Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. Lion.Kanzen

    Lion.Kanzen

    Community Members


    • Points

      296

    • Content Count

      15,165


  2. Stan`

    Stan`

    0 A.D. Art Team


    • Points

      242

    • Content Count

      9,189


  3. wowgetoffyourcellphone

    wowgetoffyourcellphone

    Community Members


    • Points

      236

    • Content Count

      4,488


  4. borg-

    borg-

    Community Members


    • Points

      159

    • Content Count

      391



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/16/2019 in all areas

  1. 11 points
    fluffy north african forests
  2. 10 points
    This is the first version of my Tower Defense mod. Tower Defense maps were very popular in Warcraft III times: Basically a Tower Defense is a game where waves of enemies walk into your base, and you have to build and upgrade towers to protect it from these invaders. In the case of this mod, I included two maps, one for 1 player and another for 2 players. The map for two player can only be played in multiplayer, as the AI cannot play this map. The goal of the game is to protect your base against the invaders by building towers. The one who survives longer wins. The strategy consists of choosing the best positioning and the best types of towers. As you upgrade your towers, there will be choices to be made between different types of specializations. As you kill the enemy waves, you gain loot. With these resources you can trade in the market and build towers/upgrade. Some Questions for you: Should I include this in the Community Maps mod? Or is it better to have it as an independent mod? The mod include some new templates for the towers, but it does not change any template that is used in the game. So you can use this mod without affecting any other map. Want to make another map in this mod? It should be quite simple. If you open Atlas using the mod, you can place the structures and units of the mod, search for "tdef" (the "fake civ" that has all the new units. It is a fake civ because you cannot choose it in game, it is by default in the Tower Defense maps). If you don't want to mess with scripts, it should still be easy to make a map using the mod. Just include this in your map (in the ScriptSettings part of the XML): "TriggerScripts": [ "scripts/TriggerHelper.js", "scenarios/tower_defense1.js" ], Then you just have to place the Wonder (tdef_wonder), which is the only "Conquest Critical" object (that is, if it is destroyed you lose), some workers (tdef_pawn), and the trigger_point_A and trigger_point_B (these are the places where the waves will spawn: A goes for player 1 and B goes for player 2). The workaround I used for the singleplayer map is to place a super OP tower for player 2 that kills all enemies instantly. You can use it in your map too: tdef_tower_ultimate. Next Versions I still want to improve it before sending to mod.io. Your feedback is welcome. Definitely will need balancing. One thing I wanted to do was to include an option to heal some life of your Wonder, costing some food, as this resource is not used much in the map. Have fun! (and let me know how many waves you can survive.) Spoilers below: tower_defense.zip tower_defense.pyromod
  3. 10 points
    Almost done!
  4. 8 points
    I think I will just lock this thread for now, it's gone too far off the rails as it is. If someone wants to discuss @borg-'s mod there's a thread for that, if someone wants to discuss the gameplay there are I don't know how many where you can do that, and if you actually do want to discuss the balancing for the development version of the game someone can start a thread with some more specific discussion. @StopKillingMe Do consider this a warning, if you don't treat other people on these forums with more respect your access to these forums will be limited. In general if you want to criticise something and have your criticism taken seriously it's more successful to be specific and provide examples than to just dismiss something as a whole.
  5. 8 points
    Hey Fork A. D. Guys And WFGianer Guys. Steps Together Are Still The Biggest Steps Right. See you.
  6. 8 points
    Hyrule's Spartans are ready:
  7. 8 points
    A picture on some changes that have come with the units, which include more accurate armor textures from the 13th century to late 13th century.
  8. 7 points
    I still have lots to learn when it comes to creating trees, but here are some holm oaks I made. (436 tris)
  9. 7 points
    I might have something for the former.
  10. 7 points
    How we see borg- How someone else sees borg- "Resistance is Futile!"
  11. 7 points
    @StopKillingMe If you want to discuss the merits or bad things about @borg-'s mod, please do so on specific and concrete grounds, and not just some generic "it's not the way it used to be" or "it doesn't say things this way in the design document". Nothing holds any value on its own, if you can't explain why there is less reason to mention it at all than if you can explain why your point should be taken seriously. And also more specifically in this thread, the Design Document etc doesn't really matter, what matters is the aspects of the mod borg has created and their merit in and of themselves. If you want to discuss whether or not parts of the mod or the entire mod should be included in the main game, please create a new topic to do so.
  12. 7 points
    I also removed the training of soldiers in the center. This helps a lot in the dynamics of the game. But I really liked the idea he proposed to be able to create weaker soldiers in the center. Maybe we could have a special unit in cc, cheap, quick, for raid defense or rush, like a militia. In mod, the promoted units have no economic loss and also the gains are much smaller than the vanilla, are +10% health, +1 armour, +20% attack, both for ranged and melee. There is no gain of speed of movement, precision , among other things. The champions are calculated based on the citizens, example, citizen infantry spearmen, 70 health, 3/3 armour, 6 hack attack. So the calculation is done like this: 70 health + 10% of town phase bonus + 10% city phase bonus, +10% advance rank, +10% elite rank, = 102.5. So I give + 10% since championship units should be better than a promoted soldier, = 115.0. The same applies to armor, attack, etc.
  13. 6 points
    got one more to polish and then an entity template to make screenie showing just what I mean, new oaks on the left, holly oaks on the right, and easily double the number of the old oaks on top perhaps wood counts should reflect the poly weight?
  14. 6 points
    Great video from @ValihrAnt
  15. 6 points
    This doesn't really seem to be possible to lead anywhere positive, so I'm closing this topic.
  16. 6 points
    Some reasons why Celts are op; 1) Great eco bonuses. Nearly all of their buildings give extra population space in addition to having the lowest build times of all civs. This lets them save wood, time and grow their population much quicker. The Rotary Mill is very good for food income aswell. 2) No inherent weaknesses. While other civilizations lack swordsmen to counter siege weapons (Macedonians) or require specific buildings to do so (Seleucids, Ptolemies, Carthaginians, Persians), the Celts have access to sword cav in their barracks. The Celts can easily function with only food and wood while most other civilizations are severely crippled without access to minerals (Ptolemies most severely). They have good heroes and the good ol' rams. Caratacos, Cunobelin, Brennus and Vercingetorix are very strong heroes. And rams are a strong and capable siege weapon capable of quick and deadly attacks, which are only helped by the strong economic boost.
  17. 6 points
    I was doing some experiments in Atlas -- trying to improve my borg's mod skills -- and this happened: It was obvious that the spearmen would lose, but their defeat was much more hilarious than what I expected.
  18. 5 points
    looks weird unit.I mean looks from othervtimeframe. this is very nice.
  19. 5 points
  20. 5 points
    What if... what if... at the start of the match, similar to Hyrule Conquest, you choose a hero to lead your civ. That hero gives you different choices at each phase up.
  21. 5 points
    FYI for you -- that documentation is at this very moment in the process of being rewritten.
  22. 5 points
    Balancing isn't like submitting code on phabricator. Others have tried explaining it to you that this isn't some AAA or any other kind of commercial game development enterprise. When balancing an alpha game, nothing is "out of scope," especially when it is essentially one guy doing his best to make something good out of the gameplay. The team can choose to implement the whole mod, parts of it, or none at all. The team could choose to delegate the gameplay and balancing to him, someone else, a small team of balancers, or no one at all. None of this is "out of scope" as long as that's how the team wants it done. So, that argument is largely invalid. How can you say "this" or "that" doesn't belong in a game which is still in alpha? lol, come on.
  23. 5 points
    At 100th and counting It starts to lag
  24. 5 points
    So many player accounts that each backup is 320MB large, filled 100% of the disk which crashed the thing. So I suppose it's the best cause of a server crash that can happen.
  25. 5 points
    That's still an open question at the moment. Moderator's note: This comment, whilst a valid response to an on-topic remark, resulted in an off-topic stream of posts that were relocated here.
  26. 5 points
    I don't understand why you are so adamant against developing things in a mod before creating a patch. It allows players who don't know how to deal with SVN and patches to participate in the testing. Being a good tester is an entirely different skillset from being a good programmer.
  27. 5 points
    Don't you get it? The game isn't finished. Core gameplay mechanics are either missing or not fleshed out. There is no point in playing it "competitively" or expecting a solid gameplay experience. Take this 0 AD alpha as a tech demo, nothing more. If you change some weapon stats of a unit it won't make a difference, because another unit will be spammed for rushing. That's because you can train military units from your main building, among other issues with resource gathering and overall gameplay speed. Stop complaining and l2p Age of Empires/AoE 2 if you want a solid competition. 0 AD is the wrong place for that.
  28. 5 points
    A "call to arms" button would be cool, which arms your nearby villagers to militia. And then a "back to work" button that turns them back to villagers once the enemy has been repulsed. That would be more of a Delenda Est thing though, since core game doesn't have "Villagers" and DE does.
  29. 5 points
    Reserved for German civ layout for Delenda Est. I've already committed some placeholder Suebian assets to the DE git repository. Using Gaul assets as placeholder for now. https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est/commit/74653b71376ba38593f675e4051586769292b59b https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est Need halp from our resident historians, artists, and reference gatherers. Units Since the Suebi were a tribal confederation, units will have tribal designations, for example: Marcomanni Spearman, Quadi Light Cavalry, etc. Basic units - Bare chested. Pants. Shield. Weapon. No helmet. Advanced units - Shirt. Pants. Shield. Weapon. No helmet. Elite units - Shirt. Pants. Cape. Shield Weapon. Simple Germanic helmet. Champions and Heroes - the only units with body armor, likely chain. Heroes: Ariovistus, Arminius, and ? Buildings All wooden, less health than "standard" civs. "Walls" are a wooden stockade, halfway in strength between palisades and stone walls. "Fortress" is wooden. Building "shapes" should roughly follow Empires Ascendant standard, but with a Germanic veneer or aesthetic. There can be some unique exceptions for visual variety however. Maybe houses are longer than they are wide with a rectangular footprint, in contrast to other civs whose houses generally fit a square footprint. Gameplay Still uses standard territorial gameplay, but has an ox cart dropsite. Later Goths will have more of a nomadic gameplay (like Huns or Scythians) with no territory.
  30. 5 points
    Very OP 1vs1. First it looked like gg for borg- because he had barely any wood and got towered... But somehow he managed to recover due to good food income from fishing and produce the killer-cavy, which easily killed all archers of ValihrAnt. Short summary commands.txt metadata.json
  31. 5 points
    Hi all, I would like to invite you to Sunday Pro Games - Week#7 live-stream event. There will be a 4v4 match at 18.00 (UTC) on Sunday with dual commentary by Feldfeld and ValihrAnt on his youtube channel. If you want to convert UTC time zone to your time zone you can visit this website. -You can Play/Watch/Contribute/Ask questions during the event. It's only one match once a week. So, Players who want to play should be in the room a little early. -You can check the current fixture from this post: League Fixture. -Players who want to Spec/Contribute/Ask questions should watch the event on ValihrAnt's channel: Here is the link. -We're playing on Lake this week. -Rule Breakers get yellow and red cards. If you brake no dancing, no wonder rule during the match, you get a yellow card. If you don't follow the rules intentionally you might get a red card. 2 yellow cards mean 1 red card. If you have a red card, you are banned for the next event. -You can watch previous events on this channel. Please let me know If you have any questions. Have fun, @psypherium @Feldfeld @ValihrAnt @camel @Boudica @ffffffff @JC (naval supremacist) @Unknown_Player @borg- @chrstgtr @Lefo @Pudim @Philip the Swaggerless @Stockfish @PhyZik @itrelles @nani @Hannibal_Barca @LeGenDz @phoenixdesk @LANDLORD *** If you want to be in the notification list, or not, send a PM so I can add/remove your name.
  32. 5 points
    And another detailed example of Achaemenid imperial iconography (on Darius' tomb):
  33. 5 points
    Will your behaviour improve? Honestly though, both my time, and your time, is better spent on constructive things than silliness, so just leave it and move on.
  34. 5 points
    @thankforpie I'm leaning very close to banning you if you keep this up, please stop with this nonsense. If you want to make things up go write a novel or something.
  35. 5 points
  36. 5 points
  37. 5 points
  38. 5 points
  39. 5 points
    @__najimakimoda Everyone is different on how they keep themselves productive, but here are some tips I found to help remain productive. (1) Set small daily goals. I try to set a goal to make an object(mesh) or texture a day. (2) Don't rush your project. Rushing can lead to fatigue which can also lead to dropping your project. (3) Start projects that you are interested in. Working on projects that you like can give a boost in your productivity. (4) Listen to music to help stimulate your creativity. Hope these helped
  40. 4 points
    You know earlier i was playing age of empires. Actually the original version. The CD version that came out about 1995 i think. However after i found out more about microsoft i decided to not use windows anymore. Instead i am using Linux now. Im really glad i found OAD. Its delivering me basicly everything age of empires had - but WAY better. I love this game. I just found it yesterday. Its even working on my super crapy computer. I was kinda surprised when i saw its still in alpha mode because its running without any issues and i didnt find any bugs. What im trying to say is: keep up the good work! You're awesome!!!
  41. 4 points
    I would say, however, that the flaw isn't necessarily with the presence of citizen-soldiers but their implementation. It should take time to mobilise troops, which could make the effects of a rush significantly more devastating as working time can be lost during the time the soldiers are preparing to defend themselves and then during the time they demobilise. It could be even harder if the rusher continuously cycles between different gathering areas, forcing the defender to take an active role in defence if they wish to survive. I've mentioned this idea before, but in fairness, few people seem to appreciate this concept. Definitely though, Darkreaver's concept is much better than the current iteration of the citizen-soldier.
  42. 4 points
    Installed a system update, the service is for offer under the same Terms of Service again!
  43. 4 points
    Very casual, but he's having lots of fun and inspiring people to download
  44. 4 points
    I didn't say that someone should spam women at the start of the match - I said it's POSSIBLE to spam/boom women in general. The game gives enough incentions to do it, along with houses being able to train women for some factions. This isn't really meant to be an earlygame problem but a lategame problem. After a certain point you reach a critical mass of workers and start gathering so many resources that only pop cap/amount of barracks for training units start to become an issue. Sort of the "AoE lategame effect" - and in 0 ad it used to be even worse with training women from multiple houses along with Town Halls. The "build women in houses" tech allows to multiply your economic force after a certain point to absurd gathering rates (unless I'm mistaken and it was removed in the last alpha). By artificially slowing gathering rates you only accomplish a slower game start and delay this point-of-no-return to be a couple minutes later in the game. But this is a design choice anyways. If people are free to spam as many workers for their economy without outer limits you always get to this point - which can be fine if it's intended to be that way. It has advantages but also drawbacks. Another option is to cap workers by having a hard cap on resource spots. Without hard caps on resource spots means that your only limitation for economic growth are your own resources and pop cap (to train workers). Each individual unit then serves as a small multiplier of your economic force. And the economic growth rate is (gather rate) x (gather multiplier)^(number of workers). With hard caps means to limit economic growth along with map control. If someone only has 1 metal mine (or other resource) in his reach he can only get a maximum of / metal/minute. While with 2 mines he can have 2 x Z metal/minute, for 3 mines 3 x Z metal/minute and so on. Same for other resources. Version 2 creates a maximum number of "useful" workers - because after a certain point additional workers will not give the player more economy but only block pop cap instead. This way you limit the effect of loosing resources during attacks, because after some point a player will have soldiers that cannot serve as gatherers anymore because there are no free resource spots left. At this point the player can attack and defend freely without risking to loose resources from walking around. AoE does a mix of Version 1 and 2 with their food production from farms, while other resources are not limited. Empire Earth, Wc3 and Star Craft also use version 2. You can have up to 24 workers on minerals (5 per goldmine in wc3) and after that point each additional worker will not increase your resource income anymore. Unless you expand and take different resource spots on the map.
  45. 4 points
    Women can be spammed massively, that's why they are not allowed to build all types of buildings. To reduce the snowballing effect of multiple worker units when someone reduced build times of units in some alpha years ago. This issue can be reduced by making gatherers more efficient but less spammy (i.e. doubling the training time) and put hard caps on gathering spots (one of many options). You can ofc do that, still doesn't really fix the old issue that military units doubling as resource gatherers is an issue. It has down sides in controls (if you use them to attack the enemy you need to micro a lot to get them back on track again). Also as soon as your military quits to march to the enemy you immediately start loosing resources. Just a quick math example about my point: You have 10 soldiers, each gathering 10 metal every 10 seconds. Enemy base is 60s away and also has 10 soldiers. If you march your soldiers over to the enemy you loose 6x10 = 60 metal just for walking over to the enemy. While your enemy mines 60 metal. This leads to a 120 metal difference between attacker and defender. That means three things: 1) you need to make infantry/units move quick around hte battlefield to keep the resource loss low, and you need to outmicro your opponent because he potentially has more resources for defending - which gets larger for every second the enemy is not forced to fight with all his soldiers. I.e. 30 seconds of not loosing a unit means another 30 metal difference difference that can be used to make defensive units. 2) the attacker puts a lot of risk into his rush because he needs to disrupt the enemy eco while the enemy is already ahead - and this is not by choice but by design, that's why it's an issue and there are only very few games that mix military and economic units. 3) to lower the negative effect of this you can make soldier gather rates low, to reduce the amount of resources lost when launching attacks (which is why most soldiers do not gather super fast). This makes economy snow balling harder. It's like having an exponential mathematic function. Id you take following assumption: 1) each soldier gives you a 10% bonus to your resource income (fast gathering rates) and 2) each soldier only gives a 3% bonus (slower gathering rates) 10% bonus stacking means: 10x1.1 = 1.1, 10x1.1^15 = 15 additional workers mean 41 times more res/minute. if you apply only 3% you need 10 x 1.03^48 = 48 workers instead to get 41 times more res/minute. It's a bit abstract but I hope you get my point. Right now these effects are not showing all the time because the individual gathering rates of all units are relatively slow, and you need a lot of workers anyways. If you switch those stats you'll get lots of issues though. In 0ad currently each military AND economy unit gives you a low bonus, and over the course of the game you get an exponential curve at some point if you spam enough soldiers. This can't be wiped unless you rework the way the economy works though. I've met quite a lot of people here and I haven't seen anyone being as immature, stubborn with such a toxic, griefing attitude. You're just stating nonsense that does not help anybody. Telling people that the devs should stick with the design doc - LOL. I've written a large essay around 1,5 years ago how the current "game" you love so much is completely the opposite of what's stated in the design doc. I won't list up all the points, but almost every gameplay mechanic present is nowhere even remotely related to the original vision. That's why I proposed the design doc should be revisited (and it currently is). If you enjoy the alpha - well that's completely fine. Different people enjoy different things. But expecting OTHER people who play RTS on a regular base to like it regardless is not. defending this by saying "but I have 10 other people who play the game regularely aswell kthx" is just as bad. A healthy community grows overall and if a game is good you don't have 10 guys playing but instead you have thousands. And this only happens if the game is actually good. 0 AD vanilla is mediocre at best at this point. And stating that Borg only plays god mode and sets off above all others is just random malice. Balance and game design are tightly related and you cannot change one thing without the others. Since you're not even understanding this super basic principle you've disqualified from being taken seriously by anybody in any discussion about balancing or game design. I have years experience with modding, gameplay editing and different RTS games on my belt, and have lots of friends who I tried to play 0 AD with. They all abandoned it after a couple of games because they found it boring for various reasons - and most of them are into Medieval/ancient RTS game (won't start another discussion at this point though, I think everyone knows my points by now). @Lion.Kanzen Yea buddy, if there's a more polished state I'll give my 2 cents towards the process. But until then I'll remain a bit in the shadows. Sort of busy with other stuff at the moment.
  46. 4 points
    Yes, that was an origin point. But it's not a silver bullet. Because the another layer of abstraction reduces flexibility, adds limitations and may reduce performance, because of many differences in backend APIs. We can't just add a IRenderer with methods like drawTriangle. Theoretically you can do this, but it would have a significant performance lose. You may add abstraction structures (like octree for frustum culling) that work for all types of backend. But some backend dependent stuff won't work easily. For ex. shaders, you need to use universal language or use some language converters. Which means another layer of limitations. So, what we could do (not a full list): 1. Use own graphics engine a) Use the only one backend API (like Vulkan or GLES) with some third party libraries (like libangle for GLES) that convert these API calls for other platforms (other than supported platforms by this backend). b) Use multiple backends (like you suggested) with run-time or compile-time backend changing. 2. Use third party graphics engine/library: a) Use a complete game/graphics engine (like Godot). b) Use a complete graphics library that has own stable API with own shader language. In only my opinion I'd prefer the 1a or 1b but with not more than 2 different backends, like OpenGL + Vulkan. Because they're Open-Source and present mostly for all platforms (through third-party libraries). Because it's most interesting for a graphics programmer: you don't need to support a lot of backends and you have enough power of the backends. But! It means that we need to handle some low-level stuff by ourselves. Like GPU blacklists, driver specific bugs (like our Intel crashes), and so on. That's harder to support. Complete engines have own problems too, they have less flexibility/performance or small number of supported platforms (some engines already dropped <= GL2). They may change their license or stop support it. Actually it's not the easy question. That's why I suggested to not rush inside rewriting all graphics stuff (while we somehow support most platforms) and refactor all related stuff first. I think the main task now is to collect and isolate most of GL code in some specific place (not just call them through simple proxy functions). That'd be useful for any way that we'd choose.
  47. 4 points
    Just a concept for a Macedonian officer. This could be used by mods who use banner carriers and offcers since I could not find a suitable unit in the game which could use it
  48. 4 points
    @wowgetoffyourcellphone What do you think of having the Agrianian peltast become more hellenized as it gets unit promotion? P E L T A S T E S A G R I A N I K O S (Agrianian peltast)
  49. 4 points
    In theory you have multiple approaches: Option 1) You make slingers and archers the same role (ranged anti inf) with only different stats. And each civ only gets the type of unit they used the most - i.e. Egypt and Persians used slingers, while other factions use archers exclusively. It's then pretty much just a skin difference, a bit like the difference of Meso Civs in AoE having eagle warriors while regular civs have scout cav. Option 2) You differentiate slingers and archers by stats : Both are available to most factions by default. slingers have high damage and good accuracy on shorter ranges and relatively low rate of fire. .They also are fast, but have low health - this makes them good early raiding infantry to do hit & run. Archers have lower damage, but good accuracy on all ranges, fire faster and deal damage more consistent and have better armor/health than slingers while being slower. If you further out this system you could apply a modifier for ranged unit rate of fire with its shooting range. In CoH you have 4 different combat distances, in which you can modify accuracy, penetration and rate of fire of a gun. I.e. infantry rifles take 0.95sec. to aim at a target at 35m but only 0.6 at 6m. Option 3) You differentiate multiple archer/slinger classes (this option profits from battalions) Slingers are on par with basic archers, the characteristics are similar to option 2. But you also have certain advanced archer/slinger units that players of certain factions can deploy. Ie. egypt have basic slingers instead of normal archers, but they can deploy composite archers later in the game. You can then train a battalion of Slingers, consisting of maybe 10 Slingers that move and fight in a loose formation. Archers come in larger numbers per battalion - maybe 20?- and fight is close formations. Also Archers could have a "rain arrows" ability that allows them to barrage a certain area with fire arrows to scare or instantly burn enemy units ("weapon critical damage"). Slingers could have a chance to stun enemy units upon hitting them from close range. Some factions also have access to special slinger units/upgrades or special archers that allow unique tactics compared to other factions. And battalions allow to either make larger amounts of cheap "trash archers" or a bunch of elite archers, depending on civ and map choice. This version would be mostly interesting if you can apply armortypes to units and add flanking damage. Slingers would be used to "dance around" enemy units, trying to hit them from side/rear. While archers can inflict damage more consistently. from a "closed frontline". This sort of reflects the characteristics of both unit types more accurately, but is certainly the hardest option. Option 4) You use multiple archer/slinger classes and use them regardless as assets for the game, leaving it up to the player which units to use. Stats like dmg, rate of fire etc. are done for each unit similar to option 2. This is the version currently present and has large drawbacks, esp. in terms of inner faction balance. This is prety much the easiest along with option 2. There probably are even more options, those were just some I could think of in the nick of time.
  50. 4 points
    In Delenda Est, it's: Infantry Spear/Pike > Melee Cavalry Hoplite class spear infantry have Shield Wall aura which boosts armor of nearby allied Hoplites Pikeman class spear infantry have Massed Pikes aura which boosts the attack and armor of nearby allied Pikemen Infantry Sword > Infantry Spear/Pike, Elephant Infantry Archer > Melee Infantry Infantry Javelinist > Infantry Spear, Ranged Cavalry (this includes Chariots), Elephants Infantry Slinger > Infantry Sword, Ranged Infantry Cavalry Spear > Ranged Infantry, Siege Cavalry Swords > Ranged Infantry, Ranged Cavalry, Siege Cavalry Archer > Melee Infantry Cavalry Javelinist > Support Elephants > Cavalry, Buildings, Gates Stench Aura vs. Cavalry Terror Aura vs. All enemy units Trample Aura vs. All enemy units Camelry > Cavalry Stench aura vs. Cavalry YMMV. The bonuses are adjusted in strength so that a unit class with a large number of bonuses (Infantry Javelinists for instance) aren't OP. Cavalry have a lot of classes which counter them, but counters such as elephants and camelry are relatively rare. Civs which lack certain classes of units may be able to field units of those classes in limited numbers from captured mercenary camps, which helps plug that balance hole for them. Seriously though, don't send cavalry against elephants, lol.
×
×
  • Create New...