Leaderboard

Boom is just a way to play, I don't see it as a structural economic problem of 0a.d. I like how it's different from aoe for example. For me the biggest issue is the default population at 300 in 1v1 and 200 in tg. If "normal" in 1v1 games was population 100, then we would have to have much more accurate decisions than we have today. With population 100, you may not have enough resources to reach phase 3 with all weapons technologies before combat. The punishment for a not so good rush would also not be as great, as the snowball would be smaller, and you can still reach population 100 right after your enemy.

@Helicity Infantry being armor focused is what makes them suck. In 0ad there are 2 types of players: those that snipe and those that don't. Players that snipe find it easy to deal with pikemen because they can target the ranged units behind them and simply ignore the damage of the pikemen. Players that don't snipe are frustrated by their low-dps units struggling to kill pikemen while their lower armor (persians) melee units die much faster than enemy pikes. Given equal force composition, a player who snipes will win 100% of the time. This overall situation describes a25 and a26, which has been called 'meatshield meta'. The core of the issue is that melee units are balanced such that they have huge armor and low damage. This results in them being used simply as a "meat shield" to save your ranged units which account for the vast majority of the damage of armies. In order to give melee units combat value (killing potential) they need to do way more damage than they do currently. 2x damage would make melee units quite powerful, but with the current armor they would be quite OP. Reducing armor is done to allow their balance to settle at a higher damage value, so that they can have a higher combat value.

CS soldiers do make the game unique, and they should be kept in the game of course. The "solution" people are looking for is a way to make citizen soldiers primary role military and secondary role economic. This means that the best use for CS is for fighting and that you are inherently incurring some opportunity cost if you get them just for eco. I hope this helps explain from a gameplay perspective. I Agree here. The topic is about gameplay, not realism.

a realism yes, but too much micronamangement for nothing.. but it can be a good idea for a mod, where game is longer and realist ,this kind of mod can find its audience

Why searching solution? if we don't know the issue? there is an issue in 0AD about CS unit? Im my opinion CS unit make RTS a unique great RTS

@user1 Offender: jaxso2012 Quited a rated game without resigning. Please check. commands.txt metadata.json

@Player of 0AD, Well its not really a pure buff, but a rebalance: reduce melee armor. infantry melee units slightly faster. increase melee damage. decrease ranged damage. If you are worried about a change in the meta, that is expected. However, this is just for the community mod for playtesting.

It would be nice if the developers would add decorative archers and horse archers to the Celts and Romans, with low attack rating, low attack power and overpriced. In the description, one could write like this - "Ineffective warrior of the Gauls / Romans." The same could be done with siege weapons: national design, high price, low attack speed, weak attack and low health - a purely decorative unit.

I think this is a very good idea because they lack any long ranged unit. It would make the Romans more comfortable to play with, without making them completely OP compared to the rest. The Immortals should spawn as melee by default because the Persians need a melee champion. With that being said, I think it would be better if the Immortals had an option to switch to sword mode as well.

Curious suggestion, can we test giving Rome a Cretan merc archer and see how it does in terms of improvement and balance?

I'm sorry I still don't get it. Why do we have -windowHeight? I don't think it's calculated in realtime, but rather when it's used to actually attack. You should see most (if not all) occurrences of that value usage here https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2016

I see the complaint, but I have to say, wouldn't it be nice if the melee version was more useful? In that case, it would be fine to start them as spearmen. This would be an easy change, but I am keen to see if the melee buff brings any improvement to the situation first.

@real_tabasco_sauce What about making the default weapon of the immortals the bow, not the spear? The spear is only advantageous against melee cav and structures.

This looks really nice.

Hi @user1, Player Abhijeet1604 just quit a rated game, presumably because they were sensing that I (e.v) was winning. It doesn't seem to have been caused by connection issues, because they were still in the lobby afterwards and didn't reply when I confronted them about it. They subsequently left the lobby. Thanks! commands.txt

Since you're busy modeling, is it possible to rethink the building "house"? I mean, it would be better to give all nations the ability to build one big house, for example, with four times the population bonus and the area occupied by the texture also will be at 4 times bigger, than to build four separate small houses. Instead of Roman insulae-huts, build a Pompeian-level house with an atrium?