In D4744#202245, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

so how do we commit? Or should it not be done?

In D4744#202074, @borg- wrote:

In D4744#202069, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

putting this in the forum was a mistake :c

Why?

In D4722#201929, @LetswaveaBook wrote:

I would like to cut the metal cost of fanatics. If the metal cost is fully removed, I am afraid it just will be fairly easy to spam and function as a superior spearman.

Fine with me. Let's see if anyone else has objections.

In D4744#201868, @marder wrote:

I don't have any better ideas tbh.
Vision range is just a topic that is very intensively discussed, so not sure if we should make a move this alpha.

Related discussions just for the record:
D3487
D3486
D3776
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/37850-revealing-attackers-in-fog-of-war/
https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/18003-suggestions-for-0-ad/page/156/#comment-510998

Edit: there are probably more, those are just the ones I had in mind

In D4744#201863, @marder wrote:

In D4744#201861, @chrstgtr wrote:

I'd prefer to have vision a decent bit farther than any units actually engage. This diff's proposed value seems fine. Slightly larger seems fine too. I want to avoid a situation where units quickly die to stronger enemy units that come into vision and immediately destroy your troops before you can react (archers and sword cav come to mind, here)--players should have a chance to at least react and adjust/reinforce.

For siege, I would be fine with them having the same vision range as other units. Whether than means slightly expanding units vision range or slightly decreasing siege's range. Here, though, I would like to avoid a situation where troops can be under attack by far away siege that units can't see.

Fair enough. The problem could be what "slightly" means. Catas have right now a range of 100, which is nearly double the archer range.

Also see the discussion in D3492 about this.

In D4744#201860, @marder wrote:

In D4744#201811, @chrstgtr wrote:

Personally, I would unify all vision ranges for units (women, siege, CS, champs, etc.).

I agree that all human units (CS, support, cav, eles ect.) should have the same vision range and from my feeling even 65 would be fine for that (slightly larger than the archer range).

On the other hand, siege with a much larger attack range needs a much larger vision range in order to work properly. So we either need to keep that for them or reduced their attack range.

I would personally just make it 1.25x each phase, but this works.

In D4744#201812, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4744#201811, @chrstgtr wrote:

Personally, I would unify all vision ranges for units (women, siege, CS, champs, etc.).

If any unit deserves to have slightly longer vision it would be cav for "realism" but even then I don't think it makes a ton of sense.

on the "realism": Sitting on a horse should only improve your sight nearby (seeing over bushes and tall grass)

no it doesn't make much sense: currently cavalry can see 12 meters more than infantry. It's such a massive advantage considering they can already move faster to avoid fights. My thought is it could help solve the late game cavalry death balls.

catas need large vision range because of their large attack range. I do think support units could use a little more vision.

Personally, I would unify all vision ranges for units (women, siege, CS, champs, etc.).

In D4735#201589, @Stan wrote:

I think you should ask balancing. I don't have a strong opinion.
I sometimes wonder if one should see all the buildings they can't build, or if they should be revealed when they become available.
Or if the UI is good at all, and it should not be more starcrafty (It's a gif)

In D4722#201387, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4722#201266, @borg- wrote:

In D4722#201254, @marder wrote:

I'm not convinced that the current proposed aura is the best way to go.
The attack reduction part makes them similar to the trumpeter, taking away from their (the trumpeters) uniqueness and the speed reduction on its own seems a little bit strange to me.

Looking at the history of changes regarding the fanatics: rP14774 rP20314 rP19697 rP21592 rP18910 rP18155 (not in order)
maybe one of those was just a bit too much of a nerf? Couldn't they have a nice gameplay niche and usability with the right combination of cost + armor + speed alone?

Yes, it is possible. Removing its metal cost, increasing damage against cavalry for example, could make a unit special anti-cavalry.

I think the original metal cost profile @borg- proposed could be good, along with increased hack armor (asymmetric armor stats) as they have a shield, but no body armor. 6 hack armor, 4 pierce. This will allow them to better survive engagements with melee units, while remaining relatively weak to ranged attacks. They are an ambush unit, so this change will better suit that role.

With this change: no need for auras. I think a slight speed increase would be good if they are still weak after this.
Thoughts @borg-, @marder, @chrstgtr, @wowgetoffyourcellphone?

In D4232#201256, @marder wrote:

Just some random meta comments:

There are enough forum threads of people wanting balanced maps that we should definitively do something for a27.

my biggest question is to what extent should things be balanced?

We already have the 'basic' balance of the normal starting animals + straggler trees. Funny enough, many of the new scenario maps don't even have this anymore.
This patch aims to also balance the hunt in the surrounding area (and maybe in the future also the surrounding forests)
We have some symmetrical maps proposals which make 'everything' balanced, while still having random looks: D4053 or https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/85756-fair-multiplayer-random-map/
And we also have the multiplayer who just want a flat perfect balance plane: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/83077-map-balanced-plainland/

So I'm not sure what the right balance is between randomness and balance / or what people want.
Should we go after all of the approaches? I.e. have some symmetrical maps, have a flat plane for people who don't like pretty things and try to include something like intermediate area balancing/ this patch?
Or should we choose one and stick to it?

In D4722#201249, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Could Fanatics be a lot like Fenris Wolves in Age of Mythology? Individually weak, but with an aura that boosts fellow Fanatics around them? A small stackable speed and attack boost. Just a suggestion.

But to this patch, it doesn't look bad. Needs to address @Freagarach 's inline comment though. :)

In D4683#201222, @borg- wrote:

Not yet for me, it still doesn't make sense to increase repeat time attack.

I'm fine with this.

Good for me

The immortals need to be tested in the next RC.

In D4722#200984, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4722#200983, @borg- wrote:

I need to redo this patch. What @chrstgtr said makes sense. I find it more interesting to increase the cost of wood rather than food.
Also, I think the movement speed aura is enough, we don't need two auras, what do you think?

the cost could still be changed some for sure, I think this is a pretty flexible part of the patch. However, I think both auras can stay.

In D4722#200981, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4722#200980, @chrstgtr wrote:

Fanatics have needed changes since a22 for awhile so good that something is being done.

The aura changes make sense to me.

But I don’t agree that replacing metal makes with wood/food makes it easier to spam the unit. Food is the slowest fathered resource. Gathering wood also requires the constant building of nearby storehouses as the closest wood gets depleted (whereas a single storehouse can service a metal mine for a very long time).

I personally think fanatics are underpowered because cav can do the same thing with lower input costs. The aura should help with that, though. If the aura changes don’t do enough then lowering costs, increasing HP, or increasing armor seem like the two best options to improve fanatic performance (compared to cav)

you might be right here, but at least the gauls get an additional farming upgrade in the storehouse during p2. I would say that makes the food cost more fitting.

Fanatics have needed changes since a22 for awhile so good that something is being done.

In D4724#200874, @borg- wrote:

In D4724#200858, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4724#200857, @borg- wrote:

Ice house must allow garrison infantry and cavalry?

Historically travelers entered, but as it can only be built in their own territory now, I don't know if it's interesting to keep infantry and cavalry.

I think it's better off not garrisoned. Otherwise, they could be used as an escape route for cavalry, and they would be harder to capture.

About the patch overall, @borg-, I am inclined to accept everything except the immortals. I am still certain they are overpowered, mathematically. Perhaps they should be removed from the patch and balanced separately via a mod?

Basically his spearman form has the resistance of a level 3 spearman, nothing too strong, although his attack is still that of a champion. This can be done today in the current alpha with some spearman champions and some ranged units as cover, and there are no complaints that this is op.
the fact that they move slower makes them chaseable targets against fast units such as archers, javelins, and slingers. So the player will have to be careful when using Immortals. I really can't think of it as something very op.

In D4704#200584, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

The issue I see is really the slight redundancy.

In D4704#200477, @marder wrote:

fyi: I will wait either for another acceptance or the end of the discussion (should this go to another civ) before committing this

I think this will be a nice p2 wrinkle. It will give the ability to knock out CCs, which will make the game more interesting.

I’ve explained more fully in forum, but chariots haven’t been problematic in a25 so I see no reason to nerf them. All theoretical arguments don’t make sense if our real world experience doesn’t reflect these theoretical predictions.

Makes sense

In the limited amount of testing for a26 I’ve done, I’ve found merc cav to still be problematic. I think this is a step in the right direction

In D4679#199512, @wraitii wrote:

In D4679#199184, @Freagarach wrote:

That sounds like good play then? And reckless play from the defender? There are walls to fend off these kind of raids?

While I would +1 that this makes sense, it might lead to big gameplay changes

In D4676#199073, @marder wrote:

In D4676#198969, @chrstgtr wrote:

@marder Since it seems like we agree on most stuff that you want to accomplish, I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with some of your proposals. It seems easier to just work within what already exists and increase capture/health points for specific buildings (i.e., increase the capture/health points for towers) so that they function they way you want them to (i.e., increasing towers so much that attacking players would have to do damage to them before the attacker could successfully capture the tower). Adding these formal requirements like 50% damage and whatnot just seem to make it more complicated and can lead to undesirable and unexpected changes.

I am happy with any approach that leads to a better gameplay :)

the main things I wanted to achieve with these requirements is to fix that units will default to capture if you don't micro them, which is mostly a complete waste of time and also keeping the rules consitent and easy to understand.
Making some buildings uncapturable or some building just having very high capture points is (imo) more complicated to understand/ see in the stats then: "the building is on gaia grounds, so I can capture it / the building is on enemy territory, so I have to attack it first".

In D4679#199067, @marder wrote:

it makes sense from a logic standpoint, but not sure how well it would impact the gameplay- e.g. garrisoning female citizens in houses wouldn't really keep the safe anymore

I think @marder, @wraitii and I agree on the vast majority of items. We just need to iron out on how it actually functions.

This seems less like a change to the meta and more of an attempted improvement on what already exists. I'm partly on board with this to the extent it only applies to certain buildings. Namely, I would like to see non-garrisonable buildings (market, blacksmith, docks, theaters, universities, etc.) and towers become more difficult to capture.

I also have some concerns about this becoming impossible to counter. If a unit is so fast that it can't be caught by its natural counter (spear cav) then that is broken.

Good for me—I always wanted the worker ele to be able to build.

Makes sense to me.

It seems like there is wide agreement in the 2x multiplier and some people want more armor. Maybe the armor issue should be dealt with in another patch.

In D4506#196080, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Hey everyone, this is my first time on here. I would eventually like to help write patches, but it will probably take me a while to get set up and stuff. It seemed there was some agreement on the spear cav buff being: +1 pierce armor, cav counter = 2.0. Apparently there is more time to make balance changes so thoughts on this making it into A26?

In D4604#195928, @marder wrote:

Just something that may be worth discussing: P1 market for the trader civs. That would possibly be something that is noticed more by the player.

Or maybe no P1 market, but just starting with a free one.

All of these bonuses seem fine by me, but none of them seem that different from one another and by making them technically different this revision seems to introduce unnecessary complexity into the game. But, again, I don't really care.

In D4537#195350, @marder wrote:

I think @ValihrAnt's acceptance is implied?
@wowgetoffyourcellphone any comments/opinion?
Any one else opinions?

Fine for me too

In D4554#194236, @ValihrAnt wrote:

I see absolutely no need for this. Getting woodcutting + farming + the usual blacksmith upgrades (Ranged attack + pierce armor) takes 3200 metal. Include will to fight and a hero and that's 5000. If you have access to 10000 more metal that only allows you to get 125 infantry champs or 100 cavalry champs. Champions are already very rarely used.

I suspect my ideal is an even bigger nerf, but this is definitely going to be a huge improvement

In D4516#194108, @ValihrAnt wrote:

@ValihrAnt would you prefer this or what is in svn now?

I prefer this as it leans more into their unique fire damage and actually differentiates them from the Briton chariots.

lowed the pierce to 25 (so -10)

in my test in atlas vs the briton chariot champion and the rome spearcav champion, they are now roughly equal.
Which means that they are overall still better as you can get them cheaper and they are able to damage buildings.

If they still trade evenly with the Briton chariots or their counter unit, I'd prefer to further reduce their pierce attack or attack speed. Imo they should be inferior in direct battles so they can't be mindlessly ran into the enemies base, destroy buildings and then fight off defending units.

Distance should be sufficient. I’m fine with this

In D4506#194035, @marder wrote:

as I said, I don't feel strongly about it, but wouldn't that rather be an argument to increase the counter to 2 ? (also because that would be a nice round number)

In D4234#193806, @Stan wrote:

@chrstgtr Is is it still something you agree with?

In D4249#193743, @marder wrote:

still would like to see this :)

In D4515#193680, @marder wrote:

Alright, so is there a consensus that mercs shouldn't rank?

It would be a bit sad since the art for the units is then unused, but I can remove it.
Should they then maybe start at rank 3? maybe be even more expensive?

Also: I think this should probably be handled in a different diff than, since it touches all mercs and not just the cav.

In D4515#192746, @ValihrAnt wrote:

Proposed by @chrstgtr
same cost as CS cav, but all metal

I'd prefer 90 metal cost as that is 1.5x their infantry counterpart cost just like for citizens. Combine that change with adjusting their requiredxp for promotion to 2.5x or 3x relative to their citizen counterparts. It should help retain the mercenary identity of a quick to get and strong unit, but they'll be slower to reach rank 3 than their citizen counterparts.

In D4512#192644, @marder wrote:

Ah ok, guess I misunderstood the ticket #5680
In that case: sure that would also be a possibility, but arguably a bigger change than just increasing the acceleration?

In D4510#192579, @marder wrote:

In D4510#192574, @chrstgtr wrote:

Anything that is effective against champions is going to be too strong against CS. But I always thought the last nerf was too much. This, though, feels like a little too much of a buff (it's pretty significant at 20%, which actually has compounding effects when killing off armies). I would change to 11 instead of 12.

Edit: we can always adjust upwards if necessary, but this is a pretty large jump that I am worried will make the game quite turtle-ly.

I'm fine with 11 if you prefer to stay on the more cautious side.
Just to give a bit more of my thought process (I hope I calculated them right):

basic archer attack: 6.7 + techs (15% +15% +20%) -> 10.6329 | Repeat time 1000ms
champion archer attack: 13.5 +techs (15% +15% +20%) -> 21.4245 | Repeat time 1000ms
tower ungarrisoned: 12 | Repeat time 2000 -> 6 per 1000ms
tower garrisoned with techs: 12 * 6 * 1.4 -> 100.8 | Repeat time 2000 -> 50.4 per 1000ms -> 50.4/5 -> 10.08 damage per garrisoned solider.

So a fully garrisoned and upgraded tower would make five times the damage of a fully upgraded archer, which makes sense as you have to garrison five people in there.
Champion archer would still have a better damage per unit ratio.

That's why I thought 12 would still be ok in comparison. Another option could be to let towers also benefit from the archery techs?

But as I said, if you prefer 11 I can adjust the patch.

Anything that is effective against champions is going to be too strong against CS. But I always thought the last nerf was too much. This, though, feels like a little too much of a buff (it's pretty significant at 20%, which actually has compounding effects when killing off armies). I would change to 11 instead of 12.

In D4474#192264, @marder wrote:

In D4474#192262, @chrstgtr wrote:

This could severely limits a player’s ability to research the berry tech for the initial berries (unless you have extra berries). That would take away from the boom/rush decision at the start of games. I would prefer a different approach or to create a separate berry building

One could also move the berry tech to the CC or to the houses. Since it's not strictly a "farming" technology that would be fine by me.
Or maybe even make houses dropsites for berries

In D4474#192255, @marder wrote:

update to gather the opinions on a different approach than last time.

Fields can be build anywhere (including neutral territory), but farmsteads must be at least 90 meter away from the CC.
To compensate for that, the farmsteads provide a 25% (value open for balancing) farming rate increase around them and they are also buildable in neutral territory.
So strong city/ weak countryside if you will.

Why 90 meter you may ask? Could be a bit less and is open for discussion, but see here:

note that this still allows you to place defensive structures:

Also see note how this makes it easy to get berries outside of your territory for the price of being unprotected:

In D4474#190892, @bb wrote:

Random comment: one can also think of making this "phase dependent". Since in reality in small town the fields are close to the cc, while in bigger cities they lie far from it. Doing so also makes up some nice strategies: Do I build farms first close to the cc and later move them? Or have a late phase up? Or start building them far away and quickly phase up? etc.

In D4474#190871, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

The "reduction of choice" argument carries no weight with me, as the very act of designing a game reduces choice. This is not a sandbox game. Even a sandbox game like Minecraft has "artificial" restrictions. And even if a change reduces choice, other changes can and do add choice elsewhere.

Things that restrict the player:

Phases specifically, but Technology requirements in general
Territories/borders
Unit rosters (where my LASER Troopers at?)
Game Speed (I would prefer to play at 2.333x speed, but the game doesn't allow me to do this)
Gathering Rates (why do we have to gather resources?)
Costs (I think things should be free)
Train/Build/Research time (why can't I choose to research instantly???)
Civs - Their very existence as a concept and the fact that there aren't 1000 to choose from

Why are you forcing these things down my throat?^ Why are you forcing me to play the game you want it to be played?

The answer is game design.

In D4474#190858, @marder wrote:

In D4474#190857, @chrstgtr wrote:

This can't be predicted. For one, maps are randomly generated and where you can place the farms may not be an option because they are too crowded. You can't say you don't know how it will turn out and then immediately say "but how it will turn out will be better" because you literally just admitted that you do not know what it will be.

I did some test before uploading the patch and 65 or 60 m are not that far as it may seem. Yous still can place fields on all nomad or island maps or even on a 4 player tiny empire map. That much space is/ should always be around the CC.
And I stand to what I said, I still think it will in most cases lead to a more strategic decision about where to place your farms. Also note that I did not say better, I said I don't believe it will turn out worse then it is at the moment.

I think there's a lot of faulty reasoning here, so I will take each in turn.

Not a fan of anything that eliminates player choice. Also worth noting that while some people dislike it, others do like it

Is ele/walrus included in fauna? If so this would impact luring. I think that’s a nice little wrinkle to normal gameplay (but not perfect). I wouldn’t be devastated if it disappeared, though

In D4380#187543, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4380#187533, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In DE, the animal limit is 30. Would that be more appropriate here as well? This is supposed to only supplement food, not be a primary source.

In D4380#187529, @chrstgtr wrote:

This won’t replace farming. If you try to do this early, you’ll be very slow. Even late, players have a limit on the number of animals that can have.

Exactly. It's a supplement. Going heavy on animals early takes a lot of investment in food that won't be returned for quite some time.

In D4380#187532, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4380#187530, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In DE, the animal limit is 30. Would that be more appropriate here as well? This is supposed to only supplement food, not be a primary source.

I wouldn’t mess with the number of animals allowed. It will have rippling effects into actual corralling/slaughtering, which should remain a viable standalone food source, as well as other other areas like lowering startup costs for this feature. If anything, I would adjust the trickle rate to equal an appropriate amount of farming units that it can “replace,” but I don’t think anyone has shown that the current values are inappropriate (but again, I like the idea of making sheep higher ROI with a lower trickle rate).

Higher ROI for sheep--you mean greater max food, but lower trickle, compared to a goat or pig? :) I don't mind differentiating the animals more, but I think we could possibly keep that for another diff? I also have fattening in DE, which adds a whole other dimension we can discuss in that "other" diff.

ROI I mean the return on investment. So how quick the trickle is compared to the cost investment. Higher total return would be a lower trickle compared to cost, but more ability to replace units. But I agree, this is a different differential as it would require a change to the cost of the cow itself.

@LetswaveaBook total return is also important to the extent you want to require “normal” food production. Limiting the number of animals is important for that. Also, lag becomes a big concern with unlimited animals.

The ROI and limits of this have to be rooted against the Wonder as this will effectively “replace” units, so balance needs to be kept there. obviously, pop benefit of the wonder is also subject to revision, but that is beyond the scope here.

In D4342#187615, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In D4342#187609, @ValihrAnt wrote:

I'd like, if possible, to only have fields that are placed right next to a farmstead to be autobuilt. Adds an extra macro element in deciding whether the saved build time is worth the farmers being more exposed to danger.

I like this a lot, but not sure if the game supports something like this yet. In DE, I'd give the autobuilding to those Fields laid on farmland terrain.

In D4342#187609, @ValihrAnt wrote:

I'd like, if possible, to only have fields that are placed right next to a farmstead to be autobuilt. Adds an extra macro element in deciding whether the saved build time is worth the farmers being more exposed to danger.

In D4342#187593, @Freagarach wrote:

But then we should disallow other units to build the farms, right?

In D4380#187533, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In DE, the animal limit is 30. Would that be more appropriate here as well? This is supposed to only supplement food, not be a primary source.

In D4380#187529, @chrstgtr wrote:

This won’t replace farming. If you try to do this early, you’ll be very slow. Even late, players have a limit on the number of animals that can have.

Exactly. It's a supplement. Going heavy on animals early takes a lot of investment in food that won't be returned for quite some time.

In D4380#187532, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4380#187530, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In DE, the animal limit is 30. Would that be more appropriate here as well? This is supposed to only supplement food, not be a primary source.

I wouldn’t mess with the number of animals allowed. It will have rippling effects into actual corralling/slaughtering, which should remain a viable standalone food source, as well as other other areas like lowering startup costs for this feature. If anything, I would adjust the trickle rate to equal an appropriate amount of farming units that it can “replace,” but I don’t think anyone has shown that the current values are inappropriate (but again, I like the idea of making sheep higher ROI with a lower trickle rate).

Higher ROI for sheep--you mean greater max food, but lower trickle, compared to a goat or pig? :) I don't mind differentiating the animals more, but I think we could possibly keep that for another diff? I also have fattening in DE, which adds a whole other dimension we can discuss in that "other" diff.

In D4380#187530, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In DE, the animal limit is 30. Would that be more appropriate here as well? This is supposed to only supplement food, not be a primary source.

In D4380#187503, @LetswaveaBook wrote:

In D4380#186959, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4380#186957, @Freagarach wrote:

In D4380#186956, @chrstgtr wrote:

This will change the game a lot...It nearly eliminates the need to farm with up to 50 food per second. This is equal to about 29 women farmers with all techs.

xD That is why I am not a balancer. ^^'

It's a nice idea, it's ROI is just too high. You're able to gain about 1.5 wonder's worth of pop benefit (29) for like a little less than the cost of a wonder + tech (8500 for wonder + tech vs. 8000 for 50 cattle and 5 corrals).

I disagree with the wonder values, I think the cost of a wonder is 3500 + 1000 seconds "build time" and the tech is 6000. The wonder gives +20% population which is for 200 popluation more than the pop benefit of the garrisoned corrals. The more builders you add, the less efficient the process is, so those 1000 seconds "build time" also needs to be translated into cost. To get the +40 pop, you also need 4 big houses costing 600 wood and 200 seconds build time. That puts the total at 10100 resources and 1200 seconds "build time". A plus for the wonder is that it can heal units fast and comes with a resource tickle. The wonder and the technologies cost metal and stone, wheres the corrals and cattle only cost wood and food. Food is in TGs mostly dumped for a cheap price at the market.

Furthermore it is fairly easy to build a little square of stone walls in your base and place your corrals safely there, which means that unlike farmers it can't be raided easily. You can't build half a wonder, whereas building only 20 units of cattle is possible. If you need quick food, then you would be able to ungarrison the cattle and quickly let your cavalry turn them into food, which is an option wonders don't provide.

How about booming with cows, in p1 5 women need about 160 seconds for the following tasks: collect wood for a small house and field, build the house and the field and gather 250 food. So after about 150 seconds the farmers in p1 break even. If we want the regular farming boom to win out, I think for a corral garrisoned cattle it should take 2 to 4 times as long to pay it investment back.

I think if we compare the cost of wonders vs. garrisoned corrals, 50 cows should probably be equivalent to around 15 farmers(with p3 techs, equivalent to 26 unupgraded farmers). So 1 cow is 0.3 p3 farmers, or around 0.27 food per second, giving a return on investment time of about 550=3.5*160 (ignoring the cost of building a corral).

Another option for balance would be diversifying cattle stats a little. Maybe cows aren't supposed to give the best ROI, but maybe we can let sheep offer better ROI. In that case sheep would have the better ROI, but cows offer the higher limit of total production.

Lastly, it is not entirely clear to me what the suggested numbers are. In the current patch, all types of cattle gives 1 food per second when garrisoned, doesn't it?

@Micfild , currently cattle is limited to 50. So it is not entirely pop free.

In D4380#187495, @Micfild wrote:

Hi everyone! First of all i would like to express my appreciation for this diff and what it proposes. I always thought the corral was a fun mechanic of 0AD, but unfortunaly it was too difficult to manage (IMO) for it to be used more often. I do belive the proposed changes will increase the usage rate of the corral and bring more variety to gameplay.

That being said, i do believe there is one thing that needs to be addressed before this change goes live. I also have some suggestions for the direction that this feature can go, but i'll post those on the forum, given that they are quite extensive and i don't know if this is the correct place to discuss them.

So, my main concern about this change is in regards to population. Currently, be it farms or the corral, you need some population investiment in collectors for the food to be collected. With this new change, since animals don't occupy pop space, corrals, can outright replace farms in the late game and open up pop space for more military units. Since a military/economic balance is one of the pillars of RTSs, i don't believe it is healthy for the game to allow for an, essentialy, "pop free" source of food income.

So, to mitigate this problem i can think of 3 possible solutions:

1 - give domestic animals pop value. (this stretches a bit the meaning of "pop", but it is one possible solution. It's also very flexible and controllable by the player)

2 - give corrals pop value (this is a possible solution, but one that i particularly don't like, since it's less flexible and it goes against the current design of "buildings don't cost pop")

3 - garrison humans instead of animals in the corral (it's the most coherent change, in regards to the current game design, but it is also the more bland one, since the corral basically becomes a more protected farm)

I personally lean towards the first one, but all three are valid.

I've also read above some discussions about limiting the number of animals each player has (in a way similiar to wardogs or by only allowing animals to be captured in the wild, not produced). This is also a solution to the problem, since we can use it to limit the total amount of food a player can gain from corrals, forcing them to have some farming to compensate.

In D4384#187083, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Is it supposed to be a % improvement for each captured horse? Or is this a one time benefit? The former sounds like more fun, but like it could lead to balance issues at the extremes.

In D4381#187040, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Hmm, no other civs get pyramids. Kushites have economic penalties in some way and need to have the eco-pyramids?

In D4380#187037, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In D4380#187035, @chrstgtr wrote:

Anyways, this proposal (at least for now) seems to have widespread support.

So, let's perhaps double the trickle <Interval> to address your initial balance concerns and then encourage others to test it out?

In D4381#187036, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Hmm, I think an alternate way of looking at this is the opposite: That this could potentially open up additional build orders for the Kushite player if certain standard phase-specific buildings weren't necessary for phasing up. So, forge, market, and 3 defense towers aren't necessary anymore for phasing. Maybe the player wants to skip the forge and market and do something else? Hard to predict what new strategies players would come up with.

In D4380#187034, @marder wrote:

In D4381#187028, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In D4381#187027, @marder wrote:

And yes they are useful, but atm I see nothing that would incentive them being built anywhere other than in the center of your territory.

Maybe not, but you'd want to leave room for (ugh) farms around the CC.

I think I could remove the neutral territory thing and just give them a big territory radius, so the player can use them on the periphery to push territory outward. Maybe even retool the Necropolis aura for something else (maybe the more Pyramids you build, the stronger they become) and remove the CC territory bonus it gives. The Pyramids would be thee way the Kushite player expands the home territory.

In D4381#187024, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Consider too though, the phase research with this patch is instantaneous (and free) once the 2 pyramids are built, so there is not the extended downtime in the CC researching the phase tech as for other civs. While the pyramids are being built, the CC can be pumping out units for gathering, defense, or constructing the forge and market you mentioned. There is a balance to be sussed out in cost though, so the cost and build time of the pyramids are def open for adjustments.

In D4380#187030, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Ideally, in my head, this feature would be more integral if there was animal capturing, as done in AOE, instead of training them from the Corral directly (or allow training them from the corral too, on a limited basis). If you go scout and capture sheep and cattle, you can bring them back home and then make the choice to slaughter them for a burst of food or to garrison them into the Corral for a trickle of food, like a Relic from AOE2. Makes scouting more interesting and provides a choice of what to do with them once you bring them home. Training a limited number of sheep and cattle could be unlocked after researching Husbandry, but the main source of animals, at least initially, would come from scouting. Ultimately, that's how I see this going in my head, but we don't have AOE-style animal conversion/capturing (yet?).

In D4380#187026, @marder wrote:

In D4380#186964, @chrstgtr wrote:

Also, it could lead to ever more micro-intensive corralling where livestock is only taken out of stables when it is needed. I like the idea of rewarding, such hard play, although it sounds like a pain.

I really think it would be bad to reward such super intensive micro. As you said, that just sounds like pain.

Am I reading this right? To got to city phase players will now HAVE TO build 2 pyramids? As in the old requirements (build 3 p2 buildings, spend metal/stone, and research p3) will no longer be an available method to go p3? If so, that's not necessarily bad, but I would almost never build large pyramids in p2 (or p3 for that matter) because they are such a defensive structure and how you need some p2 buildings (notably the blacksmith and maybe market) if you want to be successful in p3. It could lead to some interesting strats, but I suspect that it will make the cost of going p3 actually be higher than just the cost of the 2 large pyramids since players usually make the necessary p2 buildings as part of their required structures.

In D4380#186963, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In D4380#186960, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4380#186958, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In D4380#186956, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4380#186947, @Freagarach wrote:

I like this a lot, and I don't see it changing the game hugely, so I'll wait a few days and then commit unless objected.

This will change the game a lot...It nearly eliminates the need to farm with up to 50 food per second. This is equal to about 29 women farmers with all techs.

Test plan 1-7 work well?

It's facially imbalanced. Look at the math.

Test Plan item 9 is for determining the balance. The original patch was for introducing the feature.

In D4380#186962, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

1 food/8 seconds for Sheep, Goats, and Pigs and 1 food/4 seconds for Cattle, plus Garrison Max=5, could be closer.

In D4380#186958, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

In D4380#186956, @chrstgtr wrote:

In D4380#186947, @Freagarach wrote:

I like this a lot, and I don't see it changing the game hugely, so I'll wait a few days and then commit unless objected.

This will change the game a lot...It nearly eliminates the need to farm with up to 50 food per second. This is equal to about 29 women farmers with all techs.

Test plan 1-7 work well?

In D4380#186957, @Freagarach wrote:

In D4380#186956, @chrstgtr wrote:

This will change the game a lot...It nearly eliminates the need to farm with up to 50 food per second. This is equal to about 29 women farmers with all techs.

xD That is why I am not a balancer. ^^'

In D4380#186947, @Freagarach wrote:

I like this a lot, and I don't see it changing the game hugely, so I'll wait a few days and then commit unless objected.

I don't have a strong opinion, but there is reason to treat ele and siege differently. A mass of bolt shooters can quickly kill armies and one of the only ways to kill such a mass is to use ele/rams to kill bolts. If bolts can just quickly garrison then valuable siege can hide for long enough until all ele/rams are killed. In effect, this would make siege factories very cheap ways to hide a lot of siege from attacks (as opposed to forts, which are relatively expensive ways to do the same thing). Additionally, unlike siege, ele cannot garrison into forts. So in effect this gives siege two quick hiding spots while ele only have one.

I’ve voiced my disagreements on Ptol being “OP,” but these nerfs seem reasonable enough

Also, that is very difficult to see on your settings. On lower settings (which are the norm on multiplayer games), it will probably be impossible to see

That's the point of it being camouflaged :D the idea is that it is hidden when it is build inside a forest, but semi obvious to spot when build out in the open. I can upload another video/image to maybe show better how good/ bad it is to spot. But the art is more of a placeholder. One could e.g. also add some small palisades to make it more obvious when out in the open.

Does it do anything besides allow the ambushed to hide units?

Thumbs up from me.