You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Throne & Patriots Expansion Pack
Moderated by alincarpetman

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.36 replies, Sticky
Rise of Nations Heaven » Forums » Throne & Patriots Expansion Pack » Proposed Balance and Flavor changes
Bottom
Topic Subject:Proposed Balance and Flavor changes
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Timetodie777
Member
posted 05-10-05 08:45 PM EDT (US)         
Greeks, Mayans, and Incans still aren't on par with the other nations (incans are slow to start and really need a good mountain position before they are on par, and needing position is unfair). Greeks need to be rescued from their own knowledge building; without good knowledge production they can't get level two techs like other nations can. Mayans actually build wonders slower because they have more hps but are not built faster like other buildings.

Why did the americans take such a heavy hit but the romans didn't?

Also I question why certain nations powers don't really reflect what their nation power is called.

So without further adue:

Greeks: Should get 20% reduction in science costs (doesn't stack with their 10% reduction in library research) and scholars are produced 50% faster.

Chinese: Lose 20% science reduction and gain 10% reduction in age costs and 10% reduction in scholar costs.

Mayans: gain free architecture upgrades and build the first lumber mill instantly.

Americans: Lose the 25% reduction in ground unit upgrades and lose the +2 resources per barracks unit (cuts down on lakota infringement as well as being a power the americans have which has nothing to do with innovation). Gain 20% faster age research and tech upgrades (non-unit non-library). 15% cost reduction in knowledge production upgrade costs.

Lakota: Starts with one more peasant and peasants are produced 20% faster. Peasants have 25% more hitpoints and +2 attack (benefits militia/minutemen/partisan as well). (Living out on the plains in small communities your peasants better be buff, plus it makes sending your peasants off into no where to build cities more doable)

Romans: lose starting military research and cities producing wealth. Gain 25% reduction in ground unit upgrades. Taxation upgrades 50% cheaper (render unto caeser that which is caeser's right?).

British: lose taxation 50% cheaper. Gain cities built 20% faster (empires are built one city at a time right?)

Incans: Gain cities produce 10 wealth.

Critique is welcome

[This message has been edited by Timetodie777 (edited 05-13-2005 @ 05:40 AM).]

AuthorReplies:
Shilkanni
Member
posted 06-09-05 11:26 AM EDT (US)     26 / 36       
Thanks for your input.
AlienZ
Member
posted 06-14-05 03:26 PM EDT (US)     27 / 36       
Some of you guys have way too much free time.
One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 06-14-05 06:08 PM EDT (US)     28 / 36       
Alienz, Please dont post if u dont have anything useful to contribute.
Red Revolution
Member
(id: master silver)
posted 06-15-05 07:18 AM EDT (US)     29 / 36       
uh I just have one question about these big long articles you have written to argue each other into the ground.why bother?I mean seriously why care how strong YOU think a nation is, skill is also something to think about, different nations are good for different skill levels.
Shilkanni
Member
posted 06-15-05 12:10 PM EDT (US)     30 / 36       
We did talk about that aspect as well, and that's mainly why I was arguing that no significant changes are required. As far as I am concerned, a significantly better player will nearly always win regardless of which side they play.

Certain nations reward certain styles of play (like Iroquois & Spain benefit from player scouting skills, Aztec benefits from a very aggressive player, and I feel Mongols are crap unless you really know how to utilise Horse Archers properly) and I very much like this dynamic.

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 06-15-05 04:07 PM EDT (US)     31 / 36       
the purpose of these long discussions is precisely the kind of discussions we need more of. 2 line posts with messages on the level of "this civ sucks" or "this civ rocks", gives no information to anyone else and is of no use to anyone.
Wakain
Member
posted 06-15-05 04:10 PM EDT (US)     32 / 36       
well,I agree with what you're saying.
but why wouldn't you just stick your nose in modding?
I'm sure there are things to do with some nations powers and units.(not everything off course.)

-=Wakain=-
B_C
Member
posted 06-15-05 08:31 PM EDT (US)     33 / 36       
If you ask me, the balance is fine, but one thing really bothers me is that the greeks boom. Today (the info age) the greeks are not a military power. In 1000 BC, they were. Their hoplites set a world standard, and yet they still end up with "Royal Companions" or something for a UU. Seeing as how the greek life was centered around the polis, I would also expect some more city-oriented bonuses. I might mod this sometime, now that school's out (Yes!) but I'd be happy if someone else did.

Also, did you notice that there are good food, wood, wealth, oil, and knowlegde based nations but none that really dominates metal (Inca usually end up with a lot, but they don't have bonuses for it.

bgk
Member
posted 06-17-05 10:29 AM EDT (US)     34 / 36       
Indeed. It is interesting to see how many things could be improved. Some bonuses (the Chinese science reduction, for example) are apparently pulled over from Age of Empires II and form some kind of unquestioned "standard".

However, I don't think that anything substancial will change. Just take into account that BHG is going to post weekly screenshots of their next game rather than fix a single of those numerous bugs in the current game.

Shilkanni
Member
posted 06-17-05 11:42 AM EDT (US)     35 / 36       
It is expected. RoN:T&P is now more stable than many games ever become. It is playable and not grossly imbalanced. I would prefer another RoN patch or expansion which fixed things and rewrote network code to a new game, but they probably can't make money with that (which is sad, I'd like to see more people try it).
bgk
Member
posted 06-18-05 06:23 AM EDT (US)     36 / 36       
Selling bug fixes is not very honest. It is a service to the customers that you can expect. But someone should be the first to try out an expansion pack which is merely technical in nature. Ideas are certainly there. I would add: Still more options to configure or perhaps a CTW mode in 1v1. Must an expansion always add X new nations?
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Rise of Nations Heaven | HeavenGames