Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

True. I think that the first action should be to differentiate between citizen and non-citizen. Then, I think that things such as technologies could do a good job of capturing some social dynamics within civilisations. For Rome it could be maybe a technology pairing of siding with the optimates or the populares. The former side could improve champions, cavalry, principes, etc,... The latter could improve the recruitment costs of infantry. For Athens it could be a technology related to juries and could give their ships extra movement and their basic rank (citizen) units a minor buff. I will admit that a mere name change is probably a hassle, but I doubt that it would cause mass outrage. Given that maybe an overhaul would be better. Thanks for weighing in. My point is that there could be a bit of a spectrum here that could both better reflect some of the social classes and helping to allow for a system that could even improve the gameplay by introducing more depth with each civilisation.

Actually most theologians theorise that there is no wifi or computers in hell, making the comparison not quite valid. Balance is difficult to quantify. Could you provide some statistical information to back up that claim preferably through some peer-reviewed studies? Also, do bear in mind that this is in alpha a gamestate in which balance is a less important concern since not all of the features are in place yet. Massive abuse of administrators is expected. After all, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Whether the game is garbage is up for debate, but if it's garbage, it's free garbage. You're welcome.

You are correct, but there is a major distinction. Killer blows were mostly done by hoplites and armies in general once the opposing army was retreating and had their backs turned and their shields thrown away. Macedonians using cavalry is a bit circumspect to the issue; it made their phalanx significantly more effective, but not necessarily less capable in the offence. This is a bit of an exception to the norm, but the Battle of Sphacteria was one in which light infantry alone practically defeated the enemy army. A point to be made is that when enemies rout, that is when they are most vulnerable to getting killed by things like projectiles, and most casualties took place after the battle itself; light infantry excel in that role.

Not to necessarily outright contradict you, but that description fits for practically all heavy infantry: hoplites, legionnaires, etc,... The question at hand is to ask which tank should be the tankiest and how.

I decided to do some of my own testing based on your work. The first thing I noticed is that first of all a basic swordsman versus a pikeman wins with 41 of the total hitpoints. Personally I would say that kind of one-sidedness is a bit much. Next, swordsmen seem to have too much range themselves. The advantage of range should be that the unit should not have to spend time moving to select a new target, but the second rank of swordsmen somehow are able to attack pikemen as well. Probably with that units could afford to take up a slightly larger footprint for pathing, especially when not in formation. All of these factors seem to make the current iteration of pikemen untenable as a frontline melee unit outside of being a damage sponge. Battalion suggestions intensify.

I was being a bit hyperbolic there and speaking in general terms; also that's a bit of a strawman argument. The point about decreasing pierce armour as alre said would be a good way of introducing a valid Achilles heel to this unit (Which I should remind you I also said in that post). Instead of being a tank, they would turn into effective fighters is cases where numbers are high. When I said straight up fight, I was referring to melee when massed, and a still stand by that position in that specific context. Pikemen could potentially still lose in one-on-one fights against their infantry counterparts. The point I would make is that the differences should be marginal. I could see swordsmen being maybe a bit faster than spearmen and pikemen being a bit slower than them, but the point is not to turn them into human turtles. I would agree. At the moment pikemen have to basically be on standground to take advantage of the extra range, and an increase would make it become a less niche ability.

I would point out that despite pikemen carrying a long pike, that weighed, if we are to believe wikipedia, 14 pounds, they compensated by wearing much less obtrusive equipment. Their shields were smaller and their armour tended to be lighter. An example of their flexibility on the field could be seen in the Battle of Guagamela in which the pike formation was able to move out of the path of Darius' scythe chariots, ensuring that the brunt of the Persian shock force died to the harassment of missile troops. Pikemen should move more or less at the same speed as other infantry, not significantly slower. They should be able to resist melee attacks fairly well yet be somewhat vulnerable to missiles. The key strength, I will reiterate, is that they should be able to make use of their range; currently the range of the pikeman is roughly half of its real-world counterpart. Thus their strength should be when massed, being able to beat virtually everything in a straight-up fight.

I am simply saying that turning it from visible to invisible, if possible, would probably be the easiest solution. I am no programmer and cannot comment on the difficulty of implementing specific things, but to my understanding, typically simple solutions are simple to implement. Actually representing miners as slaves is not very far from the truth. Many slaves who were given that status due to heinous crimes were sentenced to work such areas where life expectancy was quite low. Many impoverished people became slaves as a result of debt, so the idea of a beggar becoming a slave is not entirely out of the question since although they would not necessarily expect a great life, most of their daily needs would be met.

As far as I seem RTS games are major abstractions, unlike city builders or grand strategy games, both of which oftentimes try to represent some of the nuances of their subject matter. The RTS game is far different with its approach, tending more towards simplicity. Examples include units and buildings taking seconds to complete. Thus, a complex system is not necessary to represent its subject matter. That is why a simple, intuitive option can be introduced that does the job even if it does not consider my hoplite Lysimachus' views on the advantages of olive production. As I more or less laid out before, slaves would be good economic units, yet they would be fragile and capable of being captured (I thought for a while about the idea of them being able to potentially run away, but as I saw, a mechanic like could be frustrating.) I would stress that slaves would in many cases be an efficient economic unit, but not necessarily that much better than other units. Freemen would be much like a typical unit yet only be able to advance to the second rank. Citizens would be able to advance to the third rank. There are exceptions to these rules: helots would behave differently, and technologies could possibly make the dynamics change. For instance Rome to my knowledge had some of the best social mobility for slaves, and a technology to represent that could be introduced. Anyways, just to reiterate the primary point of this topic, I merely think that when you look at a unit in game, it should not be called a 'citizen' if it was not historically such. The simplest option of removing that description. Worker does an adequate job of establishing their role outside of soldiering.

The problem is that as already mentioned, slaves are at least mentioned in a technology anyways. Furthermore, 0 AD, like many RTSs requires players to commit virtual genocide to win, hardly an honourable course of action. I think that it is important to recognise that slavery in the ancient times could vary a good deal in how they were treated. There were clearly some people such as Cato the Elder who emphasised pragmatism when it came to the use of slaves over much more merciful practices. That all said, there were oftentimes chances for social advancement for slaves, and there could certainly be other cases of non-slavery in history in which people groups were treated significantly worse. Take for instance, the Leopold II in the Congo. The point being, just because there is the word 'slave' does not necessarily imply one of the greatest evils.

I would say that it might be easier to balance than you might think with the current paradigm. Women are essentially the current dedicated labourers of the game (Which in some cultural cases is a bit odd as well, but I digress). Slaves were primarily used for mining purposes, much to the expense of the slave's quality of life. Making slaves good at quarrying and mining while competent but not exceptional at other tasks would be the best sort of approach. The disclaimer might not be a bad idea, but I think that maybe just giving a blanket statement to the effect of 'there are practices represented in game that we do not condone' might be simpler. 0 AD oftentimes is a game in which winning requires virtual genocide, just about as problematic as slavery to me.

It may not be that important, but either the game should work to properly establish the social class of the units it represents or not do so at all. At the moment, I think that just removing the citizen class from units might be the simplest and and easiest option. If we want to actually represent social class in a simple but intuitive way, I did write up a potential framework that could be used, but that is obviously beyond the scope of this topic.

At the moment any all non-champion, woman, or mercenary unit is called a citizen soldier, even when that is not the case. Merely assuming that non-slaves were citizens is an oversimplified approach to demographics of most ancient societies. In Athens, for instance, a good proportion of the population consisted of metics, who still paid taxes and served in the military but had few civil rights. An even more egregious example is Sparta, in which ironically all represented citizen-soldiers were not citizens. Thus, I propose that a different term be used to better reflect the social structure of these societies. Worker-Soldier or Soldier-Worker might be one valid approach, but I would be open to alternatives.

Cool. That sounds good enough. Also, you were wondering about the kardakes. Essentially the role they were given was not really historically informed, making them be removed.

If directional armour were in place, I would definitely agree with that, but it isn't at the moment. Considering the fact that the shield can only cover a limited amount of the body, that alone should not be factored in the equation. It doesn't matter how big your shield is if it is pointed in the wrong direction, and hoplites would clearly have the advantage. That all said, I think that Persian spearmen should be a cost effective ranged meatshield, just not necessarily much better than other on a one-to-one comparison level. On a different note I would say that I am definitely in the camp in favour of mercenary hoplites being available for Persian recruitment.