Age of Strategy Forums

Is it on the top left of their hat on their back? It's supposed to be some kind of feather

Well, it takes the color from the terrain and, it doesnt look bad but it mustnt look like that

Now I don't understand what is the problem.

Zoom the image and u will find the hut has transparency in some parts

L4cus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 1:03 am Zoom the image and u will find the hut has transparency in some parts

Just checked it. Sry it doesn't have a transparency on the hat.

Well is supose we can move to the next one...
Should i make new stats similar to aow or keep them like aos? Maybe at the middle point?
I mean, at aow infantry units have 1 range even having rifles. At aos an archer has 5 range. At stats i posted for units, range is 5. The middle point would be 3 range...i am not sure

I'd like the idea of AOW stats but I don't really know how would it work. It's kinda logical for their size for me but I also like the range of AOS. Hmmmm... I can't pick.

There is also the middle. Like 3 range for mskets and 4 range for light infantry...artillery could have 6-7 range then...

L4cus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 7:13 am There is also the middle. Like 3 range for mskets and 4 range for light infantry...artillery could have 6-7 range then...

+, but with some upgrade stats will be 5 range to myskets, 5 to light cavalry, 9-10 to artillery...)

Made my thoughts. I want it to be like like the AOS more than AOW. The only reason why AOW stats is ok is because the distance is so far that farther than what it is will just look bad.

It would also look bad if the forts have so small range

be aware of ranges - the farest shooting unit should maximum 10 tiles (like a long range howitzer) and should be a rare built unit.

most of the units should have 1 range other half is 2-5 range.

only very special units should go further

(like in AOS you see only trebuchet shooting that far) normal ranged units go to 4-7 range.
and there are many many melee units with range 1.

key is: dont make ALL units ranged! that will kill the gameplay and most of strategic approaches. use at least half of available units to be melee - imho.

see in AOW all rifle units have range 1 and only artillery can shoot farer.

Since the period is a transition, from melee to firearm weapons, this is very dificult...
As i said, 3 range for muskets, then artillery would have 4-8 range deppending of era and type of cannon, and mortars 9-10
Cavalry and melee would have 1 range, and pistols only 2.
@Stratego (dev) , i saw a post sith some crazy ideas, like units moves more than once, like 3 speed, but 2 movements/turn. Is it possible? To make firearm cavalry viable...
If not, there must be another way

Since the period is a transition, from melee to firearm weapons, this is very dificult...
As i said, 3 range for muskets, then artillery would have 4-8 range deppending of era and type of cannon, and mortars 9-10
Cavalry and melee would have 1 range, and pistols only 2.

this sounds good!

i saw a post sith some crazy ideas, like units moves more than once, like 3 speed, but 2 movements/turn. Is it possible? To make firearm cavalry viable...
If not, there must be another way

someday will come, but not as soon as you need, so do not count on it - sorry.

Roger, i will make new stats then...

L4cus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:17 pm Roger, i will make new stats then...

I will .json this stats...

Heres the Green Jackets

Stats for musketman

Cost 2
Hp 23
Attack 5
Range 1
Armor 1/0
Speed 3
Sight 4
Spell possibility 60%

Abikity: shot
Power 7
Range 3
Coldown 3 turns

I was thinking that it would be better if shot is an ability/spell. Also, idk how does ia handle transforming units...and we wont have to make 2 sprites for every unit.
We can change it if u dont have the same opinion...

I want the opposite, if the melee dmg will be the one with lesser dmg. Melee is spell, range is active.

1. They can't use spell through tc
2. Because 1 they will need to melee if they want to take it.

Ok

Firearms were very inaccuarate. The battles were decidec by melee combat, even napoleonic wars...thats why i thought make melee combat the main attack. But i didnt know about nummber 1
About 2nd point, i dont really understand...

Single firearms were innaccurate, that is why the battle lines were so tightly packed and long, to increase volume of fire. This also made it hard to miss.

Napoleonic wars were definitely not determined by melee. Cannons and firearms were the most important, why do you think melee went out of fashion?

I didnt say they didnt matter. From improvement of artillery, big square formations like shield walls or spike wall were totally destroyed from the distance, but line formation wass made to not to have the same problem even being a tigh formation. At the battle field, as long as the battle goes on, the smoke from the gunpowder made impossible even to shot properly. Nerfing the accuary of gunners and forcing melee combats. Thats y uniforms had such bright colors...maybe the first 2 salvas, but nothing more...then, charge...

Line formation was created for largest volume of fire, and bright clothes worked both ways, enemy were just as likely to see you. The first few salvos were fired according to a rythm set out by officers, however after the smoke and sound got too loud soldiers fired at their own discretion.
Due to inaccuracy, formations did try to close distance as a full volley from close would be absolutely devastating however bayonet charges rarely took place. Usually the men charging would get massacred or the ones being charged would just reposition. Battles would be decided before melee engagements could happen

Then there is the point that bayonets were meant for defense against enemy cavalry. That is why they were originally introduced, and why the pike slowly began to fade away from battlefields.
So no, melee was a very tiny part of the Napoleonic era.

Imo this late in the game there should be massive emphasis on range if we going for even slight realism

Do you guys think that range should increase as technology does?

The arquebus had 50m effective range, musket 100m at 16 century(even at 19th century too)
It didnt changed too much, only some variations like longbarrel musket had a longer effective rnge. The rifñing barrel musket also had a longer range, replacing standard barrel musket for light infantry equipment.
By the way, artillery had a lot of differences pieces, with different munition and range...
Range for infantry shouldnt change, artillery should...

@DreJaDe , is it true that spells/abilities can have bonuses? If its true, then we could make stats for ranged infantry with melee ability with antimounted bonus...

Yes,. For example, the Galleon in AOS has a cannon spell with normal seige and ship bonus

Then, new stats, are they ok?
Cost 2
Hp 25
Attack 12
Range 3
Armor 1/0
Speed 3
Sight 4

Ability: bayonet
Power 6
Range 1
Coldown 0
Bonuses: +150% v cavalry

The rest of the units/buildings can be make with this unit in base. Also, this will be a middle game unit(bayonet was developed at the end of 17th century (the socket bayonet)

Here