Leaderboard

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar2c4xnhpccobcl/Gerusalem1vs1.xml?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/btcrt4uqtpcwfqc/Gerusalem1vs1.pmp?dl=0 The map in inspired by the gerusalem of the king Ezechia during the siege of the assyrian force. I hope that you like it!:

Some ideas I had for gameplay diversification. If more experienced players see something that could be better, please point it out so it can be corrected. If players like this, it could be the base for a mod for testing the new playstyles.

@LetswaveaBook lets get real here the pikemen are the real support units for the ranged chads.

I think pikemen are not problematic, the powerful ranged units that support them are. In the scenario editor I saw that if a force of 10 swordsman attack 5 pikemen and 5 skirmishers, the skirmisher survive all and 1 or 2 pikemen survive. If we take a weaker ranged units such as the archer, the swordsman defeat the pike+range combo by a small margin. The fact that 1 on 1 the spearman can't defeat the javelineer convincingly is something to keep in mind concerning this topic. I do not agree with the fact that these changes are too small. I will list some thoughts on uniqueness. Group 1: Uniqueness from the start. Ptolemies: There is no reason to call them ordinary. Mauryas: Starting with an worker elephant does significantly impact how you can play the game. Also they have unique options with swordsmen and elephants. Iberians: Starts with walls, giving them a totally unique feeling on top of all other uniqueness they gain. Britons: The are the less unique than the 3 factions above here. They start with a dog, which can be used to bring the deer towards your CC in the start of the game. These deer allow you to get more cavalry, which can rush excellently with the help of the dog. The war dog can be a very convenient unit for rushing. Having with slingers allows you to put that 300 starting stone directly to work, which means you can produce ranged infantry very conveniently at the start. Also the hero Caratacus makes the Briton units the fastest in the game. Group 2: Uniqueness in p2. It is not difficult to reach p2 and reaching p2 becomes all ready feasible at 40 population. Carthaginians: Strategies where you advance to p2 with 40 or 50 population and go for merc cavalry are very much feasible. Also they get the colonization technology, which is worth after you have build an (extra) CC. Once you reach p3, you get access to powerful heroes and you can instantly train champion infantry from the temple (does not require a technology like most champions do) Seleucids: They get their military colonies for 160w, 160s,160m. what you get for this investment is a great deal, 2 population space (equivalent to 2 houses=300wood+100sec build time), a resource drop of point (valued at 100 wood and 40 seconds build time, I will ignore for this comparison that you can also drop food on it), a defensive structure(a tower cost 100w, 100s and 150 sec build time) and you can use it to produce mercenaries(mercenary camps of kush/carthage cost each 200 resources and 150 sec build time). So the value totals at 500 wood, 100s, 200 extra resources for the value of merc camp and 540 seconds of build time. I am ignoring in this value, that it is a resource drop of point for food, can train women, allows for territory expansion and can heal garrisoned units. All in all the value of this building is much larger than its costs. Furthermore the faction boost instant hero and infantry champion production at p3, as you do not need to build an extra building or wait for a technology for the champions. On top of that, it also has good unit variety. Kushites: Once you reach p2, you can build mercenary camps which makes it feel unique. The Noba clubman is one of the few tools that can efficiently deal with fortification in p2. Also it gets a pyramid for faster gather rate. Once you reach p3, you can instantly produce champions from the temple. It heroes are fine and they have a big temple for rank 3 heroes. They also can mass elephants easier. Overall, this faction is still feels under-powered because the archers are under-powered. The kushites have 14 different types of soldiers (elephant included) and 2 siege weapons. So the Kushite problem is not a problem with its design, but with balance between ranged units. It could be more unique if it would be allowed to train pikemen in p1 or its pyramids would get available earlier: see https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4280 Group 3: Factions lacking things that make them feel unique. I don't mean to say that these are bad or don't have unique properties. However the unique things that they have mostly don't make much of an impact until p3. Gauls, Romans, Macedonians, Athenians, Spartans, Persians. Now that I have concluded that 6 out of 13 factions lack the unique feeling, what can and needs to be done about it? First of all, there aren't completely bland. Secondly it might be nice to have a group of more standardized factions and those who are more unique. Just a few suggestion: Make Naked fanatics more usable, make the temple of Vesta more special (like larger aura), No idea for Macedon, Give Athenians a Theatre bonus and allow the council hall to train champ hoplites in p2, Persians could use their levy upgrades and spear cavalry in p1. Having 7 factions out of 13 being unique is not bad. I am not opposed to p1 champions. I feel that it would be well balanced as people would prefer in p1 to make units that can gather resources over melee infantry units. Even if it allowed for gimmick strategies, Sparta was know for a militaristic culture and aggressive wars to enslave fellow Greek populations. Furthermore, I have decided to end every post with this quote Cato Maior: Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam, LetswaveaBook: Furthermore I think ranged damage must be reduced.

I think that's probably the point raised by this thread: how to give civs more "flavour" beyond the basic rock, paper, scissor dynamic? As you describe in the example, it doesn't really matter which civilization you choose, you can simply ammass champions to make your army stronger and invade your opponent. I think that's what lies beneath the feeling of uniformity among the civilizations. They're carefully balanced together, but in the attempt to make them even they're more or less replaceable from one or another. Now, I'm a completely casual player and I enjoy the game as it is already, so I have no complaints. But I find the discussion very interesting and one of the things that can potentially increase the longevity of the game! Maybe the options that can be explored shouldn't be only exclusive to warfare, but could encompass other game dynamics. - Scythians are definitely a good example on how to bring a unique flavour of gameplay to the civilization. - But I also personally like the idea of a "trading civilization", that can be built specifically on trade and less from conventional forms of income. Protecting the caravans would then become a particular meta playing in this civ and add a new layer of difficulty - Another civ (Chinese maybe?) could instead get bonuses from farming extensively, but this would require also a lot of territory control on the map - A civilization strong on mercenaries can have a stronger army than the counterparts, but needs A LOT of resources, so you have to make sure to sustain a florid economy to use this potential to the fullest - On the contrary, a rush civilization may have cheaper and weaker units, but this gives the advantage of the big numbers. Maybe the can have the advantage of a cheaper/quicker expansion to other territories, so they can rely on map control in the middle/late game. - Other civs may rely on population bonuses for big numbers and others on social/culture bonuses with moral boost if they fight in their own territory (or some unique aura units like, idk, a priest or a standard bearer?) I'm just basking from previous ideas here, but I find some of them quite interesting to shuffle the game and make it less linear, depending on which civ you chose. Some civilizations have already their uniqueness with some special buildings/units and maybe is more a matter of making those small differences even more obvious, so is less about micro differences between single units, but more in broader, macro terms on how each specific gameplay will unfold. In that sense, I've found AOE 4 interesting from the sneak peek I've seen, with the choice of specific buildings to pass to the next age. It gives exactly that feeling of a deliberate strategic choice. Another game that comes to mind is C&C Generals, with the choice between generals in the beginning, and their respective "doctrines". The roast of basic units and counter-units was always present, but each general gave a different "extra" that made the game extremely variegate even by playing the same civilization. So yeah, maybe civilizations in 0ad could simply have that role instead.

Keep in mind that building the Syssiton itself is an expense; supposing that there was no batch training possible and Spartans had something like a sixty second training time, I would hardly call that a completely broken mechanic. This could be coupled with their champions having reduced stats that improve with each subsequent phase. Making them spawn from the Civic Centre would make the Syssiton a redundancy, an unideal outcome. My point is that Spartans should be able to viably have Spartans at the beginning of the game in a way that is not a massive opportunity cost. Keep in mind that we are talking merely hypothetically, and calling such a mechanic either weak or overpowered is a false dichotomy without further experimentation.

I really like this idea. It incentivizes clever building placement. Granaries could give bonuses to farm gather rates, while CC's wouldn't, making you chose between safety or economic bonus. CC's could give some sort of bonus to markets (most likely a trade bonus, but could also be on barter prices). Just spitballing here, but i really do like this concept.

I believe that I already outlined my opinion much earlier regarding a very obvious Spartan gimmick: Be able to train Spartans at phase 1. Simply speaking Sparta without Spartans is stupid. My proposal in a thread regarding ways to diversify champions included making making Spartan hoplites free as well, only offset by a lengthly recruitment time, two population, and a hard cap of one Syssiton in the Village Phase and +1 for each subsequent one. Technologies would be able to change the characteristics of its citizenry over time, making each Phase give an option to represent the political elements affecting Spartans.

While I would agree that 0ad would benefit from some balancing strategy, "playstyle" sounds like something hard to be anywhere close to balanced. If I look at that example, your description let me think that all Brit-Mace matchup would be about an early game in which Brit aggress Mace. In most case Brits should take a decisive advantage and if that wouldn't happen, Brit should simply resign before late game because they missed their shot and Macedonian superior siege and late game would allow them to take the advantage. I think my view is close to breakfastburrito, I would offer to each civilization similar option but allow players to decide how they want to play it. It is important that every civilization do not become too predictable. A system with at least a "threat strategy" (rushing) and a "punishing strategy" (booming/lategame play) would make more sense (Mid games strategy feels currently missing...). The gameplay could later be further differentiated by introducing potentially several threats, various definitions of what is early game/late game for each civilization etc... Rushing/booming/harassing should be decent strategies for every civilization, but it would be nice if each civilization is able to do it differently. Defining a rush specific to a civilization would consist in combining civilization bonus+starting units+ starting building+available units/technology to allow for that rush to be specific. For example: Romans have faster training of soldiers, giving them a barrack that cost only stones, the availability of swordmen p1 which allow to use starting resources for faster soldiers production and maybe one additional starting units could allow that civilization to go for early infantry rush. A Roman player would decide whether he wants to go for that infantry rush, if we wants to add a few spear cavalries to implement a more complex version, or if he prefers booming and plays something specific to Romans in late game. The enemy would have to decide whether he prepares to defend the Roman infantry rush, goes for a rush specific to his civilization or boom to play a later game strategy specific to his civilization but about equally valid as a lategame strategy.

When designing civs (or redesigning them), I think the focus should not just be on balance, but to make each civ "Favorite Worthy." What I mean is, each civ should have aspects that make it unique, fun, and cool enough to make stand out and make it worthy of vying for the community's "favorite" civ. In a "tier list" ideally it should be a struggle to decide which civ should be knocked down to a 'C'. They should all be clustered at B, A, and S. Some ideas: General Remove champion "unlock" techs and move them back to Fortress unless otherwise stated. Move Heroes to Civic Center unless otherwise stated. All Citizen-Soldiers types in every civ have Rank Promotion technologies up to Advanced. Exceptions 1 type of Citizen-Soldier per civ will have an additional promotion tech up to Elite. 1 type of Citizen-Soldier per civ will have no promotion techs. Unless otherwise stated, all civs retain their current bonuses and technologies. Athenians Retool the "Delian League" team bonus. All allies can train the Delian Marine from their Dock. -20% build time for all Ships and Boats. -20% research time for all Dock Technologies. "Painted Stoa" structure (build limit: 1), which grants the "Greek Architecture" aura (Buildings +20% health). Remove the "Greek Architecture" bonus from all other Greek civs. Heroes trained instantly at the Prytaneion (not Civic Center). Gymnaseion Replaces the Barracks Larger footprint and +20% greater health. Slightly more expensive. Trains "Hoplite" Citizen-Infantry and Champion Infantry "City Guard." Archery Range available to train Athenian Militia Slinger, Cretan Mercenary Archer, and Thracian Peltast. "Scythian Archer" Champion Infantry trained at the Fortress. Britons Chariots Available from Town Phase, after researching unlocking tech. When "killed", the Javelineer rider jumps off and continues to battle (until he too is killed) Slightly underpowered in Town Phase, but has a City Phase upgrade "Reinforced Undercarriage" which makes them extra stronk. Add Infantry Swordsman to the citizen soldier roster, available in Town Phase. Reimplement the Population Bonus special for their buildings, but at +1 population, instead of the old +2. Carthaginians Embassies "unlock" ethnic mercenaries at the Barracks, Stable, and Range. War Elephants have a "Tower" upgrade, which adds a Howdah prop to them. Cothon Shipyard shoots arrows. A fourth hero can be "Xanthippus of Sparta", who specifically boosts mercenaries. A 3rd champion, available at the Fortress: "Veteran African Infantry", a champion swordsman with a mix of Carthaginian and Roman equipment. "Sacred Band" champions still trained at the Temple. Gauls Give them a cheap Infantry Archer, "Gallic Hunter," available in Town Phase. Add Infantry Swordsman to the citizen soldier roster, available in Village Phase. Carnyx Trumpeter should have a "Horn Blow" special ability that temporarily improves attack of nearby Gallic troops. This is automatically done every 2 minutes in battle, but can be manually activated by the player every 1 minute. Iberians Keep the free starting walls, but remove the free gates (just have openings; the player can close them with fresh walls and gates if they wish). Allow the Monument to be built anywhere, even in enemy territory. "Burning Pitch" technology allows players to toggle javelin-throwing units between regular (anti-infantry) and burning (anti-structure) javelins. "Horse Country" tech at the Corral, for another -10% cavalry training time. Champion Infantry and Champion Cavalry can swap between Sword and Javelin. Kushites Give them a free Sanga Cattle at the start of the match. A new "Extensive Husbandry" tech at the Corral makes training animals faster. "Iron Smelting" tech makes Forges and Forge Technologies a lot cheaper and faster. "Iron Exports" makes bartering for Metal at the Market more profitable. Macedonians Barracks New "Royal Barracks" upgrade for individual Barracks in the City Phase. +50% Health to the upgraded Barracks. Can train Elite Phalangites and Champion Hypaspists. Stables New "Royal Stables" upgrade for individual Stables in City Phase. +50% Health to the upgraded Stable. Can train Elite Thessalian Cavalry and Champion Companion Cavalry. A 4th hero "General Craterus" boosts Phalangites specifically. "Naval Arms Race" technology unlocks the "Hexeres" heavy warship for the Macedonians. Mauryas Remove Population Cap civ bonus, but... Citizen-Infantry. Bonus: 0.5 population cost Bonus: -50% train time Bonus: -25% resource cost Penalty: -50% gathering rate Penalty: -50% health Penalty: -25% attack Worker Elephant can construct buildings again. Maiden Guards can swap from bow to sword. Mauryas receive a free Palace at the beginning of the match. The hero Chanakya can be trained in tandem with the other heroes (he doesn't count toward the "hero" training limit) 4th Maurya hero "Bindusara." Persians Keep Population Cap civ bonus. Organic units start out with -15% health and -10% train time. Receive a free "Yakchal" Ice House at the start of the match for a +5% health bonus to units. Build up to 4 more Ice Houses for additional +5% health boosts for each one built. They get more expensive for each one built. Ptolemies "Syncretism" special technology in Town Phase. Allows Priests the ability to build the "Isis Statue" and "Serapis Statue." Isis Statue Short-range Aura: Nearby Gatherers +20% gather rates Serapis Statue Long-range Aura: Nearby Units +10% health "Lighthouse of Alexandria" is a 2nd Wonder Player can still only choose to build 1 Wonder, but the Lighthouse can be built on the shore and gives a large vision range. "Temple of Edfu" would be the option to build on a non-water map. Romans An extra big House available in City Phase called the Insula ("Tenement Building") Population Bonus: 20 (plus house pop techs) Triarius trained at Elite rank (no promotion techs necessary). 2nd Team Bonus "Socii Allies" Allied Soldiers +10% attack within range of a Roman Civic Center or Army Camp. Seleucids Very much the same as they are now, except... Given back their Library. Spartans Team bonus now applies to all Melee Infantry (not just Spear Infantry). "Sysition" replaces the Barracks. "Hoplite" Citizen-Soldier, Champion Infantry "Spartiates," and Spartan Heroes all trained here. The "Helot Practice Range" Archery Range class building Trains Helot Skirmisher and Helot Slinger "Helot Emancipation" technology unlocks the ability for Helot units to upgrade individually to Light Hoplites. New "Helot" support units Cannot construct buildings, but... +25% resource gathering ability over Female Citizens. Can be captured by other players

What is it This mod lets you play alpha 23b balance in alpha 25 Download a23_balance_for_25.pyromod a23_balance_for_25.zip Why? I like alpha 25 but I like 23b balance better. Source code public repository https://github.com/nanihadesuka/a23_balance_for_25

yes. yes, but not only that. pikes take so long to kill that they manage to be an effective annoyance even without ranged support (or without supporting the ranged guys, you may say). pikes just can't go wasted, they are so good. They also only need micro for when they get lost around hitting farms or such. About all ideas that came up for making civs more unique (some of which I find quite likeable), and about the original subject of the thread, I have a couple more things to say: - always remember that a bonus that gives an objective advantage to a particular player in any specific map, phase of the game, or team arrangement, should be avoided. the strategies available to all civs should be always balanced, at lest in principle. I, as @faction02, reject the idea of civs stronger than others is early game, or wither in late game, and I also don't like how imbalanced is naval warfare currently, it doesn't need more asymmetry, but more balance. - as I already said, and I hope @LetswaveaBook made a good enough argument for that, civs are already actually very different. people keeps asking for more difference because they can't see or can't appreciate what's already there. That's not their fault: for how 0AD is made, differences between civs are quite hard to navigate and understand. Some strategies being feasible with some civs is sometimes only the result of a series of quirks of the game that are very hard to spot, and I still wouldn't know about those strategies if I didn't see someone use them. Actually this is quite true about all RTS games, but is even more true for a game that is in its alpha phase, like 0AD. I'm not saying that civs can't be any more varied than they are now: they could have completely different sets of buildings and techs, like in starcraft, they could have different sets of resources even, different phasing mechanics, like in AOE4, and whatnot, but the level of asymmetry the game already has is not bad at all. I would rather see different playstyles enabled by new game mechanics, than fixate on how to change some civ economy so that it feels different from the others, without any real consequence apart from some eco convenience (not that such features are bad, ptole free houses for instance were very nice, but it can't be said they conveyed any particular playstyle).

This map loads with no warnings or errors. Especially at start though, scrolling seems very sluggish. I've added it to the community maps 2 mod.

That might help to balance the ranged units against each other, but it does not help so much to balance ranged units against melee units. Secondly, also the skirmisher/slingers could use the attack ground option to target the archers, even though not as effective as archers could.

Synergy is an interaction or cooperation giving rise to a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts. The term synergy comes from the Attic Greek word συνεργία synergia from synergos, συνεργός, meaning "working together. as part of leading 0 A.D beyond being an AoE clone. You have to give it a certain immersion, in this case an immersion that gives the player benefits and that is an extra mechanic . It occurs to me that civic buildings like the temple and houses augment auras and potentials themselves as in Empire Earth. The temple should not only heal, it should obtain money (metal) since most cultures made donations, this will depend on the culture. But going back to the idea, if a temple is in the same area or territory where there are more than 2 houses, it should give a morale bonus that would translate into greater defense and resistance.(like the bonus of the Iberian monument). The houses should produce a greater concentration of territorial loyalty to the CC.If there is a market and a temple, you should collect income as bonuses. In ancient times temple sacrifices were sold in markets. A armory and a barrack should train soldiers faster. Ideas like that of placing buildings together to make bonuses. There are many buildings ignored in the attacks. And also when creating new settlements or cities.

The main thing making archers underpowered in a25 is their inability to target ranged units like skirmishers because the skirms are behind some melee units. This effectively means their range advantage is nearly useless. Since they do so much less damage, they would be unable to kill melee inf as fast as skirms can, so skirms are a better unit. If you add attack-ground into the equation, it could be possible to begin killing enemy skirms before they can even attack your melee units. This adds variability and balancing to gameplay without even changing unit stats. @alre the main reason champions are massed (champion cavalry) is because there is no way to beat them with CS units, even spearmen. I would be in support of adding back champion training to forts with no unlock upgrade, and adding 500 food 500 wood and 500 metal to the barracks or stable training upgrades. If this were the case, you would usually see a few champions added to mostly CS or merc armies, and would see massed champions only after a long game. Also I recommend should go to the "all civs are my favorite" page and share their thoughts on @wowgetoffyourcellphone's ideas for civ differentiation there. I am particularly interested in the new kinds of military upgrades that would raise the cost and gather rate of the unit they affect (buy rank 2 for spearmen), these upgrades could be offered in different amounts to different units per civilization.

What really should be changed is the accuracy. I tested how many shots a catapult needs for hitting a deer, in some cases it needed like 30 shots! They are so inaccurate, they even miss towers in a lot of cases. That shouldn't be the case.

@Dasaavawar I invisioned this faction to represent not all of magna graecia but only the sicilian greeks. Although the Dionisii and Agathocles did control land outside of the island, the territories of mainland Italy from calabria to apulia would more often than not, come under the influence of the Italiote League, poleis like Kroton and Taras. I wouldn´t mind making a faction for these but other having techs related to pythagoras and units like super crotonite physicians, tarantine cav and spartan-like champion hoplites, what more can one do with them? Sure you have Archytas and the wrestling champion Milo as heroes but you would have to include pyrrhus as a hero as well since he was hegemon-like figure of this area. For these reasons I think that the italiotes and epirus, would have to be combined into a single faction in order to bring a unique faction to table and not another athens reskin. As for the faction logo, sure the triskelion is cool and it is more pan-sicilian than lets say Arethousa or the dolphin tetradrachme so it is something to think about.

Highest health percentage first. If 2 units have identical percentages, unload melee first. Infantry before cavalry.

yeah my bad, I have not put enough thought into the examples. The best already implemented example of such an "unique" playstyle i'm thinking of are the scythinans from DE.

I think civs are already very different, competitive players see that and pay attention to adjust their strategies accordingly. The problem is that such differences are not very enjoyable, and it's pointless to try to introduce other differences yet, if they are not going to make the game enjoyably different. For instance, ptole houses and drop sites are considerably cheaper, which make ptole boom quite faster, but that doesn't streak quite as much in players experience as free houses, like they were in A23. When that bonus was dropped, there was much complaint, and it appears we still haven't learnt what makes people happy in terms of civ differentiation. But that is a eco bonus, it doesn't affect military composition and strategies. I want now propose a small analysis of how varied are military units in the game now, viable tactics, and how this can affect different civs. ---- Each civ starts with a particular cav type available to phase 1, for this reason, cav rushes play quite differently among different civs: spear cav rushes don't feel like jav cav rushes, which don't feel like camel rushes, they are quite balanced tactics that feel different from each other. This is a successful differentiation. Unfortunately, sword cav doesn't quite fit in here because they are simply OP, but we can include dogs in the comparison: they add a nice variation mainly because of their low vision. When coming to infantry, I think differentiation is much less enjoyable: archers are very different from skirmishers, but they are also very worse. I still think it was an error to take away from them the walking speed they had in A24, because archers could actually be employed in a way that is quite enjoyably different from shorter range units, if it just was viable. Same problem holds for pikes and spears: pikes are just better, because they are so damm persistent. Their speed that is so low does make them feel different, but the toy is broken because their role as undying pests is too effective in a game like 0 AD (and is also anti-historical, so that's another reason why I'd like to see an attempt to change them). About swords, they are simply not a valid substitute for spears and pikes, and one may decide to mix them in the melee for some extra hack, but apart changing your army stats a little, they don't change tactics in any enjoyable way. Now to champions: they are just units stronger than CS. Their usage consists in ammassing enough of them so that you have an army stronger than any other and thus you are unstoppable. Champions are effective tie breakers, but don't result in any particular tactic different from any other in the game. Even iber fire cav is just comparable to rome champ sword cav gameplay-wise: you make a big enough bunch of them, and then you go to rain havoc wherever you please. Will champs in P2 be a substantial buff to any civ that gets them? Definitively, especially in the current meta. Will that be a fun, enjoyable differentiation? I don't see how. The game must try to propose new and different game mechanics in order to have in itself the variation the many civs need. It's nice to read about civs good in ambushed or smaller fights, but how exactly? the game as it is now doesn't allow it. This is not a problem about civilizations, is a problem about game mechanics. The game allows, for instance, ammassing horse archers rather than fighting for map control, and I played some nice games around this strategy choice in A24. With a sufficient number of well balanced tactics like these two, the game can provide well differentiated civs that never play the same.

Hmm, perhaps 100 hp in p1 and +50 per phase

it would be necessary to distinguish the civs that seem clones of the others.

I would say this is pretty similar to both what @Dizaka had brought up for ideas and agrees with how civs behave in-game.

The only way I could see this happening would be to give the sparta the option to train hoplites 1 at a time for 30 seconds each from the cc to prevent them from booming women while making hoplites for free, this way the 0 cost of hoplites would also be an opportunity cost of the CS and women that could not be trained in the meantime. This feature is one that would be either not strong enough and no one would ever use or too strong and it would be OP.

I think we should brainstorm, it is a creative and group exercise to open the mind. Iberians = Defensive and skimishers, good cavalry. Rep. Romans = Good defenses and superior infantry as well as siege engines. Carthage Commercial Strong Walls defenses and Mercenaries. Egypt = Economic granary of the Mediterranean the southern kingdom complement of the Seleucids. Seleucids = Large variety of powerful troops rapidly expanding across the map. Macedon, simple compact Strong and flexible infantry army with fast and effective cavalry. Lots of Greek science. Gauls, rapids, good use of metal and Rush fast good looting and burning cities. Good rush. Britons = would be like the Gauls but with more success defending and counterattacking., Good complement for defensive civs. Maurya = good cavalry and mighty archers and elephants.Good for Rush and Defend. (booming spam) Persians = Economy, good cavalry and infantry fast and easy to produce, civ for booming. Athens = civilization of water and technology, well balanced. Spartans = slave economy, nation of warriors and constant training, good quality with few troops. Kushites = Millennial wealth, mercenaries, trade archers and very diverse troops. ( booming)

Just unloading the healthiest of the type first would be good enough for me

I feel that adding upgrade based unit cost to the blacksmith would lead to the blacksmith losing some of its distinction from the other type of upgrades (the rank ones). There are a multitude of upgrades in the blacksmith, and those upgrades affect multiple units, so the units could get a bit economically unpredictable. If the blacksmith upgrades add cost to the unit, then I predict one of two things will happen: people will swallow the cost and just get all the upgrades anyway. people will be confused as to which upgrades to get to avoid cost increases on particular units. I think the blacksmith should remain an economically safe upgrade tool, if you know what I mean, with the hard choices lying with the (rank techs). The main reason I put those long research times was to prevent those techs from saving people who are in the process of losing. I think it should be a tool of strategy and not a crutch.

I personally don't like long research times, but longer than the standard 40 seconds would be good. In DE, upgrading ranks adds extra cost to most of the units, so I for sure agree with that element. Perhaps additional train time would be enough. We could "self balance" Blacksmith techs by making them a little cheaper but add extra cost to the soldiers they affect. I think the Elite upgrades would be reserved for those units that civ is known for. Hoplites for Greek civs, Archers or Cavalry for Persians, Swordsmen for Romans, etc.

I think this (rank upgrades) is a great dimension to add to the game. It can go some lengths to distinguish booming versus military empowerment. I think there should be a longer term economic cost to these upgrades, and it I wonder if you would support the possibility that getting all of these upgrades for all units is actually a strategic failure. rank 2/3 units get worse at gathering, and an enemies rank 2/3 unit composition is beating your rank 2/3 composition, but your units in your base gathering res are also rank 2, so you are losing overall. I have been wondering what these Advanced, and Elite upgrades should cost: Advanced: 300 food 300 wood 200 metal 1:45 research time, adds 5 metal cost (and +25 food for cav) to unit and 10% training time Elite: 500 food 500 wood 500 metal 2:00 research time, adds another 10 metal cost (and +40 food for cav) to unit and further 20% training time This adds the economic question for the player: do I want to get blacksmith upgrades, postpone the choices for advanced/elite upgrades, and maintain my eco, or do I want to get this upgrade that empowers my units, but add an economic liability to them. Getting these upgrades is basically a "bet" on that unit, and since the upgrade has a long time to research, the timing could be complicated, so you could not always get it as an emergency reaction. Should any civs get a p1 advanced rank upgrade, or would this be to easy to do a rush with, despite the large cost and economic situation? My thinking is that champions could stay being trained at barracks, but upgrade to enable it could add some extra food and some metal and stone cost, by default train at fort with no unlock. I certainly agree that in a25 it is too easy to mass champions at a sudden time, but I think there should be a way to go: non-rank-upgraded CS, +champions strategy. @Dizaka @chrstgtr @ValihrAnt @Palaiologos @LetswaveaBook what do you think about @wowgetoffyourcellphone's concept, and my ideas on those upgrades?

AOE4 is good but doesn't use full potential. I think one year after the release it is using 100% potential, and I think it will be a great game for a few years. Developers gave up realism and graphic quality in exchange for visibility, and most of that is due to the scenery/hills, so not having any buffs/debuffs is a bit dumb in my opinion. They are listening to the community, and should be working hard on it by the 28th.

@LetswaveaBook Alexander the Great (Macedonian) and Romans used it on infantry formations. I'll get historical references later as on mobile. But more than 'shattering' for debris damage they were intentionally used on infantry formations. Maybe it can be unique to Macedonians and Romans. #savemacedonians

Well, as far as Seleucids go, I just ran out of ideas for them. They are definitely one of my 13 favorite civs though. Entertaining ideas for them.

Imo, if the game is already setup with op civs, then we've got nothing to lose from this XD I think this is a great idea. Making factions more diverse and interesting and unique is something I'd been pushing for many alphas back, but now that the game is in a more solid state, I agree that this is now the time we start to look at actually making the civs unique! They might not be his, but they are mine! I think that the Daphne Parade tech should work as a mass unit upgrade, or make Seleucid upgraded units be slightly more powerful (slightly bigger state changes for upgrades) but more expensive than other factions. Really cement them as a professional, but expensive army.

seleucids are not wow's favourite serious edit: maurya are quite a bit too skewed, and in general differentiation is nice if geared towards preferences and play stiles, what are those here for each civ? I suspect this rework is simply going to turn into some civ being OP and the others being sub-par because some particular combination of boni turns out to be simply too effective in building up a good army quickly, which is how the game works now. nice ideas though, I like the persian ice houses. very pretty.

There are a few minor quibbles here and there, but as a whole it seems good. Is there any reason that the Seleucids remain unchanged aside from the library?

I like the visions for the civs, to give them all some unique mechanics. I am particularly interested in this in the shorter term however: I like this idea, and I feel these upgrades should be more expensive than regular blacksmith upgrades especially the one for elite rank (assuming its the same as "veteran" rank). Perhaps the "elite" upgrade would be more expensive, and add a 10 metal cost to the unit.

I don't know about specifics of each bonus but I agree with the idea in general. You can't keep every Civ balanced but giving them truly distinct flavor is totally doable and trying to keep the unbalanced civs at like 2-3.

Bollocks. Any withdrawal from Afghanistan would have been a "disaster" since the entire country is a disaster. It's been clear for years now that all the U.S. was doing was propping up yet another corrupt unpopular government against a local insurgency. The Afghan government was a complete disaster itself. A completely biased view of the political landscape. "Some people say..." Likely they would prefer Biden to Trump or Dubya. You're right though, Biden is no Obama.

May I suggest using the old Spartan "Ballista Tower" as the Syracusan defense tower?

He does it to everything I post.

So bring splash damage back?

Imo catapults should be able to attack organic units and they shouldn't be extremely vulnerable to archers, so yes I like how it looks. One should test it in a match regardless. And yes a higher splash damage would be nice.