Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 2022-04-27 in all areas

  1. Missed the last presentation about 0 A.D. with a focus on how to contribute ? Fear not for it's now available online: https://t.co/NwcJbyh9Nv
    6 points
  2. If you look at pure stats, infantry mercs are no less OP than cavalry mercs. However, no-one ever complains about them, simply because it's easy to dodge them, then lure them into a trap due to the slow speed of infantry. The lower survivability of infantry and their slow speed nerf them, making very OP units defeatable. Consider Macedonian silver shield units and champion pikemen. They are just as deadly as the champion cavalry in close range, yet no-one notices them, simply because you are never forced into a melee fight with them: free draw a circle of ranged units around them, then dance with your melee. This will eventually wear out the champion units without costing a single soldier of yours. You can't avoid any cavalry unit using this technique, especially against the Carthaginians (lightening general hero). So an effective nerf would be slowing down these mercenary sword cavalry so that they cannot escape spear cavalry or javlin cavalry.
    3 points
  3. I’d prefer it only be CS. I have concerns that that’ll make champ spear cav OP, especially because there is a tech for champ spear cav with Sele and Persia.
    2 points
  4. The problem with the bribe mechanic is that it was implemented and then boom, no one worked on making it more interesting. There were some minor tweaks, sure. But any further design work on the feature died due to disagreements. For instance, I'd expand it to include all support and citizen soldier units and then give it some kind of cool down time between bribes, or make the cost of bribing increase exponentially while there are active spies, but the cost settles back down once all spies are expired. But consensus wasn't reached so now the feature sits unused and unimportant.
    2 points
  5. My minimap patch isn't a feature, it's an optimization. And according to the open RB list I have some time to make a proper patch.
    2 points
  6. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4506 people just can’t agree. If nothing else, I think the 2x multiplier should be implemented since there is agreement in that
    2 points
  7. Its a trade off, and you would not turn all your pikes into rams anyhow, that would be a grave error in judgment
    2 points
  8. A sensible player would work with that and try to channel the opponent into crossfire and other disadvantageous situations. If you want to encourage players to think beyond P3 = Ram= victory then you need to give them more options and better ones. That is reasonable
    2 points
  9. To clarify on the gate weakness I mean that the weakness of gates be further emphasized than they currently are.
    2 points
  10. So I have been thinking, and I am going to suggest raising the health of stone walls. Right now they are useless except to deter raiding. However I also think gates should be kept at a weak level. This way you leave the obvious weaknesses of walls open while also allowing defending players to better control the flow of an assault on their town. I do not think the stone cost should be altered or the build time.
    2 points
  11. No I meant for all foot units to turn them into rams. You could also turn that handheld ram into a bigger ram
    2 points
  12. You could have an upgrade cost for units a bit higher and not require multiple ones. I don't think you can do a shared upgrade that way.
    2 points
  13. there is another option: soldiers building rams on the field. wow has the code for it if I remember well.
    2 points
  14. 2 points
  15. It would be nice if there was a runaway option whenever charging is implemented. Otherwise, it will be all offense and no defense.
    2 points
  16. Even if there is no new model it doesn't hinder the adjustment of the data, I suggest you try my mod, there is a battering ram in P2, it is cheaper, has lower HP and damage, and is easier to be destroyed by melee infantry.
    2 points
  17. wiki/XML.Actor#AttachPoint Loading the mesh in blender give a nice list.
    2 points
  18. More seriously, there are only three phases not four. So a light ram in second phase would make it far more meaningful than the current "everyone rush phase 3 as fast they jolly well can" I don't see why everyone should not get a tree trunk hauled by a couple guys. It does not take a rocket scientist to tell a couple guys to pick up a random log and start smacking the local neighbor's door with it. The difference would be much lower pierce lower since they are just a couple guys with a log, so shooting them would be just as effective as smacking them with pointy sticks and swords.
    2 points
  19. @Stan` This is really well done presentation. Excellent travail.
    2 points
  20. All know cavalry (CAV) mercenaries (MERC) in a25 are over powered (OP). But how is that? I felt like people didn't get to the point why this is so and far more important for balancing you would need some quantity to do the right adjustment. However, this comment is not the guide to perfect balancing of MERC CAV it just shall give the numbers to do a good balancing. Additionally, it compares MERC INF with MERC CAV which was not done so far, but I really believe its necessary. My first simplest thought was, MERC infantry (INF) cost 60 metal (ME) and in relation to the costs of citizen soldiers (CS) MERC CAV should cost 90 ME due to the 1.5 higher total resource cost of CS CAV. But this assumption is to simple and does not reflect the time needed to gather resources (RES). I made some assumptions and simplifications. Men gather non food RES and women just food. Walking time is not considered. Also rank two of MERC is not considered. Upgrades are considered as all researched in one phase. If you think about it, all assumptions and simplifications cheat for the MERC. Most player will have women gathering wood, walking time for wood is increasing over time compared to ME mines and having upgrades just for ME is cheaper then getting upgrades for 3 RES. I calculated the time needed to gather the resources to make a unit in total RES gathering time (TRGT) and compared it to the CS counterpart. INF MERC (60 ME, here I realized I was a bit lazy this is just valid for skirmisher INF) 0 upgrades: 72.0 % of time is needed to gather the RES for a INF MERC skirmisher compared to a CS skirmisher P1: 70.2 % P2: 68.5 % P3: 66.8 % CAV MERC (80 ME, here for speer/javalineer CAV, sword CAV is a little bit cheaper, see attached file) 0 upgrades: 60.0 % P1: 56.8 % P2: 55.1 % P3: 53.4 % Findings MERC have less total RES cost which results in lower TRGT, so they give a time advantage (obviously :D) RES gathering time for MERC decreases stronger with more upgrades, this is due to different strength in upgrades, food upgrades add less advantage, making MERC even more efficient with more upgrades MER CAV has a lower TRGT than MERC INF and with all other advantages (mobility, attack strength, HP) making them much better than MERC INF, probably the reason why MERC INF spam could not be seen in a25 Price for CAV MERC adjusted to the same time discount as for MERC INF Speer/JAV CAV: 96 ME Sword CAV: 99 ME This is just an proposal but it would kill 2 birds with one stone. It makes CAV MERC less OP and adjusts the TRGT of MERC CAV to that of MERC INF. I know there are also other ways to re-balance MERC. But as I wrote there are simplifications and assumptions favoring the MERC and therefore I think 90 ME for CAV MERC is still too low. I think the already elsewhere recommended 95 ME is a good starting point and I think there was even a mod were people tried this adjustment and were satisfied. I also might be wrong about that price. There are also other things to consider like the limited ME on map or in range of the CC, players making MERC also have a certain risk to get raided early on and CIVs more or less surely making MERC and being predictable therefore. But if you stay for 90 ME and it results in being balanced please make INF MERC also cheaper. a25 - OP MERC.ods
    1 point
  21. It seems the key mapping for the hotkeys is not included in the translation. Of course there is no need for the most of these (e.g. letters, F-keys) but a number of keyboard keys have a native description in daily use (e.g. space, left bracket). Can these be added to the translation? Or, in the case of punctuation and so, let the character itself show? Like with the arrows.
    1 point
  22. And because the range and effectiveness of archers reduced the area that was safe to travel through.
    1 point
  23. I will wait patiently, thanks for working on "beautifying" the game.
    1 point
  24. *could be made If the multiplier for CS spear cav is boosted to 2, should that also happen for the champion spear cavalry? Furthermore I think the hack armor could be nice as I deem spear cavalry to weak against infantry swordsmen.
    1 point
  25. It gives perfectly the excuse for make another complete topic. "Defensive building capture and repair".
    1 point
  26. I think the remaining HP can't be higher than 50%, and the occupied tower should be easier to destroy by the counter if it is not repaired or protected by the army.
    1 point
  27. Command & Conquer: Red Alert has a setting where you have to reduce the HP of a building to 25% in order to capture it.
    1 point
  28. A turtlers' dream lul. I don't think that defensive structures need any overall buff, but I do think that an infantry player should have some ways to restrict cavalry movement. Palisades work as long as you are not facing any melee cav which can kill it in 5-10 seconds. Stone walls would be nice as they are stat-wise, but they are too hard to place since they can't be put over trees and can't be in neutral territory like palisades.
    1 point
  29. @LetswaveaBook said a new one would be made with those changes, but I haven't seen it yet. Honestly, I would be happy with the minimum, which is just the multiplier increase almost everyone seems to agree on that. I think spear cav should be a little more armored than swordcav, but this could be decided later.
    1 point
  30. Me neither. As stated it was a wild idea, to maybe broaden the approach a bit. Not sure if it would be wanted or could be implemented currently. And naturally it would need to be balanced.
    1 point
  31. there are a lot of Indian players for 0AD including me and we are active everyday. don't know anyone else from Asia except Iran.
    1 point
  32. Ideally it would be good to see some kind of wall buff for A26 already rather than A27.
    1 point
  33. A fair point, but towers are only ever as useful as whats in front of them. I never build towers in game anymore as they serve no purpose beyond being a vaguely annoying distraction to the opponent and me if they get captured, whats more they cost resources that are better used elsewhere. That being said I would prefer stronger walls over towers at this stage, after all there is a garrison bonus on walls, and I would like to have incentive to investing stone into passive fortifications.
    1 point
  34. The problem with stone walls is that they need to be built in territory, which means you need to wrap your town in a full circle to be safe, but it's stupid, because on the one hand it limits the development of the town, and at the same time there is a lot of narrow terrain on the map , only a narrow section of wall is needed to block the road.
    1 point
  35. I think it could be logically defended. I can see how a workshop is needed to assemble something with moving parts and aligned measurements; for picking up a tree trunk not so much.
    1 point
  36. At this stage we need better defenses not more ways to destroy stuff. Gates will die easily enough to siege, the point is to give the defender more control over his position than he currently has by giving him better tools. The workman is only ever as good as his tools or so they say.
    1 point
  37. Of course one can do that on an individual basis and as a short term solution. But I'd expect any censor with more than two brain cells to include synonyms like your suggested 'wage'. Probably those kind executives would want full access to the messages anyway, so it probably would turn into a cat and mouse thing. How about just stopping those friggin Amazon plans cold in their tracks?
    1 point
  38. Ah I see, so essentially a button that merges a couple units into a ram? Or a single unit into a ram? And then a button with that unit to turn it into a better ram?
    1 point
  39. This. Just a wild idea: order a couple of guys (2 or 4 inf) to batter (like a special formation); for the price of 100 wood and with a setup time you get a handheld battering ram. But: the ram takes damage while dealing damage; it should be good to take down a sentry tower and then be useless. The ~formation could be released at any time, it would be destroyed when the units are killed.
    1 point
  40. I don't think all civs should get this p2 ram. How about only add the p2 ram to few (like 1-3) civs? I think it would be weird if every civ got the p2 ram, making rams both ubiquitous (all civs have them) and redundant (all civs have 2 different rams). I think it would be really cool for this unit to serve as a mercenary for some civ. This would probably mean inverting the cost: wood -> metal and metal -> wood. Also this would require only 1 or 2 designs. Here is an idea: Maybe mace alone should be allowed to build the siege workshop in p2 and train the p2 ram, while a couple other civs can train the p2 ram in other buildings (could be military colony for seles, or maybe roman army camp for romans "auxillary seige unit", not for ptol because ptol already OPOPOPOP).
    1 point
  41. In addition to removing the damage bonus of spearmen and pikeman to cavalry, and adding the damage reduction of cavalry to spearmen and pikeman, it is also necessary to add the damage bonus of melee cavalry to ranged units, and increase the damage and HP of archers. Before I tested in the mod, a small number of cavalry (10) charged directly to most archers (25), and when they were all recruits, the cavalry only killed 6 archers and were eliminated. The impact would be much better if the cavalry attacked from the side and behind while the infantry on both sides was engaged, or if part of the cataphract was used to take the bow fire at the front of the cavalry line. And compared with pure melee cavalry, adding a part of javelin and archer cavalry has better killing effect on archers. Overall, more experimentation is required, I'll refine these settings in the mod and get someone to test it.
    1 point
  42. If other civs can only make it from barracks while mace can from siege workshop this will help mace because they would have another p2 building option, one that is cheaper than a barracks and would not take up training time from other units. It would also mean they can make p3 rams with less delay than other civs. I think this option gives mace strategic ambiguity. If a player sees Enemy mace siege works in p2 they need to get ready for either p2 rams or p3 rams 1-2 mins later. This is a challenge to be sure.
    1 point
  43. You would only weaken them in order to capture them, arson would be for trash buildings. This is the case of CC. It shouldn't be easy to capture and it shouldn't be easy to destroy with a single battering ram.
    1 point
  44. hi guys i wouldnt say I'm a historian but rather a history fanatic with ancient warfare and in doing so its become somewhat of a hobby any who i just had some suggestions to make first off would have to be the 2 pila for roman hastati... the grape juice mod does a good job at this but for some reason the infantry misbehave in combat and brake their battle line and rans off to fight some other oak at the back (by the way ammo i think is a very good concept i think you guys should try implement in the future) next would be a to give formations bonus stats for the troops involved, for eg. forced march a speed boost maybe at the cost of armor as the infantry are off guard (just an example) lastly would be to correct some errors with some of the troops (i promise im not trying to be a critic, i love this game and its what started my hobby with ancient warfare) but the phalangtists (pikemen) were lightly armored because their primary defence was there 6 meter serisa pike and also strength in numbers, but i understand you guys did it for balancing proposes anyway i love this game and these are suggestions... not me criticizing your work, i hope you guys can see what i mean by this :)
    1 point
  45. In this forum ,(I googled and google show me our own forum) Is a makeup Isn't made by me but...I have same idea in mind and wheels.
    1 point
  46. It wasn't communism that made you fight. It was CIA and their crusade against it. History books omit things like the Indonesian genocide where 3-5 million were killed according the later estimates in the name of stopping communism from spreading in the third world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America The global south was just a CIA playground during the era. I mean the term "Banana Republic" was coined in a somewhat literal sense. O. Henry used the term to describe Honduras, and the neighboring nations which at the time were under heavy exploitation by American multinationals, of which the most infamous was the United Fruit Company. I am not necessarily socialist, but I am pretty anti-imperialist.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...