Prodigal Son

That could work as well. I've also suggested something similar already, with archers added to the CC only for Persians and Mauryans when (as they should) get weaker spearmen.

I've thought of something more in regards to cavalry. Since there's no stable for most civs (and if my idea of moving cav to tier2 is rejected) how about making the corral a requirement for training cavalry units. It's a way to delay early game cavalry spam and at the same time more realistic (needing to breed horses and early era focused on foot units).

So the decision is to have a desert nomad trader for them?

While some of your proposals are interesting they are too many to really reply to at once. You seem to look for detailed and justified answers, while at the same time the majority of your proposals are ill-justified personal preferences, not real gameplay improvements (writing much doesn't always make a valid point and very often you're far more clueless than the "amateurs/bad designers" on your target subjects). Sorry if I sound harsh. I might take the time to reply in detail at some point.

He doesn't look either Egyptian or Greek imo. You could try to replace his robe patterns/colors or use a different design for your clothing.

Thanks for the suggestions:) Could try replacing the textures I guess, it's true that others look much better. The water has two crossings, those might be better if marked but I'm not sure.. this way scouting is more important. The map away from the river is mostly supposed to be flat semi-dry grasslands so not sure pools would fit. I believe there's quite a bit of animals, not too much nor too few.

The collaboration part sounds interesting, the team should know more on if there's more to come. Formations, stamina, running/charging, directional bonuses are planned as far as I know. Morale isn't planned I believe, but seeking fleeing troops all over the map to rally them shouldn't fit well in RTS gameplay anyway. There's also a lengthy discussion on how much micro can fit into 0 A.D. gameplay on the last couple of pages of this thread if you're interested.

Imo garrison bonus should be further reduced (not by too much), and if structures need some bonus, give them more HP/armor. They currently have too much offensive power and forward building is stronger than most other strategies. The defense bonus could also give more response time when stormed by many siege weapons, in such cases structures die too fast. Ships and siege towers are even worse on that aspect, cause they move... a garrisoned one shouldn't have the power of several ungarrisoned. Ofc all this comes down to personal preferences, no choice in this (even well balanced ones) can make everyone happy.

Agreed. I meant that semi-historical would be to use them for some factions only. My desire would be removing them for the two gameplay reasons I mentioned and have the differentiation only through champions being the "professionals", but if not (which seems to be the case) let's keep them as they are.

If I can recall right, this is a planned feature.

Agreed:) All I'm saying is it's a game with similarly important economy and basebuilding to AOE (and tougher than AOM) so adding formations + running/charging + stamina + directional bonuses + toggle/active combat abilities + dismounting + w/e similar extra people might be thinking, is a micro overkill. All that would be ok in a game with very basic macro. Some of them could be added, I'm not against something specific cause I hate it, but since some of those are planned, I don't think more would make it a better game just by quantity. I don't believe AOE/AOM never bothered, the developers just knew their games' direction and what would fit in.

You add basic options in AOM deathmatch, not different combat mechanics:)

I'm around on the SVN lobby if anybody wants a game:)

While it seems iconic for Athens and other Greek city-states, the majority of ancient soldiers would be part-time levies. So I'm not sure on this, perhaps it could work as semi-historical flavor and civ differentiation.

If you mean adding extra micro based things just for deathmatch, I believe that would end up confusing. Having such features available for mods would be very welcome though.

Welcome MJR:) What I'd like to comment on is mostly your first suggestion. Eventually you'll get used to it, it's not that hard to manage, just different. However I'm also kind of against it, since I believe it reduces a lot the effects of tactics like harassing the enemy economy. Normal workers doing all the labor would also allow for bigger variety on the strengths and pricing for early units (like weak/cheap/fast trained Persian spearmen, strong/expensive/slower trained hoplites, without favoring Persian economy too much). Some exceptions like roman troops building army camps could remain in the game. I can't see it removed though, being one of the game's unique and core features.

I don't want an easy game, I want one with a balance of it's micro accordingly to it's macro (or the opposite) not too much of both, and as a personal preference and since the economy/base building in this game is pretty heavy I'm mostly against too much micro. If a simpler economy was used, it might not be that much my kind of game, but heavy micro would make sense. The game shouldn't be just dominated by frantic players, but have other ways for players to be effective as well. I favor realism a lot and the game aims to be historical anyway, but that can be left to having accurate units and civs, not throwing in every mechanic possible in the shake of realism.

I don't believe formations alone would streamline the gameplay. Having to short formations and choose new ones under different conditions and that for several unit types (in an average army) will add much micro. Directional bonuses, running/charging, stamina will add even more. It all comes down to how it will turn out, we can't be exactly sure on what will be implemented in the end, but logically speaking micro will increase when those things are thrown in. Making the game pace slower could help (less dps or more hp/armor for units, reduced movement speeds). Edit: Economy in 0 A.D. is the least automated of all RTS I've played, maybe excluding early AOE with their finite farms, but on the other hand having more workers to manage, many economic techs and a rather fast depleting majority of resources, requiring quite frequent relocation of dropsites. I'd call rather automated economy the one of WC3, with it's only two resource types, very few techs, few big mines (with a staple of 5 workers per mine) and only lumber kind of needing attention. An automated example would be Battle For Middle Earth games, with structures auto-producing resources and workers only as builders. I can understand the desire for "throwing everything realistic in the combat system", I'd love that as well, but it doesn't work that way. Unless we want a game with a combat system mixing Total War and Starcraft (that's were it heads if all those get thrown in) and an economic management similar to AOK. That would make the hardest to master RTS ever, frustrating anyone who isn't great at both micro and macro.

For the Maiden Guard units that's close to what I suggested as well, though I'd prefer not having unit/ships train units. Yoddha is still having his crush damage, however a "swordsman" class siege weapon might be confusing while all other swordsmen have the same, different role and siege maceman sounds like a unit from a fantasy game (or AOE online:p). You've missed my point. RTT games like Total War are also turn-based for their economy/training/infrastructure management part, so in battles you can have many micro-requiring things and it makes sense, you have all the time for it. Some RTS like Warcraft 3, keep economy to the very basics, with few workers, few techs (even fewer economic ones) so that they can fit in "rpg" elements and active skills and population is also limited, you won't have to control more than 25-30 units on average. AOE games which have a bigger focus on economy had either no or very minor active skill micro (AOE, AOK), or reduced the economical focus by removing the need for dropsites and added buildings that autogathered resources to fit in some more (AOE 3). 0 A.D. falls closer to AOK, but with the even larger population (and even more workers) leaves even less time for micro. Would you still enjoy the game if every unit (or half units) had a toggle like siege weapons then? Wouldn't it be much different? If/when the game is redesigned around formation combat, we can revisit the discussion of what fits there (but that alone will make it much more micro heavy imo).

As they currently are when caught in melee, so it's the more or less the same effect, but requiring extra micro, changes and balance. From a realism point of view I can stand by that you said, but as a core mechanic I'd only apply that to a game that has extra developer manpower and a gameplay with enough time for tactics. Got what you said, my reply to stan just above is more or less my view on it (except from the micro part). Hellenic factions have a quite good rooster as well as many possible units left out, as their history is better recorded than most, so I see no need to add units they didn't have. I'm even for removing/replacing Spartan swordsmen (see op - spartans).

I'm mostly against having toggle abilities (or as least as little as possible). Some autocast ones for melee units who carried javelins could work, but this again requires extra balancing, of an easier kind though. Examples are roman, iberian and celtic swordmen, thureophoroi (the spear version - there were also simple skirmishers with a thureos shields as well as many other troops), thorakitai, and some heavy cavalry who also carried javelins or bows in addition to their main armament. Persian immortals also come to mind with a possible bow shot before going melee. Some of those units could be more hybrid ones but again, that's not fitting that well in 0 A.D. style gameplay. I wouldn't be against it if formations are somehow implemented in a way that make troop management easy. However all the best RTS have at most possitional formations, going full total war style might be an issue having to manage the economy real time as well. I'm eager to hear more about the plans on this, if what we know about running/charging/stamina/directional bonuses etc is outdated. If it's not it probably has to be simplified compared to total war games, not expanded with extra micro requirements. Ekdromoi were just light hoplites (spear/shield/helmet/no armor) tasked to chase missile troops for armies lacking cavalry and fight in the main line if needed, not hybrid units with javelins. The Maiden Guard should be just archers from the little we know, not meaning they noway carried a side arm, many archers did, but that they shouldn't get any special treatment. I'm not sure on ranged units having an alternative attack, most of them would flee or die fast when caught in melee anyway and there's again the hard to balance and extra micro issue. The infinite chase thing has been reduced due to melee units being able to attack while moving in the last couple of alphas and the ability to run away reduced to ranged cavalry. Makes some sense as it is, though no solution seems perfect to me. Edit: Ranged units seem seriously OP, especially for a melee-dominated era game. Imo they should get cheaper, weaker and with lower relative dps. The only serious advantage for training melee units currently is vs structures which I don't like. Structures can stay with higher pierce than hack armor, but a smaller difference and melee units get more effective in field battles. Only with vastly superior numbers could ancient ranged units beat heavy infantry on their own and even then it was considered an achievement. Old AOE games had the balance quite right on this aspect.

Yes, to reduce the number of sword infantry the Mauryans have available and have them more historical as well. The only ancient (even if doubtful) sources depict them fighting with bows, the rest is modern speculation. Also I'm against units trained from other units or ships in general, very unrealistic and often hard to balance. That would be great if it applied to all mercenaries, not just them. Also, as I've mentioned before, mercenaries shouldn't cost wood, at the vast majority of cases they brought with them their own armament. Metal as their payment, and perhaps food as well if full metal is a very heavy cost (they would be fed from the army's food supply) makes more sense. Furthermore, it's been suggested by Mega Mania that Ptolemaic era Egyptian armies shouldn't have Nubian troops/mercenaries and from what I've read it seems to be correct. So I guess this unit could be swapped by something else (possibilities at op, under Ptolemies). Having the option available for mods would indeed be great. But overwhelming the option screen with such minor things for the main game wouldn't be that good imo and balancing several such secondary options would be a nightmare.

I'm mostly against it as well. It's too much micro for an RTS. It works fine in later Total War games, but in RTS games who have it (like Ancient Wars: Sparta) it doesn't. 0 A.D. fits in with the RTS's that have an important economic management aspect, plus large number of troops, so adding extra micro of that form would be even worse than on most games. Added to that, extra balancing is needed (mounted/dismounted versions).

I was about to mention the Roman example in my previous post but I though I write too much:p. That would be ideal for some of those units (I partly disagree on some) and a few other I can think of. Then again it's not terribly bad to depict units only in their main roles, avoiding extra balancing (two different attacks per unit will be a pain to balance) and increased micro (active abilities).

Does this mean they should have unnecessarily many types of swordsmen or that their armies had a focus on swordsmen? They already have a tech in relation to that and I never claimed it should be removed. RTS gameplay design needs some clear unit roles, without needless duplicates. Since they have two identical champion swordsman units what would be the way to differentiate them? Giving them different roles is confusing, having them doing the same job is useless. And it's not like they were some iconic units of a very specific legacy that should stay in the game with their historical role for flavor. The one is named "warrior" and the other is a "maiden guard", which I doubt we know how they fought or much about them (the only thing I've found places them as archers - here's a possible fix, we can make the archer version trainable instead). Edit: Just noticed, Yoddha (warrior) might be classified as swordsman, but is actually armed with a mace and does crush damage. That makes all this discussion (partly) invalid, but raises more questions. Do we want a dude with a metal mace classified as swordsman while playing differently and more importantly, do we want a maceman as a siege weapon in a historical game? Possible solutions? Citizen Soldier Swordsman stays as he is.Maiden Guard goes Archer, as the unit already exists, and it better reflects the Indian focus on archery and the (doubtful but anyway) sources.Champion Swordsman (Yoddha/Warrior) either gets pure swordsman attributes or a new class. The former has the downside of treating mace as a hacking weapon, the later adds one extra class to an already hard to balance game. I'd go with the former, which could also include replacing his weapon with a sword. Infantry ripping through structures just doesn't make any sense and they have war elephants for that already, it's not like it would add something they miss.On another note, is the Ptolemaic inf archer intentionally faster to train and slightly more expensive than the rest or is that an oversight?