In the modern start, germanic is supposed to be the west superpower so I think they will get one or two units more in the next update. Also, expect prices like 305 tech to be adjusted to like 310 tech. (The 305 prices was actually set just to get it over 300 so that the development was not possible for another turn, like you noticed )
Any thoughts about the cost effectiveness of the missile-shield structure? And while we are on it the energy-shield?
At 50 I think missile shields really suck. I might get the tech just because it gives 1 free unit, but I can't see myself building very many. AA guns are pretty good at their job, and yes a missile shield is better but
-I already have AA guns unlocked in Modern and Cold War
- AA guns are generally good enough to deter bombing
- AA guns help fight against land units
- AA guns are actually the best late game unit to be used as fodder
- AA guns do not get captured by my opponent
- AA guns can't get bombed (in particular by rockets)
The only decent upside I see missile shields having is they won't get hit by nukes
The energy shield is better the more units the enemy has. I would guess adding an energy shield is smarter than adding an infantry if the enemy has around 12 units (I might do the math later). I haven't had many opportunities to really use energy shields in an actual game, a big drawback is that they can't move. The shields come into play when armies have adjusted to being really mobile so static defenses aren't as useful anymore.
I would also vote to put those techs in increments of 20 rather than 10 (320 just seems neater to me than 310)
There is a new release now. It is just minor changes and adjustments.
v1.0.3 to v1.0.4 • Germanic now starts with one more Infantry in Dalmatia (by Adriatic sea) and in Navari (Eastern front) during modern start.
• Warplane (WW1) movement increased from 4 to 5. (Now they can move 3 with an aircraftcarrier and stil participate in an amphibius assault against land with its 2 last moves)
• Missile-Shield PU cost lowered from 50 to 40.
• Energy-Shield PU cost lowered from 25 to 20.
• Some development costs altered:
-Develop Fleet-Carrier from 275 to 310
-Develop Bomber from 305 to 310
-Develop Air-Transport from 305 to 310
-Develop Attack-Helicopter from 465 to 420
The extra movement for warplanes has a pretty big impact on the modern start. Slavic can reach germanic's fort with its 2 warplanes are turn 1. IDK how important it is for this unit to be able to work with carriers, wouldn't a player usually have access to higher tech aircraft if they have carriers? I don't think I've ever actually built a carrier in a competitive game
The opening turns for the modern start are pretty tough on both ends, Germanic spends its first 2 turns just trying to secure its two forward factories. I don't think germanic can afford to give support to other powers for a while
(you could have AI_CarnivoreBeasties and AI_ErbivoreBeasties, being hostile with each other)
Also, you should have the animals themselves being their own factories (meaning the factory of a mammooth is a mammoth etc. (look at 270BC!)).
I still suggest you up the galley movement to 2, because ships are really fast, relatively anyhow; sail ships can stay at 2 too; so not like you gotta redo all stuffs. Idk if you got influenced by the silly 270BC ships moving 1, but that's lame.
Are you suggesting galleys to move 2 spaces for gameplay purposes, or because you just want them to?
Because I don't see it going well for gameplay, especially the primeval start. I think its good that you don't immediately lose a naval war because the opponent upgrades ships before you, in fact often upgrading land units is the better move. That 2nd movement point makes a huge difference when transporting armies. The fight for sicily is also a totally different game with single move ships versus multiple movement. Tribes has massive sea zones so 1 movement can cover a pretty good distance
Realism. I know it doesn't really matter here, but 2 would makes the most sense, if walking is 1.
And, yes, all the cannals are all wrong too. There should be no canals at all till the end of the middle ages, then only like the turkish straits. Historically, it was possible to cut the ships movement through the straits only starting from the XV century, when the Turks made that big gun; no ways before. And you should be able to walk from Anatolia to Thrace cause that's like a big river; so if the Danube or the Dnepr doesn't block you, that shouldn't either. And it is possible to move through the alps too etc.. And it is possible to walk from Swede to Finnland during winter, and attacking countries as well, marching the armies on the ice, like the Russians did during Napo times.
So especially all these canals are just fantasy stuff, really; surely them all before the Reinassance. You can trigger canals existance in later ages, also progressively. That may also look neat, as no maps do, and would fit with the concept here.
But I guess all or most of these things are know and are wrong on purpose, for gameplay?
Well this isn't a hyper realistic map, occasionally knights kill aircraft. There just isn't any way with the current engine to make it realistic. Also, look at how big the sea zones are relative to land territories. 1 move at sea is a lot more than 1 movement on land
The turkish straits have been discussed a lot by lobby players, because those seem really important (Turkey is basically an island in the current scenario). I actually don't know how important though, because to me going navy with Hattic still seems like the best option. Its similar in Finland, I still think navy would be the way to go, same at gibraltar and many other places. Denmark might matter (but its only important because there is a canal here). Yea the alps is possible but it needs to be harder (and theres no simple way to apply that)
The strait of sicily also has a huge impact on gameplay, because it helps give more space between Rome and Hellas (I think its a great addition)
And now a big savegame- HugeAIBonus_Round27.tsvg AI is east and gets +50 PUs per turn. I manage to win on turn 27. I think Cavalry techs should cost more. Generally you need to be a level ahead in footmen for it seem comparable to cavalry (eg swordsmen vs chariots, knights vs musketeers). Rushing directly to knights and carabiners without touching other techs is a pretty viable strategy
I don't think it would be a good idea to split up nature into two or three players. First of all it would mean that half of nature would probably be eaten up by the other half. Secondly it would make rounds take longer. The map would probably also have to include more nature starting units to compensate for nature eating its own threat away, this would lead to more "randomness" to how lucky a start the different players will experience. Summed up it would bring the current game setup out of balance.
Concerning fighter moves, I have been considering lowering all aircraft move by 1 and let carriers give +1 move to all aircraft. I like the idea, and I am sure that I will use this concept in my next map. But right now I will have to play a few games myself. Something bugs me though, that a fighter should get more movement out of taking of from a carrier than from a base. So maybe bases would also give +1 move if things change.
Straits are fine as I see it. This map's straits should reflect all human civilization ages and how important controlling strats have been. But more importantly the straits are there for enhancing game play and for tactical reasons. Maybe it is lame having cave men on land preventing ships sailing through straits, and even in the real life cold war there were no real threat to a soviet fleet wanting to sail through danish straits (only a few outdated guns that would last a few minutes into the war), and I imagine even Gibraltar would only be difficult to sail through if there were ships defending it. But again, straits in Age of Tribes are tactical.
The strait of Bosporus will surely not be removed. As it is now it makes Hattic to an island like nation, and this is on purpose. It is like the eastern Brittonic. It practically forces east to use some PUs on ships and gives Hattic a role that unique on the eastern side.
I will try a game or to and look at the cavalry prices, but I have a hard time imagining that it would be rewarding for the middle placed tribes to go pure cavalry. Maybe it is a good tactic for the Celtic and Slavic, maybe even Hattic if they stick to land. I will look at you save and see what tactics you used. It is always fun looking at other people's saves :)
Impressive tactics Crazy German. I see it as:
• Being defensive in Germany.
• Extinguishing Hellenic with all available units so that they are quickly wiped out (along with their +50 Pus).
• Using Celtic to build fleet and force Hattic to spend nearly all PUs on fleet also.
• Using all Brittonic forces to take Scandinavia (and building forts in south Sweden to not spend PUs on ships).
• Brittonic avoiding battles in Baltic but taking far north and encircling the eastern forces and making them cluster as they feel threaten.
• Making a lot of Germanic cavalry to blitz and capture most eastern territories in aggressive moves.
Basically, wipe out Hellenic, force Hattic to build fleet, encircle Baltic and Slavic to make them not dare move units/attack in one single direction without losing territory behind them. Is that how you saw it?
How much do you think would work against humans?
A big flaw of the AI’s is obviously that it does not build ships in Baltic Sea and it has not control of unit development. Also, in round 3 when your western tribes placed all the develop-axemen techs, the AI did not develop one single axemen. AI placed 3 develop-axemen in round 4, and the last one in round 5. Strange
Airbases giving +1 makes no sense and dramatically increases the chance of missing air units, so it is bad all around.
Just give +1 to the ones on carrier. It is not meant to represent that the aircrafts gets more fuel or something, but the fact that the carrier bring them on. The easiest example is that it is quite obvious that a fighter on a carrier should move +1 with respect to a fighter on an island inside that same sea zone.
At the very least I believe you should allow land movement to and from Anatolia - Constantinople, because the straits there are easier to jump over than several big rivers you don't have on the map.
You got my crush Hellenic plan exactly right, but originally I was hoping to take Turkey next, the AI's resistance really surprised me there. I was actually build all navy as Celtic as a response to the Hattic fleet. It was extremely important that he never retook Hellas, as it would have given Hellenic factories in Turkey due to the unusual original owner settings. I was actually suprised I won so early because I didn't realize
Against humans, sending a germanic force to greece is decent, but Baltic and Slavic definently have options to punish it. The AI plays Baltic pretty poorly, building no navy. I think the AI might think that Slavic is an enemy at first, so Baltic doesn't pressure Germanic for a long time. It also doesn't seem to distinguish Nature or Barbarians as a secondary enemy to the West
The develop unit thing might be because the AI has a ton of income and very few factories for its first few turns
I've played my first game of Renaissance yesterday (never got to it playing since round 1, obviously; never got to Medieval either) and I must say that I don't like how the mortars work (I would have it as an artillery receiving defence bonus from enemy factories) and I'm really annoyed about the fact that the musketeers phase out the halberdiers (which also mean pikemen, as we clarified).
I really don't like that I can only buy muskeeters and big guns, and can't anymore buy halberdiers or any melee foot units in something meant to be the start of the Renaissance.
In the early modern ages, war was about armies composed primarily of pikemen and harquebusiers (with the musket (a variant fired from a fork rest) being actually firstly introduced in the mid of the XVI century and phasing out the harquebus only by the XVII century). I get that musket means whatever fire arm from the handgonne to the fusils, and that is good, but, at the start of the renaissance, you would surely not buy only muskets and artillery, that's late XVII century stuff! It really feels like the purchase choices (guns only) have you playing Napoleonic warfare already back in the XVI century.
I get that it is not really so, because you have the halberdier etc. leftovers, but this would be more of a thing for something starting in the year 1700 (about 100 years before Napoleonic), rather than in the year 1500!
It might be that this is meant to represent the progressive increase of the ratio of handguns / pikemen in the armies from the renaissance onwards, but I surely believe making the halberdier (and any melee weapon) not anymore producible as soon as you can produce handguns (musketeers) is not the good way to go, as personal firearms and melee weapons existed side by side (supporting each other) for many centuries, and I feel it is not right representing this by just having the not anymore producible halberdiers hanging around till they are killed.
I would like (and would make sense) that at the start of the renaissance I still buy halberdiers (meaning mainly pikemen) AND musketeers, side by side, with the musketeers giving support to the halberdiers, just like archers and spearmen.
In order to achieve this, I suggest you change the tech tree as:
1) In the current tech tree, substitute the "crossbowman" with the "musketeer", maybe renamed "harquebusier", but I guess not, since this would require you re-doing the image (it makes sense that "halberdier" is at the same level as "harquebusier", since polearm became widespread only in the XV century, and "handguns" were already being used at this time; plus, it doesn't really make sense that the "crossbow" is something better or really that more modern than the "bow" (it would make more sense the "bow" just representing both "bow" and "crossbow" (the "crossbow" already existed in ancient Greece, and one may affirm it was not absolutely superior to the English longbow of more than 1,500 years thereafter))).
This way, you would be able to have a truly "pike-and-shotte" era, as it should be, in which (at about the start of the Renaissance) you buy both "halberdier" and "musketeer" side by side (I would prefer calling them "pikeman" and "harquebusier").
2) Having most tribes being able to produce both "musketeer"/"harquebusier" (ex current "crossbowman") and "halberdman" at the start of the renaissance.
3) Moving all ages back a bit, so that the renaissance starts in 31 instead of 36 and classic in 13 instead of 16 and medieval in 21, instead of 26.
4) Having the "fusilier" (I'd rather suggest "musketeer", but only if you rename the previous "musketeer", substituting the "crossbowman", as "harquebusier", and change the image to represent this) as being the replacement of both the "musketeer" and the "halberdier" (you need to be able to produce both); meaning that the second and fifth tech tree would converge into a single line. As this would also represent the invention of reliable socket bayonets (early XVIII century) (which is the point where the musket fully takes over for the pike, becoming itself a short pike, while the bayonet itself can be brandished as a short sword), this new image should have a big bayonet on the gun.
You can have either the "fusilier" instead of the "rifleman" or have the "rifleman" as the next step, but I suggest using the current "rifleman" image for the "fusilier" (also, since that looks like a Napoleonic "fusilier", it really makes no sense calling it "rifleman", since Napoleon didn't have any "rifles", which were very uncommon weapons anyway, at the start of the XIX century).
5) Removing the "trebuchet" and, instead of the "trebuchet", having the "cannon" and the "mortar" both originating from the "catapult", with the tree splitting in 2 at that point (just like later it splits in 2 after the Mortar).
Side note, with the above done, it would be better renaming the "knight" as "gendarme", for it being on the same level as the "halberdier", "musketeer", "cannon" and "mortar". This would represent heavy cavalry in full plate armour, that was introduced about at the same time as the guns, and lived it up a bunch, till like the end of the XVII century for the Polish hussars (which should be the time when the "fusiliers" (with bayonet) takes over for the "musketeer" (without bayonet)).
And, after playing a bunch, I still think that the combat rounds should be default 1 or 2 (I prefer 1, or maybe 1 for land and 2 for sea). But other people seem not liking the single combat round; just saying. I just think the slowness fits the best with the "epic" concept of the map. I suggest you play some games with combat round 1, if you haven't yet; see how it feels for you.