug 4 2020
About increasing the loot, I still disagree.
All the technologies like blacksmith make the units more difficult to kill, so I don't see any logic to increase the loot just for this.
The rest is good and I like it.
I don't agree with this patch.
This patch alone does not solve the spam problem, but is a clear improviment.
Gives champion elephant a fairer number.
I don't like the new value of the healer, but anyway they are within the planning for a general balance.
I didn't get any bugs, but I'm not sure I tested it enough.
Aug 3 2020
Well, it seems to me that the standard for rts games is the circle, there must be a good reason for that (I think). I don't know how much it affects gameplay.