All Activity

It's safer to go for the Scythians, and let them settle in the late phase. That is, a CC that doesn't move, in compensation, a stronger CC. Herding should be included as the main activity and hunting. https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Pasture_(Age_of_Empires_II) This, however, can be built outside the territory perhaps. I haven't played Delenda Est in a long time.

These people make things up, maybe another DLC is needed to correct the name. Ai answer: In the context of the game, the name Puru was chosen to reflect the historical identity of the Pauravas, highlighting their role in Alexander's campaign. The term is linked to the Indian tradition, as "Puru" also appears in ancient texts such as the Rigveda, where a tribe or lineage related to the Bharatas is mentioned. The developers chose this name to accurately represent the culture and historical context of the Kingdom of Porus, Hadn't they done that in AoE3 where they changed the name of a pre-Columbian civilization to its name in its original language(?)

yeah I think some simplification is needed for the nomadic part.

I think moving barracks and civic centers around the map will be too much for regular players. Can still include them with other features (like the Ox Cart transforming into yurts, maybe allowing the player to build outside their territory, etc.).

I wonder why not Pauravas then.

I heard that from weirdjokes too and I also use it

Ok, then for simplicity sake one would have to just add the bolt to the regular attack, I think its about a 3s interval and we do have the Ptolemaic bolters that are roughly that, so it shouldn't be that game breaking, also towers are 3 pop anyway and suitably expensive

Yes that’s right @Atrik. Although both those cataphracts also access the tech I nerfed by about 50%. so through that tech they get another nerf. i think it will be interesting to see how speed vs hp nerfs play out. But ultimately we just need to get some nerf out there.

The problem with that is technical. There are no units that make two separate attacks.

I had an idea for siege tower enhancement A technology that adds a small bolt thrower to it, or conversely a small stone thrower, not sure if it would be possible to have two separate attacks on the same unit at different intervals, but it would add some more flavour to them,. Then the ram team bonus that foot soldiers have could be expanded to include siege towers since not all of the 20 man crew are going to be shooting arrows from the tower And lastly I was wondering why kushites have siege towers and Rome does not?

Cool @Vantha, I was missing the Chineses song. And about the Carth's song, Peaks of Atlas, I love it!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_ancient_Rome

As for gameplay appeal, mercs that cost more metal and less food (mercs not in the gaul embassy) can be accessed with faster build orders which use fewer farms. Costing more food and less metal doesn't make the unit universally better than standard mercs, especially if that cost change requires a tech first.

Awesome

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8387

I don't think so. I think other mercenaries have their appeal, especially with the unique qualities of the iber mercs. I think it will for late game mercenaries. The inspiration is historical, with Gauls at times making up large portions of the Carthage army in Europe due to allegiance. It was @borg-'s idea so I am paraphrasing from him.

Me too. And the game actually has even more soundtracks than those 26. A lot of new ones came with A26, they only haven't been added to the website yet. Here's a zip with all of them (61 in total): 0ad-soundtracks.zip

I've been using this option too for a while now, and honestly, the difference is quite noticeable, especially for tasks like gathering or building.

Under Options > Gameplay > Formation control, one can set orders to unit to not override current formation. With the current workings of formations, this can lead to a non-negligible efficiency gain for orders like gather, build, capture... This because units will waste far less time bumping into each others while in the same formation. I'm posting this because I have for a long time, I not understood it was a setting when witnessing players using it, thinking it was marginal usage of a custom command where the game allowed you to define formation. Recently, much more players starting using it, so I started to try it too. I'm used to using formation at my advantage in fights, so I don't hate the current formation buffs. However for economy, it feels a bit... Weird... To be able to make gains using formations, that should be more like a battle thing. I don't have a defined opinion or improvement ideas for this, but hoping opening a thread on it can gather interesting ones.

Will the missing legionary keyword for first cohort legionaries also be fixed ?

Here are mine: 1st ffm vs riicho: https://replay-pallas.wildfiregames.ovh/Replays/ReplayDetails/846765298B66893D 2nd ffm vs Zekromus: https://replay-pallas.wildfiregames.ovh/Replays/ReplayDetails/B14585CE59715E64

The entire Gallic mercenary roster, but the point still stands. Why would people train other mercenaries if Gallic ones are cheaper? The other embassies need to have techs that make their corresponding units "better" in other ways for this to work.