Leaderboard

It might be true as most multi-player game I would pick iberian's Vs or with high rating players or Romans for more novice. Both are the mostly picked Civs in multiplayers because it's team bonus. But eventually they become equal to Britons, Gauls or Ptolemies to because they are easy to boom with. Well I suppose Athenians are never played while Spartans are most picked in The Hellenic Civs. Their boost is only important in complete naval map ( Island Jumping) because everyone picks Ptolemies for that ( Lighthouse.) So there is. No need of Athenian boost mostly. doing these changes would make Iberian's and Roman's less popular while making Athenians more picked in Naval map and making Ptolemies nearly out of Multiplayers because their basic food tickling make them better allies. Just because the Cav of Secleucids is good doesn't make them that popular in multiplayer and even you started using Roman's lately. And Secluedis can only build military colony (mostly) so no use of Cc bonus. Mostly I use Gauls , Ptolemies,Spartans in 1v1. And in Iberians , Gauls, Britons or Ptolemies ( expect Britons for team bonus) To me team bonus make certain Civs popular in team games. Not in 1v1 (Ibetians expecting due to starting walls)

The Scythians should have women amazon-like warriors with lasso abilities. Since this is a huge cultural group, they can easily have different reforms options like the Seleucid. For example Sarmatians cavalry lancers and Saka cataphracts for a traditionnal nomad reform or Bosporan thureophoros and Bosporan Daco-Thracian warriors for a crimean reform. The Bosporan units could even construct special hellenistic-like buildings. The Huns could have the eagle ability proposed by Sundiata (awesome idea). For example a unit with an eagle vision ability or simply a better vision. The Huns seem to have better cavalry archery with complex tactics. They could have vassalised germanic units in the late phase. The only thing is it ok for cavalry to have a building ability?

Yes, you're not mistaken. A peltast (πελταστής) is someone who bears a rimless shield (πέλτη). The term could and was applied to Thracians and other skirmishers, Iphicratean style hoplites, Hellenistic pikemen, etc. Furthermore, that hoplites, pikemen, and legionaries occassionally used javelins doesn't make them skirmishers by default. What I did in my mod is separating pierce into thrust (spears) and pierce (arrows); spearmen inflict 100% thrust, sabremen 100% hack, swordsmen 50% thrust and 50% hack; rams are vulnerable to all melee units.

I too had also thought to give their cavalry a build function. In the actor it would work just like the meat gathering does. The horse would stand aside while the rider goes to ground and hammers the foundation.

Mongol Eagle Warriors: special ability: Gouging out the enemies' eyes, reducing the attacked units' visibility by 90%, lol Would be a cool fantasy unit for some game someday... Assassin's Creed: Wrath of the Khans

@wowgetoffyourcellphone, two words: Eagle Hunting I think it took out a fox in the video, but I've seen video's of these babies taking out wolves as well!!! Would make for a very unique specialized hunting unit. Wouldn't be simple to implement I assume, but sooo epic. Perhaps even as a scout unit, although I'm not sure whether they outfitted their eagles with go-pro's in the BC era. Might have to check up on that. Also, why is throat singing so freakin' epic?!?! Some Turkic folk music (that flute, so simple, so perfect...): Top random youtube comment: "These people usually hunt wolves and foxes, but occasionally they conquer the world"

That's what I wanted to say

Xiongnu, Scythians, Huns. I've created preliminary versions of each in my Delenda Est Git repository here: https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est Obviously the nomadic civs should have some similar attributes. No territory bonus or restrictions Consequently, their buildings have -50% health and loyalty Raiding and Looting bonuses A focus on cavalry Cavalry units can build Livestock bonus, called "Pastoralism." Packable buildings Some kind of raiding/loot bonus Mobile "cart" dropsite that can upgrade into a storehouse or yurt Starts each match with a free Yurt (house) No stone walls, they get Palisades in City Phase instead. Uncovered battering ram = 4 armored dudes carrying a log around Some female military units, either as actor variations or standalone templates But each should have its own civ specific traits. Xiongnu Team Bonus: ? Xiongnu battering ram can upgrade to a covered battering ram More armor techs? Falcon Scout special starting unit Falcon Huntress special hunting/scouting unit Anything? Scythians Team Bonus: Goldsmith Mastery: Allied gatherers +10% metal gathering rate, allied technologies -10% metal cost A "settlement" option Removes packing ability Adds a territory effect and health bonus to 75% of standard? Unlocks Fortress and Stone Walls Bosporan "Greek" mercenaries Headhunter female champion cavalry Royal Scythian heavy champion cavalry Anything? Huns Team Bonus: Winds of the Steppe: Allied Cavalry +10% speed and +1 pierce armor No "elite" rank? Starting structures are all in the "Packed" state, meaning they always start in a quasi-nomad mode A wide variety of "mercenaries" based on their subject peoples: Goths, Alemanni, Alans, et al. Traction catapult? Anything?

Empires Apart is an upcoming RTS that “wants to be Age of Empires at heart”, say Slitherine, who have just announced that they’ll be publishing DESTINYbit’s game when it’s ready for release in the second half of 2017. I hadn’t heard of the title until today, so I’ve been digging through old development video blogs like a digital archaeologist. You can see the three videos produced to date below, as well as an announcement trailer.

I think that one problem in 0ad are team bonuses. The fact that there are very good team bonuses and shoddy ones, affects also the fact that some civilizations are more / less played respect to others. In fact, let's talk about ibers and rome. If we think about it, iber civilization is quite popular exclusively thanks to their team bonus, while rome (that is anyway a good faction) is rare in 1v1 games, while in team games is very used, widely thanks to it's team bonus. Anyway, I don't agree about the fact that a civilization like ptolemies, britons or gauls should have a better team bonus. These are already the strongest civilization, and a better team bonus would boost all players to use only these three civilizations. In my opinion better team bonuses must be given to the less used civilization. Let's make some examples: Athenians: their team bonus is effective only in naval maps (and is not so op anyway), so is it useful considering that naval maps are played really little? Carthaginians: considering that trade is the best bonus that can be given to this civilization (looking at it's story), why not to increase it? A 10% bonus doesn't motivate anyone to play this civilization even in a trade-based game (Persia has in my opinion a similar problem) Seleucids: to reduce the cost of new civic centres (that are also a building that is not so used in team games) only of 100 resources is quite unuseful: do 100 resources of each type affect the game? I know that surely some players already discussed about it, so I would also like to know if there are some ideas about it or a mod that fixes it.

Yeah, you are right. Anyway, we have to change the graphic of the destruction of the ram. If people inside die, that doesn't mean that the ram is destroyed. In my opinion was maybe more realistic when (I don't remember the alpha) you could capture the rams: just kill people inside and take control of the siege. In my opinion would be good to stimulate the fact of garrisoning the rams. It's not realistic that 100 archers can be killed by 3 rams: discarding the option that is a mass of dumb archers in a real situation they would go next to the ram to kill the people inside and take control of it. In my opinion the solution can be: rams can be destroyed by swords units, other rams, crush units or catapults, while they can be captured from any type of unit. This would incentivate people to garrison them to have more units that can defend with shields the people that are normally moving the ram (the default ones that are already inside: when you have 0 garrisoned units)

We can contact them, of course, but I don't think they will make an exception. This event is not really pro-open source, it's basically pro-GitHub. Nothing wrong with that, they have money to support the projects on their own platform, it's normal that they use it - but we are not based there.

No, the Macedonians completely lack in sword units. They can't build Stoà Yeah, they would be op, cause they would have an advantage respect to other civilizations with heavy pikes units, like ptolemies, for example. Anyway, the main problem of Syntagma formation isn't that it gives no bonuses to the player, but also is never used cause it sets the units in a square formation: really good for ranged units, but terrible for melee units: they would lose time setting into a line to create a shield for the back ranged units. Why not to make syntagma formation more rectangular? Back units in formations are unuseful in fight now. To make an example I propose to set the formation in order to obtain, If I have something like 80 units not a square composed by 9x9 but a rectangular composed by 20x4. Really more effective

The problem is the lack of historical swordsmen among the Greeks. Because of the rock-paper-scissor logic it is a problem.

The Royal Stoa building was just kind of ill-conceived from the get go. Stoas should have more of civic function (like in Delenda Est), not serve as another barracks. Thracian sword duders make sense for both Seleucia and Macedon, notsomuch for Athens and Sparta.

Yes you are probably right. I checked and it seems they are polyvalent pikemen. Anyway there are the Agrianes and the Triballi as good candidates. I agree.

I haven't played core game in a while, but don't the Macedonians have access to the Thracian Black Cloak (a vicious champion swordsman) in Phase 2? If so, they may be simply underutilized or perhaps (and this is probably it) they are too expensive. I'm pretty sure, and @Nescio please correct me if I'm wrong, the Antigonid Royal Peltasts were mostly just elite heavy pikemen. Of course, during sieges and other special operations they would use javelins and swords, but in pitched battle they'd just be the elite of the pike corps, used to anchor one of the flanks like the Seleucid Silver Shields. Make spearmen Hack-only and you'd get rid of this over reliance on swordsmen for the anti-ram role.

Most of the above are true and their stats make them weak against Roams whom the opponents mostly chose so like a sucide civ

I see very well eagles as a ranged attack when #252 will be done. The unit would have a sword in melee and the falcon would just fly above her head, and if switched to ranged the falcon would attack. Should be restricted to slaughter attack I don't think they would waste an eagle in a battle.

That sounds pretty cool... Daco-Thracians, mmmm.... Considering eagle hunting is most prevalent in Mongolia today, the Xiongnu should definitely have this ability if implementable (Chinese sources mention the practice), and there seems to be evidence for Scythians practicing it as well, making it a perfect general Nomadic civ trait, to help mitigate their lack of farming. Seems to be another thing women excelled at. Female Eagle Huntresses: I don't see why? They weren't 100% horseback all the time. But when they campaign, it was all horses, so I think that created the impression they literally all ride horses all the time. In very general terms: even when migrating, there would have been a lot of walking involved as well. They have slow moving animals like sheep, goats and cattle and their carts don't usually travel at light speed either (and would need regular pushing, and pulling). Don't forget the old folk, pregnant women, and babies. Families and clans would usually have a highly mobile component of riders and a less mobile component: the household and the rest of the family. Everybody also forgets that they ruled over sedentary populations as well (Northern China, Tarim Basin, Sogdiana, Black Sea Coast etc). Especially at their height (Huns, Scythians and Xiongnu), the wealthier families/clans/tribes, whatever, had access to a lovely array of slaves whom I doubt would be given horses. Cavalry having a building ability reminds me of the Maurya elephant being able to build by itself. How did that ever pass the review? We were arguing about elephants' "siege" capabilities, meanwhile some of our elephants are freakin' architects, engineers and construction workers all in one, as well as being a mobile drop-site on top of that... Of course, for the Nomadic civs, I'd change my mind if dismounting units ever becomes a thing.

I suggest that you name the nomadic livestock bonus as pastoralism in contrast with sedentary animal husbandry. Nomads are more reliant to livestock than settled folks, thus making them more practiced in animal husbandry than the sedentary communities that prefer plant cultivation as a primary source of food, which they then supplement with livestock. Nomadic horse breeding tradition. Reduced training time for cavalry units too, compared with non-nomadic factions.

They apparently put some money to make another one 2.5h per week for one year. Else a bunch of people forked the blender game engine -> https://upbge.org/

Besides that Blender 2.8 will not be supporting BGE(Blender game engine) Enjoy the Choice

possibly if there is a way to save like, 2 formations a game or something. Say there are two empty buttons or a whole new row of formation buttons that can be saved. In theory, this could be simple. All you would need to do is maybe not paint (or maybe paint, that'd be dope) but you could just manually position units in the shape you wanted, then have the game save that as a formation for that match. One possible problem with that that I could think of is, say you have saved the formation above. If units die, it probably won't be a problem, your crescent might just get smaller, but what if you set that formation on a group that is larger than the original formation? It could be difficult for the game to extrapolate where you want the extra guys. This would be an amazing feature though! You could make a crescent and pull a hannibal at cannae or possibly a thicker hoplite phalanx from Marathon or Leuctra.

my latest upload is a faction overview of the Mauryans. Have a look and let me know your thoughts!

Yeah Spam mails are now frequent.

Nice questions 4th one was somewhat a joke. Like.

refs

Civilisations shouldn't be picked just because of their team bonus, but the team bonus should only be one of the factors in picking a civ. You shouldn't give civs op teambonuses just to make them played, instead they should have their inherent flaws fixed. (ex. Macedonians don't have sword units, making them easy targets for siege spam) Could be changed to 25% reduced creation time and 15% reduced cost. They shouldn't be given a land based bonus just because naval isn't played so often. If Carthaginian bonus is increased Persian bonus needs to be increased too. It's most useful in nomad. I think it's fine the way it is at the moment. (It affects Military Colonies too). This is the exact bonus that Kushites have at the moment. Current Macedonian team bonus is quite good the way it is. I don't see why it should be changed. If it were up to me to change team bonuses I'd do it like this: Iberians: From 20% reduced cost to 10% reduced cost. Romans: from 20% reduced training time to 15% reduced. Athenians: From 25% reduced ship training time to 25% reduced train time and 15% reduced ship cost. Ptolemies: Reducing the trickle speed by 0.25s, because of the fact that the teambonus is working in your favour from start of the match to the end no matter the circumsance. Other than that the current team bonuses seem fine to me. Briton and Mauryan team bonus is never used at the moment, but that's due to healers being super weak not the team bonus being under powered.

What unit, if I can ask? Why not to increase the allies' territory influence by 20%? Your ideas are really good anyway Dakara: if they were applied, we would probably have more people playing these civs.

The macedoniand lack in sword units: their only ones are 2 of the 3 heroes. Also, they also have no elephants to counter rams, like ptolemies. This makes them really weak against civilizations like celts. I would propose maybe to introduce or P2 cloak swordmen (but maybe they are not historycally accurated) or to add a type of mercenary sword, as Rolf Dew already said