Modding Report #25 - New Archers
Go to page 1, 2  Next
 
   Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tilanus Commodor
NE Commander
NE Commander


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 5065
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:40 pm    Post subject: Modding Report #25 - New Archers


#25


In this report we'll introduce you to a new shared unit, the Archer! He is the counterpart of arquebusier, crossbowman and skirmisher for the Muslim civilizations.

Despite being renowned as the “gunpowder empires” in history the Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals still deployed a lot of archers on their military campaigns. Armed with a composite bow instead of heavy firearms archers were very agile troops. Mastering the bow was evidently harder than learning to fire an arquebus, but archery has been an elemental martial discipline in the East and West Asian populations ever since. Thus the supply of skilled bowmen was in these countries contrary to Europe de facto unlikely to decline.

So the plan is to give the Archer to the Ottomans, Persians and also the Indians at a later point in time. It may also be available for other civs through HC cards or Church techs. You might be surprised about an archaic unit like the Archer going to be added to the mod in the actual, ongoing process to modernize or napoleonize the civs. The coverage of infantry archers in major civilizations is already quite remarkable if you consider the Japanese Yumi, the Chinese Chu Ko Nu, the British Longbowman and finally all the TWC archer units. But well, who says these civs are always going to stay like this, right? Wink

We always felt that the muslim civs deserve archaic skirmishers much more than the European civs, which do use Crossbowmen and Arquebusiers. We love civilizations having gameplay that emerges from the units they did field in historical reality and Ottomans without Archers are actually like British without Musketeers. Also it's almost needless to say that everyone loves being able to train cheap archaic troops early on in order to bolster a rush or the counter-rush army.


Left: Firing Archers; Right: Idle Archers, Desert Archers (on top) and Oryx


Archers are archaic units just like Crossbowmen and Arquebusiers and thus can get upgraded only once, except there is a royal guard upgrade available. They are good at countering light cavalry such as Dragoons and heavy infantry like Musketeers or Pikemen. Here are the current (!) stats of the archer compared with those of Longbowmen, Crossbowmen, Arquebusiers and the also upcoming Desert Archer mercenary:



As you can see Archers reload faster than any other unit and are pretty quick with their feet as well. He costs a bit more wood than the other units, that's because he's probably gonna fire a lot of arrows per minute. Wink

What you cannot see within the table is that the siege attack of the Archer has a range of 10, which does in combination with the increased rate of fire and comparably high siege damage turn the Archer into a good unit for early raids. In some way he also takes the pikeman's job in that regard, which Ottomans, Indians and Persians do not possess. The already existing units of Ottomans and Indians will be rebalanced accordingly once the Archer is applied to them.
Finally it's obvious that the Archer has few hitpoints and won't be able to survive charges of melee troops even though his melee stats aren't that bad for an archaic ranged infantry unit.


This screenshot depicting muslim outlaws also features Bandit Archers on bottom,
which will appear in NE 2.2 as treasure guardians


While Desert Archers (Mercenaries), Bandit Archers (Guardians) and Persians will be introduced to NE only in NE 2.2 the Ottomans will get the Archer already in the next version, NE 2.1.8 and thus earlier than originally planned! Cool
_________________
Napoleonic Era Project Leader


** Support me to support NE **

Test your Age of Empires knowledge in my
Grand Age of Empires quiz! King Green!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Silmariel
Conquistador
Conquistador


Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Posts: 356
Location: Berlin

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:37 pm    Post subject:

This is certainly a very fitting unit, both from a historical and gameplay point of view. Ever since Armenian(?) Archers in ETW I've been a fan of those guys. I'm expecting certain tweaks to this unit though. They are inferior to the Brits' longbowman in nearly every aspect but cost more resources. Still, I'm excited to test them as soon as this 2.1.8 is released as well as seeing the other changes.

PS: Your unit-stat-chart there is looking neat. Even though I really like NE's progress in terms of graphics and unit design I absolutely admire the organisational system-or at least what we got to see of it during the last few....errr...years. I hope it's as beneficial for your work as it looks like (and that is-quite professional).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Orwell
Sharpshooter
Sharpshooter


Joined: 15 May 2014
Posts: 1169
Location: United States of America

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:20 am    Post subject:

Interesting...

And shall unit names like the Tir-Andaz and what not be used here or have they been scrapped...
Also what has become of the Mughal-ification concept?
_________________
"Man is the only creature that consumes without producing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tilanus Commodor
NE Commander
NE Commander


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 5065
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:18 am    Post subject:

Silmariel wrote:
This is certainly a very fitting unit, both from a historical and gameplay point of view. Ever since Armenian(?) Archers in ETW I've been a fan of those guys. I'm expecting certain tweaks to this unit though. They are inferior to the Brits' longbowman in nearly every aspect but cost more resources. Still, I'm excited to test them as soon as this 2.1.8 is released as well as seeing the other changes.

PS: Your unit-stat-chart there is looking neat. Even though I really like NE's progress in terms of graphics and unit design I absolutely admire the organisational system-or at least what we got to see of it during the last few....errr...years. I hope it's as beneficial for your work as it looks like (and that is-quite professional).

Thanks Smile The lbow costs 100 res and the Archer 90. I just wasn't too sure about the wood costs myself, since wood is precious (maybe 30:50?). I don't think the Archer is too weak as a standard unit btw, it's the British Longbowman whose ratio is just too good. The huge range, better rr, good dmg, quick ROF (double of the xbow) for just 20f more than the xbow is super cheap. That's not unusual though, because unique units are usually balanced like this. Archers win vs xbows in a direct matchup btw. The lbow is neither the standard nor my measure. I only knew I didn't want the Archer to be as imba or privileged as the lbow, Wink

Still, all stats are in principle open for debate and change. I gladly take the compliment for organization and visualisation btw. Mr. Green Since our intentions and efforts to improve balance, easily graspable charts are a necessity to visualize the changes. In a way charts are the screenshots of the balance department. Mr. Green

Orwell wrote:
Interesting...

And shall unit names like the Tir-Andaz and what not be used here or have they been scrapped...
Also what has become of the Mughal-ification concept?

Orwell, no no, Tir-Andaz is still considered as RG. Funnily all Archers will get RGs. ^^

I think people just forgot to continue with the thread, but personally I quite like the last composition. There are just some unanswered questions left and we still have a need for appropriate images. The civ is gonna be more dominated by Mughals and switch to Marathas and possibly some other Indian states (Mysore, Sikh, ..) in later ages, but we're not going to change the multi-ethnic character of the civ, but just care to make them more obvious.
_________________
Napoleonic Era Project Leader


** Support me to support NE **

Test your Age of Empires knowledge in my
Grand Age of Empires quiz! King Green!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Ande59
Italian Utili
Italian Utili


Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Posts: 162
Location: Australia, "Down Under"

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:44 am    Post subject:

Quick question: For Velocity, it says 4-6 for the Arq, Xbow and Lbow. Now I know 4 is their base movement speed... so does that mean they might get a buff to 5 or 6 movement speed or they can be increased (via upgrades) to 5 or 6 movement speed?
_________________
A Roman walks into a bar, holds up two fingers and says "Five beers please."

*Insert Taunt 31 spam here*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silmariel
Conquistador
Conquistador


Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Posts: 356
Location: Berlin

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:22 am    Post subject:

Tilanus Commodor wrote:

The lbow costs 100 res and the Archer 90. I just wasn't too sure about the wood costs myself, since wood is precious (maybe 30:50?). I don't think the Archer is too weak as a standard unit btw, it's the British Longbowman whose ratio is just too good. The huge range, better rr, good dmg, quick ROF (double of the xbow) for just 20f more than the xbow is super cheap. That's not unusual though, because unique units are usually balanced like this. Archers win vs xbows in a direct matchup btw. The lbow is neither the standard nor my measure. I only knew I didn't want the Archer to be as imba or privileged as the lbow, Wink
Still, all stats are in principle open for debate and change.



Gosh, miscalculated. I was 100% sure 35+55 would make for 100 resources yesterday Neutral
35+55 seems fine now to me. For Ottomans and Indians collecting wood is not such a big issue (I don't know about Persians, obviously) both are wood heavy civs as of now with Indians needing the wood for villagers and having strong trickles, while Ottomans need it for their mosque and the associated techs but also for numerous tradeposts.
As you have leaked now that all archer units will get RG-upgrades I'm wondering if those upgrades are always accessible or must be unlocked by a HC-shipment with an additional bonus similar to the british lb?
Taking lbs not as measure is certainly the best thing you can do. I'm really excited for the abus gun as I guess it stays as a unit but with a different role I presume? I certainly is along with the lb an absolutely privileged unit.
Two more things as I checked this magnificient table more closely now:
Maybe increase the arquebusier's range up to 12 (or even 14)?-Otherwise it could be outranged by musketeers which is clearly not the intention of an anti-heavy-infantry-unit.
Also Desert Archer sounds rather bland to me. I don't know if Nomad Archer or Bedouine Archer is any better?

Quote:
Thanks Smile I gladly take the compliment for organization and visualisation btw. Mr. Green Since our intentions and efforts to improve balance, easily graspable charts are a necessity to visualize the changes. In a way charts are the screenshots of the balance department. Mr. Green

You are welcome Smile


Ande59 wrote:
Quick question: For Velocity, it says 4-6 for the Arq, Xbow and Lbow. Now I know 4 is their base movement speed... so does that mean they might get a buff to 5 or 6 movement speed or they can be increased (via upgrades) to 5 or 6 movement speed?


If I'm not mistaken that's sort of the fleeing speed. So if a badge of archers gets hit by a canonball and a unit is forced out of the formation it's speed is drastically improved to move it back in formation. The highest obtainable marching speed for lb which are adressed as 4-6 is 4.4 with military drummers from advanced arsenal active.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GamerLuna
Continental Marine
Continental Marine


Joined: 06 Dec 2014
Posts: 140
Location: Estonia

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:58 am    Post subject:

I really thing you hit the nail this time on the presentation. The icon , the tables ah feels good lol . Also i love that early game spam is getting some love Mr. Green + muh historical accuracy
_________________
Death to America and butter sausce - Peter Griffin with the Iraq Lobster
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tilanus Commodor
NE Commander
NE Commander


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 5065
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:50 am    Post subject:

Silmariel wrote:
Gosh, miscalculated. I was 100% sure 35+55 would make for 100 resources yesterday Neutral

Some alcohol involved again? Mr. Green

Quote:
35+55 seems fine now to me. For Ottomans and Indians collecting wood is not such a big issue (I don't know about Persians, obviously) both are wood heavy civs as of now with Indians needing the wood for villagers and having strong trickles, while Ottomans need it for their mosque and the associated techs but also for numerous tradeposts.

You make a good point about Ottomans and Indians being wood-heavy civs, almost forgot about that. Persians will not be as wood heavy, but have their own unique means to get wood. 40-50 could be a compromise
Quote:
As you have leaked now that all archer units will get RG-upgrades I'm wondering if those upgrades are always accessible or must be unlocked by a HC-shipment with an additional bonus similar to the british lb?

Persians and Ottomans yes, Indians maybe not. But don't see a reason yet why it shouldn't be available by default. More balance checks will certainly answer this question.

Quote:
Taking lbs not as measure is certainly the best thing you can do. I'm really excited for the abus gun as I guess it stays as a unit but with a different role I presume? I certainly is along with the lb an absolutely privileged unit.

Abus Gunners and Jans will be nerfed. Abus Gunners will be slower in all regards, the resistance will drop from 40% to 30%. The train time will be reduced slightly. Janissaries lose some HP and cost 5f less. The deadly combo still works, but it comes with drawbacks and is easier to beat, hence requires more skill from Otto players (sorry, lol). You may mix your jans with either quick, faster firing archers or slower, but stronger abus guns - or all together. Also take into account that Abus are so strong, because they inflict siege damage and are thus not just a slower, heavier skirmisher which inflict ranged damage. Wink

Quote:
Two more things as I checked this magnificient table more closely now:
Maybe increase the arquebusier's range up to 12 (or even 14)?-Otherwise it could be outranged by musketeers which is clearly not the intention of an anti-heavy-infantry-unit.
Also Desert Archer sounds rather bland to me. I don't know if Nomad Archer or Bedouine Archer is any better?

No, the arquebusier is designed for that close range, they're heavier archaic short-ranged skirmishers with melee armour. So quite the contrary to xbows that are hardly being used generally and often an obsolete units. I know that not everyone knows how to utilize them yet, because the stats are a bit unorthodox, but it's definitely better than an obsolete unit. They do very well against melee troops, which is nice when you need to fight off pikemen spams or unique units. Also early battles still tend to get quite narrow in which the arquebusiers stats pay off. Arquebusiers are at least equal opponents for Musketeers.

Quote:
Ande59 wrote:
Quick question: For Velocity, it says 4-6 for the Arq, Xbow and Lbow. Now I know 4 is their base movement speed... so does that mean they might get a buff to 5 or 6 movement speed or they can be increased (via upgrades) to 5 or 6 movement speed?


If I'm not mistaken that's sort of the fleeing speed. So if a badge of archers gets hit by a canonball and a unit is forced out of the formation it's speed is drastically improved to move it back in formation. The highest obtainable marching speed for lb which are adressed as 4-6 is 4.4 with military drummers from advanced arsenal active.

No, units jog and run only when they close the gap to the formation. So the lower number is the more interesting one.
_________________
Napoleonic Era Project Leader


** Support me to support NE **

Test your Age of Empires knowledge in my
Grand Age of Empires quiz! King Green!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
SAOL
Emperor
Emperor


Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 23251
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:10 pm    Post subject:

Oh golly. I've always liked archers for their high rate of fire (apart from the Chu Ko Nu). These certainly don't disappoint in that regard. Clearly they're better than crossbowmen.

Plus, they look really nice Smile
_________________
Join
WWLLUASCLWPJ
We Who Loathe Long or Unnecessary Abbreviations and Similar Clusters of Letters Without Proper Justification

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Name
Silmariel
Conquistador
Conquistador


Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Posts: 356
Location: Berlin

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 1:46 pm    Post subject:

Tilanus Commodor wrote:

Some alcohol involved again? Mr. Green

How did you know? Seems as if I've gathered quite a reputation, don't know if that's good though Confused

Quote:

Abus Gunners and Jans will be nerfed. Abus Gunners will be slower in all regards, the resistance will drop from 40% to 30%. The train time will be reduced slightly. Janissaries lose some HP and cost 5f less. The deadly combo still works, but it comes with drawbacks and is easier to beat, hence requires more skill from Otto players (sorry, lol). You may mix your jans with either quick, faster firing archers or slower, but stronger abus guns - or all together. Also take into account that Abus are so strong, because they inflict siege damage and are thus not just a slower, heavier skirmisher which inflict ranged damage. Wink


Well, I hardly had any difficulty beating Otto-rushes. If you have bandit-skirmishers at your disposal it's fairly easy (for example with Germany's free uhlans) to break this strat. I encountered most problems with abus in 3vs3 games where they rip everything apart if combined with the right units (abus+rodeleros can [easily] win a 2vs3). They truely deserve a nerf. I would not touch janissaries though.

Quote:
No, the arquebusier is designed for that close range, they're heavier archaic short-ranged skirmishers with melee armour. So quite the contrary to xbows that are hardly being used generally and often an obsolete units. I know that not everyone knows how to utilize them yet, because the stats are a bit unorthodox, but it's definitely better than an obsolete unit. They do very well against melee troops, which is nice when you need to fight off pikemen spams or unique units. Also early battles still tend to get quite narrow in which the arquebusiers stats pay off. Arquebusiers are at least equal opponents for Musketeers.


Yes, I think I understood the role of the arquebusier. I even played with the current handcannoneers quite a lot which should not be too different in style and handling. But I fear it's going to be an obsolete unit replacing another obsolete unit. A quick look at the numbers comparing them to the generic-musketeer:
+10 hp
+ 2x12 dmg vs. heavy infantry compared to 23 =+1/shot
equal melee resistance
less siege

Thus a musketeer needs 7 shots (160/23) to kill an arquebusier, while an arquebusier in return needs 6,25 = 7 (150/24) shots as well
BUT as the musketeer has more range, it's easily possible that a musketeer wins a 1vs1 against it's counter unit. Even worse-if the player is at least decent he will simply outrun your arquebusiers. Still, while arquebusiers are cheaper (but not by much-wood is difficult to obtain and there are few wood-heavy european civs) and a bit quicker to train, they lack the all-around-strength the musketeer has. So currently I cannot see any good reason to use them. But I know you once played with the idea of making an archaic-anti-infantry swordsman. If such a unit appears on the battlefield, the arquebusier could find it's place. Still I'd argue for a little boost, either +2 range or x2,5 against heavy infantry/light cavalry (=only 5 shots for a musketeer) if they do not benefit from the skirmisher's rifle upgrade at the arsenal.

If you would not mind-it seems as if my question about the name of the desert archer being final was lost during the conversation...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ande59
Italian Utili
Italian Utili


Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Posts: 162
Location: Australia, "Down Under"

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:03 pm    Post subject:

Tilanus Commodor wrote:
Janissaries lose some HP and cost 5f less.


If the HP loss is significant enough... can us Ottoman Players get Fencing school... maybe? lol

Cheers for the clarity of the upper-boundary numbers! I initially assumed that with all the technologies, (Military drummers, Incan roads, etc.) Longbows, and hence other ranged infantry, could actually hit 6+ movement speed (Fusil are already almost there... and the Tilly's upgrade with Germany has that too)

Mod's looking great! Really looking forward to 2.2!
Vive l' Empereur, Tilanus, and his NE Mod Empire!
_________________
A Roman walks into a bar, holds up two fingers and says "Five beers please."

*Insert Taunt 31 spam here*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tilanus Commodor
NE Commander
NE Commander


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 5065
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:52 pm    Post subject:

Silmariel wrote:
How did you know? Seems as if I've gathered quite a reputation, don't know if that's good though Confused

I still clearly remember your post to NE's happy new year post that had a dozen drunken typos. Mr. Green Prost!

Quote:
Well, I hardly had any difficulty beating Otto-rushes. If you have bandit-skirmishers at your disposal it's fairly easy (for example with Germany's free uhlans) to break this strat. I encountered most problems with abus in 3vs3 games where they rip everything apart if combined with the right units (abus+rodeleros can [easily] win a 2vs3). They truely deserve a nerf. I would not touch janissaries though.

Yeah, well, Janissaries still annoy me. Ottos are too easy to play, the strats are so plain and effective it bores the hell out of me. Ottomans deserve a richer more engaging gameplay with more facettes.

Quote:
Yes, I think I understood the role of the arquebusier. I even played with the current handcannoneers quite a lot which should not be too different in style and handling. But I fear it's going to be an obsolete unit replacing another obsolete unit. A quick look at the numbers comparing them to the generic-musketeer:
+10 hp
+ 2x12 dmg vs. heavy infantry compared to 23 =+1/shot
equal melee resistance
less siege

Thus a musketeer needs 7 shots (160/23) to kill an arquebusier, while an arquebusier in return needs 6,25 = 7 (150/24) shots as well
BUT as the musketeer has more range, it's easily possible that a musketeer wins a 1vs1 against it's counter unit. Even worse-if the player is at least decent he will simply outrun your arquebusiers. Still, while arquebusiers are cheaper (but not by much-wood is difficult to obtain and there are few wood-heavy european civs) and a bit quicker to train, they lack the all-around-strength the musketeer has. So currently I cannot see any good reason to use them. But I know you once played with the idea of making an archaic-anti-infantry swordsman. If such a unit appears on the battlefield, the arquebusier could find it's place. Still I'd argue for a little boost, either +2 range or x2,5 against heavy infantry/light cavalry (=only 5 shots for a musketeer) if they do not benefit from the skirmisher's rifle upgrade at the arsenal.

Thanks, you made a good point. I will increase their damage against heavy infantry to x2.5. Smile

Quote:
If you would not mind-it seems as if my question about the name of the desert archer being final was lost during the conversation...

Ah yeah, sorry. Well, what would you like instead? The names you brought up are just as plain. What's wrong with it? Archer is the most plain unit name you can think of. Look at the unit names in TWC, Bowman, Clubman, Bow Rider, Rifle Rider, and so on. Those are even worse in my opinion. Desert Archer puts the unit at least into a specific context, just like your other options would.

You wanna know what other name we had in mind for Archer first? Rumat. You wanna train Rumats or Archers? I personally like it simple and solid. Wink
_________________
Napoleonic Era Project Leader


** Support me to support NE **

Test your Age of Empires knowledge in my
Grand Age of Empires quiz! King Green!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Silmariel
Conquistador
Conquistador


Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Posts: 356
Location: Berlin

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:35 pm    Post subject:

Tilanus Commodor wrote:

I still clearly remember your post to NE's happy new year post that had a dozen drunken typos. Mr. Green Prost!

I fear I do not remember this incident as clearly as you do Razz

Quote:

Yeah, well, Janissaries still annoy me. Ottos are too easy to play, the strats are so plain and effective it bores the hell out of me. Ottomans deserve a richer more engaging gameplay with more facettes.


Well, with a more diverse infantry-roster at one's disposal I'm quite sure people will develop diverse strategies very soon. Ever considered making Ottomans one of the more native-dependent civs? That would go well with their minor focus on wood as well as the rather diverse natives of the middle east and their history in that region I'd guess.
Edit: as I'm writing this I'm building up the idea-instead of nerfing the combat abilities of the janissaries why not decrease their effectivness by making them more expensive? In return they train slightly faster (-2 sec) and have a slightly better range attack (+1) or enable them to construct walls (this ability would be quite strong so one could consider a decrease in HP). While they would still comprise the heart of your army, they need to be deployed with support-units. I've read somewhere about Ottoman warfare tactics-which was basically defensive aggression. They chose their battlefield, fortified it behind the cover oftheir support units and as those where routed and the opponent thought he was winning battle he faced a deadly trap by elite units such as jannisaries in fortified positions.



Quote:

Ah yeah, sorry. Well, what would you like instead? The names you brought up are just as plain. What's wrong with it? Archer is the most plain unit name you can think of. Look at the unit names in TWC, Bowman, Clubman, Bow Rider, Rifle Rider, and so on. Those are even worse in my opinion. Desert Archer puts the unit at least into a specific context, just like your other options would.
You wanna know what other name we had in mind for Archer first? Rumat. You wanna train Rumats or Archers? I personally like it simple and solid. Wink


Well, one does not need to argue about TWC's unit-names. That's what happens if you try to make full civilisations out of a mere tribe.

Nomad archer is equally plain, that's true for sure. I was trying to develop a term which bears similarity to other mercenary units. They always bear their region of origin in their name (Swiss Pikeman, Highlander, Barbary Corsair etc.) and thus Bedouine Archer seems appropriate for me while a desert archer could in fact be from any desert, be it Chinese or Southern American. And what's so bad about Rumat? It should be clear from the icon or the description that it is an archer-type-unit. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tilanus Commodor
NE Commander
NE Commander


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 5065
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:14 am    Post subject:

Silmariel wrote:

Well, with a more diverse infantry-roster at one's disposal I'm quite sure people will develop diverse strategies very soon. Ever considered making Ottomans one of the more native-dependent civs? That would go well with their minor focus on wood as well as the rather diverse natives of the middle east and their history in that region I'd guess.

Yes
Quote:
Edit: as I'm writing this I'm building up the idea-instead of nerfing the combat abilities of the janissaries why not decrease their effectivness by making them more expensive? In return they train slightly faster (-2 sec) and have a slightly better range attack (+1) or enable them to construct walls (this ability would be quite strong so one could consider a decrease in HP).

No
Quote:
While they would still comprise the heart of your army, they need to be deployed with support-units. I've read somewhere about Ottoman warfare tactics-which was basically defensive aggression. They chose their battlefield, fortified it behind the cover oftheir support units and as those where routed and the opponent thought he was winning battle he faced a deadly trap by elite units such as jannisaries in fortified positions.

Yes
Quote:
Well, one does not need to argue about TWC's unit-names. That's what happens if you try to make full civilisations out of a mere tribe.

Yes
Quote:
Nomad archer is equally plain, that's true for sure. I was trying to develop a term which bears similarity to other mercenary units. They always bear their region of origin in their name (Swiss Pikeman, Highlander, Barbary Corsair etc.) and thus Bedouine Archer seems appropriate

No
Quote:
for me

Yes Mr. Green
Quote:
while a desert archer could in fact be from any desert, be it Chinese or Southern American.

Yes
Quote:
And what's so bad about Rumat? It should be clear from the icon or the description that it is an archer-type-unit. Wink

No Mr. Green

The Bedouine label limits the mercenary to Levant maps, but I wanna use it in North Africa too. Its look forbids the use in American and Asian maps btw. Everyone understands Archer, Rumat is wannabe-elitary.
_________________
Napoleonic Era Project Leader


** Support me to support NE **

Test your Age of Empires knowledge in my
Grand Age of Empires quiz! King Green!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Silmariel
Conquistador
Conquistador


Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Posts: 356
Location: Berlin

PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:37 pm    Post subject:

Tilanus Commodor wrote:

No Mr. Green

The Bedouine label limits the mercenary to Levant maps, but I wanna use it in North Africa too. Its look forbids the use in American and Asian maps btw. Everyone understands Archer, Rumat is wannabe-elitary.


Are you sure? As far as I know Bedouines can be found in any Arabian country as well as certain states in northern Africa (i.e. Tunesia and Egypt, even as far as Mauretania). Whatever their name will be (I don't care that much for them, to be honest) I'm wondering though: will they be mercenaries which are not map-dependant (unless you plan to change that) or local bandit-units? Or will those bandit-archers from the screenshot feature in this role? If that's the case I think a more distinguishing name for the Desert Archer would be good.

As the inclusion of Persia also stretches the setting to more eastern regions I wonder if there will be some more exotic mercenaries from there? I remember that there was a shipment with the ancient Persian-civ named Afghan rifles. So what about a Pashtun rifleman? As (nearly) all mercenaries are boosted versions of normal units (Hakapelit/Uhlan, Barbary Corsair/Rodelero etc) they could be similar to the Grenzer-unit in shape and style? Or maybe even an elephant mercenary?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Makedonia
French Conscript
French Conscript


Joined: 11 Oct 2015
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:08 pm    Post subject:

Do you think it is possible to make crossbow men reload rates slower?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> News All times are GMT
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group | Page design by Tilanus Commodor & michfrm.