Themistocles

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded 439]

Obviously Themistocles is a naval focussed hero.  I don't have any particular issue with this, but it means that he is never used for land maps for any good reason.  I think that it would be nice to give him a buff for wall construction either in speed or cheapness.  He was instrumental in Athens completing the long wall and their city walls after Persia had sacked the city.  What are your thoughts?

[Altrine 55]

Why instead of that Naval Architect reduced we can do what you light have given for Themistocles. I use Iphicrates for land never Themistocles. Might be good for a land boost for him. 

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded 439]

I wouldn't say that his effect on navies should be eliminated.  I'd say it could just be nerfed.  What we would want is a hero that is attractive for naval maps, but not an overt option.  That way he could be a flexible choice.

[Altrine 55]

That's quite good. But the effects of navy could be reduced you know like somewhat from 50% to 30% so that he won't be well too much good 

 

[borg- 429]

On 3/24/2019 at 11:58 AM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Obviously Themistocles is a naval focussed hero.  I don't have any particular issue with this, but it means that he is never used for land maps for any good reason.  I think that it would be nice to give him a buff for wall construction either in speed or cheapness.  He was instrumental in Athens completing the long wall and their city walls after Persia had sacked the city.  What are your thoughts?

Play my mod "borg-expansion-pack" can download in mod.io, on 0a.d menu.

Have lots of new auras and reformulated auras.

[JamesWright 33]

And the Romans have no naval hero when they were one of the greatest naval empires up unto the crusades began in 1091 AD,

On 3/27/2019 at 7:00 AM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I wouldn't say that his effect on navies should be eliminated.  I'd say it could just be nerfed.  What we would want is a hero that is attractive for naval maps, but not an overt option.  That way he could be a flexible choice.

that should be updated too.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded 439]

I understand your logic, but there are few Republican Roman examples I can think of that played a prominent militaristic role, especially during the Punic Wars, which is what I think is the general timeframe 0 A.D. is attempting to model.  Compared to Scipio Africanus or Fabius Maximus, it's hard to match with anyone else.  Carthage also was renowned for its navy, even more so than Rome, and they have no admiral representing them.  

[wowgetoffyourcellphone 4,483]

10 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I understand your logic, but there are few Republican Roman examples I can think of that played a prominent militaristic role, especially during the Punic Wars, which is what I think is the general timeframe 0 A.D. is attempting to model.  Compared to Scipio Africanus or Fabius Maximus, it's hard to match with anyone else.  Carthage also was renowned for its navy, even more so than Rome, and they have no admiral representing them.  

I've been rolling around in my head simply removing named heroes from skirmish mode entirely (but keeping them for scenarios, campaigns, and Herocide of course) and splitting off their uses to other units, such as Officers, Bannermen, etc. I could foresee an option to "upgrade" one of your Officer units to a General (or some other culturally specific designation), which is now your civ's "Leader" with extra bonuses and benefits. For certain Naval-centric civs, perhaps one of your Triremes could be upgraded to Flagship, with aura and other bonuses, or one of your Officers upgraded to Admiral. 

Edited April 8 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[JamesWright 33]

8 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I've been rolling around in my head simply removing named heroes from skirmish mode entirely (but keeping them for scenarios, campaigns, and Herocide of course) and splitting off their uses to other units, such as Officers, Bannermen, etc. I could foresee an option to "upgrade" one of your Officer units to a General (or some other culturally specific designation), which is now your civ's "Leader" with extra bonuses and benefits. For certain Naval-centric civs, perhaps one of your Triremes could be upgraded to Flagship, with aura and other bonuses, or one of your Officers upgraded to Admiral. 

@wowgetoffyourcellphone That is a great idea and is interesting, like  if you go into atlas there is Roman units that are simply not trainable the actual game like the centurion which during the occupation of Israel by Rome was the leader of 100 soldiers. Like with citizen soldiers you could have ranks with the champions maybe with a limit to how many can rank up as your population grows.  As to flagship some civs already have that like the ptolemies'  Juggernaut or the Iberian Fire Ship. And for admirals the Athenians have marines maybe we could add a type of marine for all civs and have one or a few at a time that can rank up to admiral in relation to either your naval size or your population.

As to your comment @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded I agree with you on carthage.

[Gurken Khan 103]

38 minutes ago, JamesWright said:

As to flagship some civs already have that like the ptolemies'  Juggernaut or the Iberian Fire Ship.

I guess the Juggernaut could be considered a flagship; but it only has more health, no other bonuses like auras. But the Fire Ship is self-consuming, so while it is civ specific, it's by no means a flagship.

[JamesWright 33]

4 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

I guess the Juggernaut could be considered a flagship; but it only has more health, no other bonuses like auras. But the Fire Ship is self-consuming, so while it is civ specific, it's by no means a flagship.

I totally agree with you.