As a thought experiment, I decided to come up with ideas for two unique techs for each AoE1 civ, a Bronze Age tech and an Iron Age tech. If there were also unique units trainable from a new Fortress building, they would be researched there; otherwise, they would be researched at the Academy (meaning the Persians would have to get the building, just without any units). I intentionally avoided unique techs that specifically affected Fortresses in case they weren’t added with unique techs, but they can be included in other, more general effects. The addition of unique techs and/or Fortresses and unique units would also coincide with Town Centers gaining a 100 stone cost and defensive capabilities if tower upgrades were researched. Slingers would lose their 10 stone cost to emphasize the importance of defensive structures.
Anyway, enough of the preface. Here are my ideas. They are designed to plug tech tree gaps and make civs less vulnerable in certain areas, add new strategies and options in addition to the old ones, or strengthen existing specialties.
Assyrians: Huradu (Archery Range units +1 pierce armor), Grand Viziers (Cavalry-line deals trample damage)
Fun ideas!
I wouldn’t personally make Ror too similar to aoe2, stone price for TC is fine but for slingers too (they should get an upgrade though, like trash archers and axemen).
As for fortresses I’m not too convinced, maybe academies are enough.
I would have made Sarissa give +1 range to the hoplite line.
Part of the reason I removed the stone cost for the Slinger was because my idea for an upgrade was the Peltast or Hypaspist, which throw javelins. A stone cost for them wouldn’t make too much sense.
I thought of making unique units and techs trainable and researchable at the Academy, but then I thought that a Fortress building would be better defensively.
I would start giving only one unique tech and that comes in iron age.
For unique units you could do that each civ gets unique variant upgrade instead normal iron age final unit upgrade for example:
Macedonia gets Companion Cavalry or Silver Shield Pikeman instead Cataphract or Centurion.
Persia gets Immortals instead Legionary.
Egypt gets iron age upgrade to Chariot Archer.
Minoan gets iron age upgrade to Composite Bowmen called Cretan Archer
Etc…
or Just two separat unit lines slinger and Peltast Line
with slinger have a Veteran and elite Upgrade
or the more unique way you have the slinger Line
slinger → Veteran slinger → elite slinger
but have a Upgrade for Same civ wisch Exchange the units to the Peltast Line ( slinger can Not be built anymore but Instant you can build Peltast)
Peltast → elite Peltast
so that after the Upgrade lets call it javelin ( Just a place holder) thats all slinger and Veteran slinger Change to Peltast and when you have Elite Slinger they will be Elite Peltast ( elite Upgrade ist automatic developed )
by this Version the unit need to have light Differenz in Bonus stats and Rolls, Like slinger good vs inf, Peltast good vs achers
so that is strategic decisions to replace the units.
I like the thinking on a lot of these, and this is always an interesting topic that crosses my mind from time to time. There are definitely some difficulties and limitations with this though, due to how AoE1/RoR is (not) balanced, so due to the more extreme nature of AoE1/RoR units and bonuses, I would mostly want to avoid “strengthening existing specialties,” since that’s just going to pigeonhole civs into making their one (more) OP unit. Roman swordsmen and Macedonian hoplite-line are already extremely strong, so it seems overkill to give them techs for reduced bonus damage and increased range, at least unless they lose some of their current bonuses or techs. On the other hand some techs, like the tech for faster government center research, seem very unlikely to be useful. Not that I have better suggestions for all of these, as RoR has less to work with, but I think it will take a few drafts to get a really solid list. Decent brainstorming so far though.
I very strongly agree with this though; I don’t think that following the AoE2 pattern too closely is necessarily the best fit for RoR - and even in AoK/C, most civs only had one Unique Tech, so I’d start with that before going crazy with new techs. Whether in RoR or AoE2, thinking that every civ has to have the same number of unique techs almost inevitably seems to lead to useless filler techs like Nomads.
There seems to be a few people on the forum who want to see RoR expanded, and have some good ideas for doing so. I don’t really expect it to get anything else added officially, so maybe those people should get together and make a mod? Presumably it’s possible for a mod to add unique techs and units and expand the basic tech tree. Not sure if it’s possible to add new civs – it might be, since RoR has fewer than the base game.
I like this, but my suggestion would be that the upgrade replaces the stone cost with a wood cost. Probably upgrade to Skirmisher in Bronze Age, then Peltast in Iron Age.
Two problems with this:
Slingers benefit from stone-related upgrades.
Slingers do bonus damage against defensive buildings.
Neither of these things make sense for a unit with a javelin. I’m sure that could be ironed out somehow, though.
Fair enough. There’s obviously not a “right” way to do it. My suggestion followed on from this:
and I was also considering what I would do if I was making a mod. If the line goes slinger → skirmisher → peltast, they could use the skirmisher and elite skirmisher graphics from AoE2. Similarly, I’d probably use Woad Raider graphics for an axeman upgrade. Obviously a hypothetical official expansion (or a mod made by someone with appropriate graphics skills) wouldn’t have that limitation.
Because of these, and because Slingers already have multiple upgrades keeping them relevant for the whole game (attack, range from Market; pierce armor from Storage Pit; attack, accuracy, pop space from Gov Center), I don’t see any reason left for them to have line upgrade. Why should devs use “iron” for no apparent reason?
Okay, so it seems you don’t play much multiplayer Return based on some of these suggestions. Specifically, the Hittite Gal Mesedi. Hittite chariot archers are already top 3 (number 1 imo), and in some cases they are totally broken overpowered, so they really don’t need to be even more broken.
However, I do like the idea of unique technologies. But instead of putting them all in one building, either fortress or academy, I would put them in the building most relevant to their effects or more relevant to their names (like SWGB does). So, for instance the Palmyran techs (not that I particularly like these): I would put Loyal Bedouins in the stable, and Zenobian Revolt in the government center or town center.
Also, I don’t really like the idea of town centers gaining a stone cost, but if they must gain another resource cost I am not opposed to a gold cost.
Btw, there is a group of us (and a discord) that play Return of Rome team games nearly every day between 1700 and 2300 UTC/GMT. We have even created a patch to fix some of the worst balance issues that we use for most games.
Yeah, that’s not exactly true. Sure they get upgrades, but the upgrades don’t do nearly enough to keep them relevant in Bronze or Iron. They may be able to hold off improved bowmen for a little while, and they may kill a chariot archer or two, but they get obliterated by any real bronze age army.
Hittites lack an eco bonus, so I’d try something economical instead. Keep it weak because Hittites are super strong from bronze onward, but frequently (or always) useful to prevent a Mongols Nomads situation.
I like that they are spam-able: it makes it so that town centers aren’t the limiting factor but the rest of the economy is.
If the abilities were specifically defensive they wouldn’t, but the ability to attack is hardly a defensive ability.
Yes, I agree…maybe start little by little as happened with AoK onwards: one UT, then two; one UU, then two and so on… to do crazy things in ancient times they have AoM and if they resurrect it again in a official way, AoEO…