In D4722#200985, @Stan wrote:

More auras less performance by the way.

In D4724#200988, @borg- wrote:

In D4724#200881, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Maybe one last change could be to lock the move speed hero's aura to a range of 60 meters, instead of global.

I think for the first time movement aura can be useful on the battlefield. Besides that putting it in range takes away all the effectiveness of the caravans. I'm not sure if I should change this aura.

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?

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)

In D4722#200974, @Freagarach wrote:

It would give them almost the same aura as the carnyx. Maybe give the latter a positive friendly bonus?

I like this patch a lot. It should make fanatic rushes a lot more interesting, and I think it puts them in a more fitting role for fights.

Maybe one last change could be to lock the move speed hero's aura to a range of 60 meters, instead of global.

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.

Here is also a concern of mine: How is weapon switching handled when the spearmen variant (from apadana) and the archer variant (from barracks) are combined? In the mod, I had to separate the archer group from the spearman group and then upgrade one.
For ease of use, maybe make the barracks also train the spearman version.

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.

In D4713#200663, @marder wrote:

as suggested, this time with the camp cav crossbow (4 champions now),
but minus the normal infantry swordman (they would have had 5 units in the barracks, which is to much imo and they have the sword cav as anti ram)

In D4704#200476, @chrstgtr wrote:

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, however, think we should test this as I am a little concerned that CCs going down in p2 could become an OP strat.

Maybe this type of unit should go to another civ, though. Like @real_tabasco_sauce already said, Kush can already employ this type of strat with merc clubmen. So it may make more sense to give a champ axe strat to a different civ.

In D4713#200579, @marder wrote:

seems like AIEND doesn't like crossbow cav? https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/83323-balancing-the-han-release-candidate-1/page/4/#comment-504997

Not sure what to do here now.

In D4713#200551, @borg- wrote:

In D4713#200441, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4713#200338, @Stan wrote:

Might ask @AIEND specifically.

AIEND seems to support the following lineup, which is not very different:
p1: crossbow, spear, swordcav
p2: archer, Ji (halberdier), swordsman, spearcav, archer cav
p3: champions: infantry crossbow, infantry spearman, cavalry spearman, chariot archer.

For me it's perfect, the only thing i would add is crossbow cavalry. It's a different and unique unit, so why remove it without at least testing it on an alpha first? I think just a few tweaks are enough to make this unit viable.

In D4714#200481, @marder wrote:

If no one else chimes into the discussion I would revert this to the 20% and we'll see how it plays out in the next RC

In D4721#200518, @borg- wrote:

If affects cavalry so stable need able to research this tech too

OK, no objections. I would consider this a no-brainer too.

In D4712#200445, @chrstgtr wrote:

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.

Any nerf to a non-problematic unit can only do harm and make that unit become irrelevant.

Right now, chariots are a “sometimes” used strategy that isn’t the decisive factor in every game. In my opinion, that is the goal: create multiple strategies for each civ that can win a game. Anything less deprives the player of choice and makes the game predictable.

In D4713#200322, @marder wrote:

In the spirit of keeping our civs unique and highlighting the interesting historic aspects of each civ (and after reading more in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Han_dynasty )

I would vote to not use archers for the Han, because it seem that while they were used, they just weren't nearly as popular as the crossbow.

And looking over to e.g. Gauls, we see that not every civ needs an archer.

(Damage value need still be adjusted, this is just about the rooster)

In D4713#200338, @Stan wrote:

Might ask @AIEND specifically.

Great! Thanks @marder
If someone else approves as well, I'll go ahead and accept it.

I agree, anyone disagree?

Ok! thanks for the changes. It gets my approval, but I will wait to see what others have to say.

I would approve, but I think @chrstgtr has an objection

In D4710#200177, @borg- wrote:

Not better just add limit of trained mercs?

In D4709#200269, @marder wrote:

55 damage is fine by me. I overshoot with the 28/ forgot about the lower repeat time.

I would be ok with having the hero on foot.
I am with @borg- the 50% is too much (for all soilders). 20% seems fair to me (15% seem too little) and I think will still make a considerable impact.

maybe we should just remodel the art of war tech.

In D4713#200267, @borg- wrote:

Yes, start with crossbow is unique and fun.

In D4709#200262, @borg- wrote:

For sure 50% is an extremely unbalanced value. 20% is a fair value, but next to technology it can be op, so I would keep 15% for technology and 15% for aura.

@marder
I think the cavalry_crossbowman_b should be removed. If this is done, the archer cavalry could be returned.

In D4714#200253, @borg- wrote:

I don't think it's interesting to switch from technology to aura. This is a unique technology and we need more of that kind of technology in the game. I think 20% is a fair value.

@borg- thoughts on this? They will now join fanatics and athenian champions as p2 champions.
One issue could be combining these units with noba clubmen for a crazy siege attack, although I doubt the resources for that could be acquired in time.

I would say it is better to replace it entirely because between the hero's aura and the global upgrade, I think the hero is far more interesting. In my opinion, it should be replaced with with @wowgetoffyourcellphone 's suggestion, and maybe the price should be adjusted accordingly.

This seems like a no-brainer to me. Is it wrong for me to accept? I think almost all balancers will agree on this.

Hi @marder
I have 2 suggestions:
The promotion experience hero can remain -50%, but I think he should be on foot. The mobility of the hero is very significant, because this means cavalry units will have a hard time benefitting from the hero if they are much faster. I have noticied it is a little unfair how some civs have all cavalry heroes (rome) while for some civs, they are all on foot (sparta).
One of the heroes should be on foot, and I would say the promotion experience one is the most appropriate.

I think this is fine since they train from temples.

Do all balancers refuse to accept the revision, or is there something I have yet to do?

Do you all think this decision should come down to the vote? If so, I would like at least 8 to 10 votes before we make a decision. It seems borg- doesn't really like the idea. I have yet to hear from @ValihrAnt, so I am adding @LetswaveaBook as a reviewer.
I can say for sure that people in the game lobby have been mostly supportive.
We need to decide on something fast, and I don't know if we could put together borgs suggestions in their entirety soon enough. I say better to balance axecav as a unit now and reconsider when they can be trained later as part of a larger Persia differentiation effort. Thoughts?

In D4674#199087, @Stan wrote:

There is a buildtime in the cost component http://docs.wildfiregames.com/entity-docs/a25.html#component.Cost

In D4674#199086, @borg- wrote:

honestly I think the patch changes unnecessary things. I think that changing the ax cavalry to phase one, and lowering cost, would be enough to have a "special" unit. Its low cost would make it a unit capable of being trained quickly and in large quantities, being able to be very effective in small fights especially in phase 1. Maybe it would increase its crush damage a little, so that it would be more effective against buildings, and maybe also a higher capture rate.

How do I increase train time? It just occurred to me that they need 1.5x longer train time.

In D4674#199069, @marder wrote:

In D4674#199010, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

So any comments from reviewers? anything to change? @marder @borg-? other balancers?

I really have no strong opinion on it. If you really feel like this is a good idea you will probably need to get more people to test it and give their opinion on it.

So any comments from reviewers? anything to change? @marder @borg-? other balancers?

I updated the mod with the new crush dps (thanks to @borg- ) so that balance can be investigated without a26. Just keep in mind the differences acceleration and spear cav buff will make in a26 vs a25.

In D4674#198903, @Freagarach wrote:

If you don't do promotion anymore, you could also just ditch the basic and advanced variants?

As for compiling, you could try a snap, it has quite an up-to-date development version for 0 A.D..

In D4674#198892, @Stan wrote:

You don't need to build anything on Windows. Just apply the files as a mod for instance.

In D4674#198894, @chrstgtr wrote:

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.

Alternatively, if you make a unit so fragile that it shatters in actual fights to other units in fights then that unit isn't good for actual fighting.

I think what has been put together here lies somewhere between these lines. It can be countered just not necessarily by spearcav, unless acceleration makes those engagements harder to avoid. Yet it's dps is high enough that it beats skirm cav, and trades against spearcav (a25) and spears. The tests I did with breakfastburrito were interesting, and I bet they will beat swordcav.

In other words, this runs this risk of being OP against women but useless in general fights (kinda like how naked fanatics currently are). Having such a limited usefulness may have a place in the game, but it is a small one and I don't think that is what you're looking for with this proposal.

To know how this really impacts things it will just have to be tested.

If this is implemented, I would like Persia to keep a useful melee cav unit for fighting (i.e., not a glass cannon). Perhaps they should get sword cav as a unit, so that they have this glass cannon for raiding and a sword cav for melee fighting.

In D4674#198867, @marder wrote:

I've no real founded opinion on this, other than it looks like a very strong unit. Especially the walk speed is _very_ (too?) fast. Also thinking about the cav speed tech -> then it's 22.

increase parent crush dps to pre patch level, fix disabling of cavalry_axeman_b in stable.xml. (thanks @marder)

In D4674#198858, @borg- wrote:

I didn't really understand the changes only in the _e template. Will he lose armor reaching elite? Armor and velocity change cannot be done in unit_cavalry_melee_axeman.xml template? Why is it necessary to train in elite?
At the moment only Persia uses this type of cavalry but probably other civilizations will, so it makes more sense.
Getting cavalry moving at that speed makes it basically uncountable. Spearman cavalry cannot chase.

The concept is good, I think all ax cavalry should be great in raids. The idea behind him was that he was quick to destroy buildings and medium to fight. I think he released half of the objectives, should get better at destroying buildings, I would just change that. Increasing his crush damage would make him a little better in fights too.

I tried making these changes in the mod as a means of testing, but I got simulation errors. Even including the unmodified stable or ship_trireme files in the mod results in errors.

now uses cavalry_axeman_a as the parent, which means the chain isn't broken. Still unsure if I am changing stable and trireme trainers properly. I can't build to test it because for me, spidermonkey fails to build.

In D4674#198795, @Freagarach wrote:

You can try -cavalry_axeman_b?

Allowed pers stables to train cavalry_axeman_e, adjusted cavalry_axeman_e, allowed triremes to train cavalry_axeman_e_trireme instead of _b_trireme.

Hmm I can add the ability to train cavalry_axeman_e to structures/pers/stable.xml, but I can't get rid of cavalry_axeman_b from the parent. Will I need to delete _b and _a from the units/pers directory?

Ok, I will switch out the cavalry_axeman_b.xml file for _e, but where do I enable the stable to train the advanced unit? I didn't know so I just changed the _b file.

In D4625#196615, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Looks great! Thank you.

Looks great! Thank you.

In D4587#196190, @marder wrote:

I don't think you will get a quick review on this one...
In general I think bolt/ artillery towers could be an interesting element in the game, but I'm not convinced that adding them to the macedonians without a bigger concept of how different civilizations should play is a good idea.

Macedonians are a siege heavy civ, which means they are (should be) a bit stronger in aggressive play. When adding these towers to them, they also get very good at defending which seems like a bad choice for overall gameplay.

Unfortunately I don't have a batter idea of how to integrate those towers, which is probably also why no one from the balancing team gave their opinion here.

In D4506#196090, @chrstgtr wrote:

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?

Agree on the counter multiplier.

But It seems like there is no agreement on armor. See Vali’s comment, which I largely agree with. If any armor is increased, I think it should be hack because speak cav already beat skins, slings, and archers pretty handily. The same is not true for swords and spears have to directly engage with melee to do dmg

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?