Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

At the moment, walls are practically a pointless investment. This is due to them first being extremely expensive, many times making a short length of wall cost the same or more than a defence tower, but with palisade walls, that is not case at least, yet still practically minded players would generally not bother investing in walls. The fundamental reason behind not even making palisades let alone stone walls is because of a lack of choke-points. Forests, being passable, are not a defendable option, and neither are there many cliffs around. I would highly recommend working that problem out as walling has interesting strategic implications that should be cost effective.

I have a few suggestions myself. First, it would be good to have walls be cheaper since they are rarely effective at the moment. If players would like their wall turrets firing arrows and potentially ballista shots later, that should be an upgrade. Having walls cost hundreds of stone is ridiculous balance-wise and Age of Kings recognised this problem. Next, archers generally should not be as effective as they are. Historically they were actually nothing that decisive in most battles and their role should most likely be limited to supporting infantry. Persia also is depicted having very good archers, but I see no historical basis for that. If there is any bonus they should have, it should be in rapid deployment. Third, blacksmith upgrades should not be generalised with melee infantry upgrades being with ranged as it makes little logical sense. For that matter, having them cost food seems obscure to say the least. With food there may as well be stone added.

I do Sparta since I enjoy using lots of infantry.

One point I would make is that the Ptolemaic architecture is currently inaccurate and should have far more Greek influence to it. Alexandria for instance, the pinnacle of the Hellenistic world, had practically no ethnic Egyptians and would have been very Greek in the style. As it looks now, the Ptolemaic buildings seem from the New Kingdom. Regardless of what can be said for architectural diversity, inaccuracy on that scale seems quite unacceptable I fear.

Actually there was such a thing as an octagonal tower in Athens that did not serve so much as a defence than as a clock, possessing multiple sundials on each side and and a water clock. If I am not mistaken, this was called The Tower of the Winds, but that was from the Roman period.

By the way, there should be a technology for the Isis Cult that would allow for improvements in priests, individual units, and such. The Isis Cult was an important way of bringing the cultures together.

I would like to turn your attention to the "Combat Dilemma" thread. This was started by me because of imbalances and lack of realism in the game at the time with the hard counters. I basically broke down the units in their purposes with the hard counters and showed the problems they had. While a soft counter system may not be optimal, with adjustments it can improve.

Definitely there are some good thoughts put into this, but I would recommend a few changes to the scenario design. First, walling the isthmus would have been ineffective with the navy free to disembark troops anywhere on Peloponnesus. Rather, the focus could be to rally city-states to your side with different benefits. For instance Argos would provide a reliable army and industry to support you since it was a major weapons manufacturer. The problem would be of course that they would be difficult to win over. Corinth on the other hand might provide a good navy and base for trade operations. The Kingdom of Macedonia could lend cavalry support. With this adding a scenario for the Battle of Plataea could add an interesting element.

Actually the current corral system is not the finalised plan. Rather, animals that are capable of being herded can be garrisoned in corrals for a useful purpose such as providing a steady flow of food or in the case of horses they would make for a small discount. Farming should be the primary source of food historically speaking.

The reason for having Skiritae treated like elite units is because they were some of the most dependable allied units, as can be learned from Thucydides and Xenophon. I never implied that they were super elite.

Just a thought, but perhaps Skiritae could be treated like triarii with their starting rank. Otherwise, good thoughts.

In regards to the comments, I am glad to learn you agree on several points, but I would argue a couple points. Helot workers losing hitpoints seems a bit queer. Although they certainly were not treated well, they had certain degrees of autonomy that made them far better off than many slaves. Having slaves depicted in this way is not a bad idea I will admit though. Regarding the idea of the traditionalist reform, I would not venture to call it a reform. Rather, it is more of a reflection of emphasizing on the traditional martial characteristics of Spartans. Following it would represent dependence on allies and perioikoi as the main Spartan soldiers while Spartan hoplites would provide vital auras to them. The idea is not so much a fantasy, but instead rejecting innovation, a thing the Spartans clung to for a good while.

"While Arsinoe II would be a fine Ptolemaic hero, none of the current ones need to be replaced. To say that "The only relevant accomplishments [Cleopatra VII Philopator] is remembered for is seducing powerful men" is simply an ignorant statement (and I mean no offense, as a great many people share this ignorant point of view). I recommend Stacy Schiff's "Cleopatra: A Life" if you want to know more about why she is definitely worthy of being a Ptolemaic hero in 0 A.D. She was quite a remarkable leader, and while she may be best remembered in popular consciousness for seducing powerful men, that was only one aspect of her long and complex reign." My statement I would argue is not an ignorant statement. Perhaps it was not worded well, but to most people, that is what she is only famous for. While Cleopatra may have been a competent leader, Arsinoe II, from my knowledge, seems the better of the two. Not only was she actively involved in the First Syrian War, but also had wide influence in other matters. For the purposes of a game focussed on war, Cleopatra seems to be an incompetent military commander at least (Battle of Actium), making her a poorer choice. Would you explain your rational to having her in game besides citing a book? It is not as much a matter of whether Cleopatra was a ruler, but what makes her a better hero than Arsinoe the II. You yourself pointed out that Arsinoe the II would make a fine Ptolemaic hero.

I do like a lot of ideas regarding Prodigal Son's proposal, but I would like to suggest my own takes on them. I do them in anti-alphabetical order starting with Sparta. Sparta: While I like the ideas, the Spartan hoplite should still be limited to the Syssiton, a building available from the beginning. Second, the helot unit should be limited to simply being a regular worker. Having it lose hitpoints seems a bit unnecessary. One possible thing for them could be to have a liberation option, which would convert them into Perioikoi for a cost, similar to the Age of Mythology mechanic of converting gatherers into Ulfsarks. Perioikoi should be average units given their limited liberties. I would limit the Mercenary Camp's uses, yet regarding the reforms I think that seems like a good idea. Perhaps an alternative players could make to the pikeman reform could be technology representing a focus on Spartan traditions, making the powerful Spartan hoplites even more so. Helot skirmishers do not have any historical justification to my knowledge, so maybe in the mid-game peltasts could be a viable mercenary option for the mid game.

I would suggest that Cleopatra should not be a Ptolemaic hero. The only relevant accomplishments she is remembered for is seducing powerful men. I would rather recommend that Arsinoe the II be her replacement. Arsinoe the II was supportive of Ptolemaic naval conquest and would be appropriate in that respect.

Good work. Does this support Mac OSX?

I understand some of your concerns, but do realize that first, the game is in the alpha phase so expecting much balance or missing features is a bit unrealistic. Second, the depiction of women is different I will admit, yet in many conservative societies such as Athens, Rome, Persia, Macedonia, and others such was basically the case. Granted, with the Britons and Gauls letting them have the ability to build military structures seems rational. Sparta actually does feature relatively flexible female units. Realize though that regardless of something being sexist, there is a lot of fact behind the roles for women in the game. Having men be solely devoted to fighting is itself sexist. The final option is not exactly historically justifiable also. It is best to have an accurate yet working system, which is what 0 A.D. has; perhaps it is not perfect, but perfection is difficult to achieve regardless.

Realize formations should streamline it dramatically. Either way, economy is fairly automated. If a toggle option were integrated into the game, it would not be much more complex than myth units were to Age of Mythology, and furthermore, it should be rather intuitive. Regardless of your sentiments, which I admit have a valid basis, the plan is to incorporate such mechanisms into the combat system. I would say that making the game pace slower would be one way to accommodate more complicated aspects however.

Actually, the Athenians did not plant that many colonies compared to cities like Corinth. Rather, I would recommend that they have trade and infrastructure bonuses. If there are philosophers, other Greek powers also had very influential ones so it should not be limited to only Athens but also Macedonia and the Ptolomies. Finally, regarding the choice of moving cavalry to the town phase, I think the the problem isn't so much that but repurposing them. Starting cavalry should be weaker and only used for purposes such as scouting and hunting. Without inventions like the saddle for for riders, charging would be relatively ineffective. A technology like that available during the town phase could be a logical idea.

I would personally restrict the armor to heroes given how difficult it would be to access such a suit of armor at that time. On another note, maybe you could try to incorporate some shield variations such as using the shapes from this piece of pottery and the picture from the "Lion Hunt" dagger.

Well, regardless of what the branch does, the game will change enough in the alpha that getting upset about one change is not terribly realistic considering that the way the game is will certainly be different over the next few alphas. The branch simply balances the game in its current state. A real problem is that the game does not have a finalized technology system that has balance between independent technologies and ones that involve choice; furthermore it obviously needs a good historical basis. Once that has been accomplished, balancing the game should be far easier.

Perhaps they could be made less expensive.

Spearmen do have a bonus against elephants so they should be deployed at the front. The skirmishers should be positioned behind them. Cavalry are not effective in elephant warfare, yet swordsmen could be useful as reserves if the spearman line breaks.

Excellent work. The assets look very good. The only thing I would advise is that the shields be enlarged. As of now they do not seem sufficiently large to make a firm shield wall. Otherwise I would say that the team has done a great job.

I personally would not downplay the significance of Armenia and would recommend that it be on the civilization roster for part two or at least be modded into the game by a dedicated team.