Prodigal Son

Mythos sorted many things right from a realism point of view. Still 3 infantry swordsmen for a non-sword focused civ don't make that much sense either realistically or gameplay-wise.

Not really, I'm just not content with how they blend with each other. And the steppe ones are overall lesser/older I guess.

It's the first one I've bothered making complete, the others were mostly to test units etc. But I've had a good deal of mapmaking in WC3, AOM and other games, so I'm not a complete newbie. Feeling encouraged is great though:) I kinda miss the AOM tileset textures with their perfectly merging edges, making anything look great. I could have used some better textured tileset, but the steppe one looked as the most fitting for the region.

I can certainly get all your points and agree with most of them. Rare units are ok to be in the game for me, as long as they don't throw out of the rooster more obvious ones. Still though, 3 different infantry swordsmen units for a civ historically not focused on them is an overkill. If I were to decide I'd probably switch off the female champion one, maybe replacing it as trainable with it's archer version if the Mauryan rooster needs some boost.

Thanks, although I believe it could look much better:)

Common agreements are fine as long as they are made at game start. Trade can potentially do what you said, but it also produces either short, ineffective routes, or easy to raid, long ones. It also reduces late game economy management, which is a certainly a good thing when you're spread all over the map and with many more units to handle. Can't remember if the increase trade tech is phase 2 or 3 though, I guess phase 3 would be better for it. I didn't say swordsmen weren't a part of their armies, I said I doubt they were a major part. From what I've read (I'm noway an expert on them) Indian/Mauryan armies were mostly masses of spearmen and archers, with support from cavalry and chariots and an insanely high for non-indian standards number of war elephants. Nice swords don't necessarily mean many swordsmen, they could easily be just side arms, at times only for some noble units. Anyway this was just a bonus thought, but for some reason those seem to grab the most attention. Maybe cause I don't bother to phrase them in detail. On testing units, what you said can work to a point. But on units with different costs, it's better to test units of equal combined costs than equal numbers. If the game gets further balanced around population (which it should imo - see op - balance templates) pop costs are something to have in mind as well, especially for late game balancing.

I tend to believe that performance is slightly better overall now, but I'm not really sure nor paid major attention on that. Btw, what's the issue with some people on multiplayer "forbidding" the use of trade? Is it considered imbalanced currently or just to reduce the number of constantly moving units? I've even come across a person rage-quitting because he discovered I used traders. He then admitted he hadn't mentioned it before, but the game was already wasted. I also noticed that now Mauryans might be a little op in the mid-late game. Having their spearmen equally strong and sharing the same upgrades with those of other civs, besides feeling strange as they are almost naked levies, lets them absorb a lot more damage than they used to, increasing the survivability of Armored Elephants and Elephant Archers, allowing them to decimate the opposition. I think realism needs to come into the game here as a balancing factor. Mauryans have 2 elephant superunits, for different roles, something that no other faction has. The one (elephant archer) only costs wood and food and is trainable from phase 2, so it's relatively easily massable. That's fine so far (historically and gameplay wise). But it breaks both combined with an averagely strong, very easily massable (due to low wood/food cost) line infantry. The answer to this is weaker spearmen, as in reality. I'd suggest nerfing/removing infantry citizen swordsmen as well (they even have 2 extra champion versions and I doubt swordsmen were a major part of ancient Indian armies anyway), but gameplay-wise it's less of an issue since metal cost reduces their massability, especially if you want to combine them with Armored Elephants.

One related question: In the current state of the game, do all participating players need to have the hosted map or just the host?

The northernmost border of the Seleucid Empire, separating it from the steppe tribes and as far north as Alexander's army ever reached. It's my first 0 A.D. map, nothing very fancy as of visuals, as that's not my forte and the steppe biome doesn't help much, but I believe it plays pretty well. The AI seems to like it as well, it was tougher to beat compared to other maps I've played on SP. I also noticed an AI glitch while testing it. On one of the matches the AI built many defense towers across the northern edge of the map, while obviously none could invade it from that side. The forum won't let me upload one of the two map files, so I guess there should be some other way sharing it. Thanks to niektb for explaining how to place skirmish entities. Edit: Thanks again, map added. Jaxartes River (2).zip

I guess that could work as a mod for 0 AD, especially with triggers being implemented. If you look for people interested in this playstyle, Warcraft 3 has a biggish audience in a very similar gerne under the name "Strategy/Risk" (at least on the modding site hiveworkshop), with a variety of options and tweaks between different maps.

Counters in the form of bonuses are not the only way to determine unit roles. They help for more clear to understand gameplay and make handling the combat part of the game quite easy, which I don't dislike, as I'm more of a macro player. But at the same time they limit player creativity and choice, since you just have to train what you need to counter the enemy and not what your playstyle or your current desire asks for. Units become more or less forced answers, not plans or smart use of their attributes in tactics. In games like Warcraft and Starcraft, combat roles are a mix of attack/defense types and unit attributes, with focus on the second, making battles far more dynamic. Different players will like each combat system, with none of them being clearly the superior. 0 AD though is more economically focused than the previously mentioned games and at first sight going with counters would seem more sane, to allow more time for the needed macro at expense of micro. (Which suits me well:p). However one minor reason to go with unit attributes instead of counters is that it is more realistic and there's a major one as well. When formations, stamina, directional bonuses etc are fully implemented, the combat part of the game will head more towards Total War style battles. Positioning, covering flanks etc. Pikemen won't lose to Swordsmen frontally when in formation. You'll win a battle for not needlessly tiring your units and making sure they aren't surrounded and pure counters don't fit well into that. Maybe excluding a damage bonus for spears vs cavalry. So I'm mostly for the second approach, at least accordingly to what I've understood as the desired combat system for the game. I have no clue though on if something has changed in the meanwhile and the game heads towards a more classic RTS combat system. In the current combat system, units of closely related classes can be vastly different. Look at Footmen and Grunts in Warcraft 3, two units with the same role (tier 1 melee unit). They serve the same general purpose of line infantry, but at the same time they are vastly different. Grunts are stronger, more expensive, take longer to train and are more offensive, while Footmen are cheaper, weaker, train faster and are harder to kill (at least relatively to their cost). And that's the simplest unit difference in that game, higher tier unit equivalents have bigger ones. Something like that could be used to differentiate 0 AD units, with differences to similar units accordingly to their role and natural attributes. Spearmen and Swordsmen can be almost identical in some roles while vastly different in others. The same holds true for Cavalry Swordsmen/Spearmen, I just said an idea that could reduce the already many classes, helping with balancing and one that is realistic. I don't believe they're the same unit and even if they are close to being that, it can easily change even with the current system. Cavalry Spears could have pierce or spear damage, with a slow strong attack (possibly with slightly increased range as well) and a high charge bonus, which would make them good against other cavalry and great for charge/run/charge circles, while Cavalry Swords could have hack damage, faster attack with better overall dps but a lesser charge, which would make them an alternative to melee infantry with the benefit of speed and the weakness of not being defensively-cost effective compared to melee infantry. So two units with the same main role (anti-ranged/anti-siege/secondary raider) will also be very different in other aspects. On a side note, a few hours ago I played one game on A16 and right after that one on A17 svn. The second one felt much better on general balance and functionality, even though I'm getting slightly bored with the reduced options and variety on it. It needs better defined and more realistic unit roles and civ attributes but I guess that will have to wait.

Hetairoi indeed use swords, but as side-arm, their main weapons were spears, as was the case with most heavy and some light cavalry. The same would be the case with melee "cavalry heroes". Having alternative weapons in the game would be great. Not only for cavalry, several sword and spear units carried javelins as extra weapons, and many units had a sword or knife side-arm. However, as I've already mentioned, the cav sword class can stay, that's just a minor issue, it's not gamebreaking for me and probably not for anybody else. Just a minor historical flavor that could be used to make balance easier. Are people here in love with cavalry swordsmen:p?

I was talking about 0 AD part I era (and included civs), not cavalry in general. It's just a suggestion that probably won't make it in the game anyway and that won't be a big deal. I just thought, since they're semi-unhistorical and balancing is hard enough already, we could reduce melee cavalry to one class.

My point is this: Cavalry Swords are a bit strange conceptually. I've yet to come across an ancient cavalry unit with swords as their main weapon. It would be a side-arm to spears, javelins or bows. I guess the class could be removed overall, making balance easier as well, as we have too many troop types.

I suggested to replace them with cavalry spearmen, not just remove them, just forgot to mention it (again).

True:) (NEW) UNIT CLASS ROLES To better handle differences of ranged and spear weapons if the current combat system is to be maintained, I'd suggest a spear attack type in addition to the existing ones, possibly renaming pierce to missile. Infantry Spearman High defense/Anti-CavalryLow attack speed (big weapons)Higher Attack/Lower Collision for Pikemen (to make them work better in groups until formations are in) but also slightly reduced missile defense (massed sarissas to maked up for smaller shields, but not totally). Maybe reduced speed.Persian, Mauryan, Gaul and Briton Citizen versions get reduced melee defense (only large shield, no armor), essentially meatshields, with the two celtic ones possibly having average attack and the other two reduced. Maybe increased speed.Triarrii bonused or trained at rank 2 as veteransSpartans bonused at dps/defense or having a fear auraMachimoi weaker but cheaper and faster to trainSilver shields bonused at attack/defenseImmortals lower defense but train fasterHoplites slightly higher defenseInfantry Swordsman The average unit with no big weakness or bonus. Relatively high attack and defense.High attack speed. Could be slightly faster moving than spearmenIberian Citizen version could have reduced (missile) armor having smaller shields.Infantry Skirmisher Best dps and defense, lowest range and attack speed among ranged infantry.Fast train time.Agrianians,Thracians and Iberians bonus dps or speed.Infantry Archer Average dps and attack speed, good range, weak defense. Could have low collision for increased effectiveness in numbers.Reduced wood cost (very cheap armament) but increased train time (hard to master weapon).Persians, Syrians and Indians longer range.Cretans increased defense.Infantry Slinger Lowest dps and defense, highest range and attack speed among ranged infantry.Reduced stone cost (very cheap armament) but increased train time (hard to master weapon).Rhodians longer range.Balearics increased damage.Cavalry Spearman High dps, Low attack speed (big weapons).Good defense and speed.Companions/Thessalians bonused at dps/speed.Bactrians/Cappadocians bonused at defenseCataphracts largely bonused at defense but reduced speed.Cavalry Swordsman Could be removed (replaced with cav spears) as somewhat unhistorical and for easier balance (swords could be implemented as a side arm for all cavalry, like units in AOE 3), else:Better melee defense (melee instead of chargers/lancers)and lower damage compared to Cav Spears, higher attack speed.Cavalry Skirmisher Best dps and defense, lowest range and attack speed among ranged cavalry.Thracians (Odrysians) and Iberians increased dpsNumidians increased speedCavalry Archer Average dps and attack speed, good range, weak defense.Reduced wood cost (very cheap armament) but increased train time (hard to master weapon).Increased range over average archer (all eastern units)Do camel ones still need their stench aura? - perhaps camel-traders could also be deployed as cavalry debuffers.Chariots Will need trample to balance and get a proper role, better left as more expensive cavalry archers/skirmishers for nowWar Elephants Differentiate their stats among civs by armor and elephant species.Fear aura still missing?Seleucid, Indian armored increased dps, hp and defense, reduced speedIndian Archer increased hpPtolemaic, Carthaginian, Possible Extra/Mercenary ones at average

Updated OP with hopefully all info and many extras SOME STRANGE STAT ISSUES: OTHER: A BALANCING TEMPLATE GENERAL SUGGESTIONS AND TECH PROPOSALS: CAMPAIGN: FACTION SPECIFICS Trying to make each faction unique through historical attributes. Note that the unit lists I'm mentioning are chosen mostly from a historical perspective, balance and uniqueness for each faction on that field would need lengthy discussions. ATHENIANS The Athenians should have bonuses on navy, expansion, infantry mobility, economy and research, with an expand and defend playstyle. Faster built or cheaper Civ Centers will allow quick expansion (simulating colonization or vassalization of other's colonies) with mobile infantry forces and navies to protect them or raid enemy holdings. Later on, Philosopher units can help the colonies flurish enhancing construction, economy and research, to make up for a slightly weak late game military. BRITONS The Britons should be an offensive civ with relatively cheap and weak (in defense) early units and weaker, faster built (wooden) structures. This makes them a viable booming faction as well. More research needed. CARTHAGINIANS The Carthaginians should have bonuses on naval trade, navy, exploration, expansion, defenses and mercenaries. Locating (with bonused scouting) and securing (with fast built or tough structures) metal deposits, to help them make the most out of their mercenary armies, as well as maintaining naval and trade superiority could be their core direction. GAULS The Gauls should be an offensive civ with relatively cheap and weak (in defense) early units and weaker, faster built (wooden) structures. This makes them a viable booming faction as well. Later on they get access to tougher units and upgrades. IBERIANS The Iberians are the ultimate turtle civ with several defensive bonuses and also specialize at guerilla warfare. Their units are quite varied but their navy is one of the weakest. MACEDONIANS The Macedonians field powerful cavalry, infantry and siege weapons and reliable missile units. A mostly offensive faction at early-mid game, that gets more staying power later on with reforms increasing the survivability of several units. MAURYANS The Mauryans could be an aggressive (rush) civ with weak, cheap and fast trained units, relatively weak and fast built (wooden) structures. This can also allow them to play with a booming playstyle, since cheap citizen-soldiers should give an early economic advantage. Their armies are rather weak with the exceptions of archery units and war elephants. PERSIANS The Persians excel at massing weak, cheap infantry units supported by equally cheap but formidable archers. But what really stands out is their cavalry arm, one of the strongest among all civs. Their structures are strong as well, although a little slower to build. PTOLEMIES The Ptolemies should have a well balanced military, with most troop types and better than average mercenaries, but that shouldn't be the core of their strength, somewhat lacking in champion units and military techs. Farming, research, naval and defense bonuses should make them a booming-defensive faction with a variety of secondary options. ROMANS The Romans might have somewhat weak cavalry, but make up for it with easy to mass tough infantry, strong siege weapons/structures and increasingly good technology as the game advances. SELEUCIDS The Seleucids probably have access to the largest troop variety of all civs, including several elite units and powerful reforms. Their other aspects could stay at average more or less for balance, even though historically they could have many other bonuses and their weaknesses don't translate well in RTS gameplay. SPARTANS The Spartans can be a very unique faction with early available, very limited, super-elite infantry supported by average to poor other units. Late game reforms can provide a reliable, massable unit in Cleomenian Pikemen and improve other troop classes through newly unlocked mercenaries, so that they can stand against other faction's now powerful armies. Helots can be used as a unique worker unit with the best default farming rate (even if slaves are added in general).

I've got what's behind the core of it and as I said it's a nice start, but I still believe it's too oversimplified this way. Balance tests now will only be about differences in available unit classes and a couple of different techs per civ, without concerning that some classes, techs and attributes would be too unhistorical if added or removed for some factions. I believe there's a need to consider what uniqueness each civ should have at the same time (even if added little by little in the almost level case we've got now) if we want a historical and varied game with civs that will play more differently than "mine more stone than average with X civ", or "train cavalry spears cause you don't have cavalry swords available". Edit: Btw, this just made me remember.. Cavalry Swords are a bit strange conceptually. I've yet to come across an ancient cavalry unit with swords as their main weapon. It would be a side-arm to spears, javelins or bows. I guess the class could be removed overall, making balance easier as well, as we have too many troop types.

What's the code for spoilers? I know and had no intention to push all this in the game in the last moment before A17 release. Scythe seems rather busy and possibly not very interested, I'm not blaming him, he has just reorganized everything, it would be strange to throw it all away and much of it is in a good direction anyway. However, factions now feel like the old Age Of Empires clone ones, with very minor variations (besides the visuals). That might be a good start for balance, but we need to start implementing variety and interesting concepts little by little so they can be tested and finally reach balance while having unique and historical factions. So I'm for changing some minor things if there's some time available, with more coming in for the next alpha. By the way, with Mythos gone, is there anyone currently in the team with a vision on the historical and uniqueness part of the factions? While I did not completely agree with the way it was, it was still rather good on that aspect compared to now and most (wannabe) historical RTS.

Detailed Faction Proposals Part 2: CARTHAGINIANS CIV CENTER WomanLibyan SpearmanLibyan Skirmisher*Punic Cavalry Spearman*BARRACKS (Citizen/Subject People Recruits) Libyan SpearmanLibyan SkirmisherMauritanian ArcherPunic Cavalry SpearmanMERCENARY CAMP/EMBASSY (Bonused to 2 or more for Carthage) Numidian Cavalry SkirmisherIberian SkirmisherGallic SwordsmanLigurian SpearmanIberian SwordsmanCeltic Cavalry SwordsmanIberian Cavalry SpearmanItalian Cavalry SpearmanItalian SwordsmanBalearic SlingerMany of the above could change class or be narrowed down to reduce duplicates*Ideally each map would be classified to a regional pool, and each faction would be able to train some civ-specific mercenaries (their most common perhaps) and some from the regional pool. Same with successor levy barracks structures. *Mercenaries could train slightly fasted by default to make up for their high metal cost and add realism. FORTRESS (Champions) War ElephantTEMPLE Sacred band infantry and Cavalry Champions (plus healers ofc)REFORMS Barcid Armies: Increased armor for melee infantry units (rearmed with looted roman kits) and reduced mercenary costs (better handling of alliances and subjects through diplomacy and use of hostages)TECHS/BONUSES/COMMENTS Colonization bonus: Either shared with Athens (cheaper/faster built CC) or their current tech as a default bonusExploration bonus: Increased unit/ship line of sight (maybe for civilian and non-mercenary units only)Mass Production: Increased siege weapon train speedGive them back their wall bonuses even if lesser and/or a tech increasing tower, fortress, barracks and wall hp. They had massive walls with built-in barracks, stables and elephant stables.Buff naval shipyard with repair aura, ability to garrison ships and an attack or some of them. Add naval architects to both docks.ATHENIANS CIV CENTER WomanAthenian HopliteAthenian Psilos Slinger* (usually javelinmen, at times archers, but for flavor and avoiding duplicates let's go with slingers)Athenian Cavalry Skirmisher*BARRACKS Athenian HopliteAthenian Psilos SlingerAthenian Cavalry SkirmisherAthenian Cavalry Swordsman (flavor to differentate greeks, I think Spearman is more likely though)MERCENARY CAMP/EMBASSY (limited to 1 for all but Carthage) Thracian PeltastScythian Archer (they were policemen, I think armed with clubs, but flavor again)Cretan Archers (possible and more realistic alternative to scythians)Rhodian Slingers also possible.GYMNASION (Now this structure makes some sense for proposed champions, if they are rejected please rename it to garrison and add a new icon) Logades Hoplites - Elite hoplite force instead of the generic "city guard", same function. I've read they also trained to use bows, but not sure about the source. Going this way could have Logades Hoplites and Archers (picked force of both as champions) without marines full time on land.Marine Archers - Makes more sense than the scythians or some unhistorical marine swordsman. Marines could give an extra bonus when garrisoned in ships.(NEW) ACADEMY STRUCTURE (For Greeks, Succesors, Romans and Maybe Carthaginians - library or some recently unbuildable greek structures as placeholders) Holds some (new) techs that don't fit elsewherePhilosopher Champion Healer: New unit that functions as a priest but also has an aura or empowerment skill increasing construction/train time/tech time.REFORMS Iphicratian Reform: Increased movement speed for melee and ranged infantry, possibly at a slight armor trade-off if it proves too strong. Could also replace Hoplites with Iphicratian Hoplites looking similar to the current city guard.TECHS/BONUSES/COMMENTS Colonization bonus: Cheaper/faster built CCImperialism/Athenian Empire bonus: Civ Centers, Triremes (or docks) or both provide a small tickle of metal.Chorigoi (Sponsors): Dock tech reducing Trireme (metal?) cost.Their 2 superfast messenger Triremes, Paralos and Salaminia could be used as some form of fast scout ship with extensive line of sight, but I guess it's not worth the modeling effort for something so minor in gameplay.SPARTANS CIV CENTER WomanHelot (Slave worker with farming bonuses and degenerating hitpoints - going gaia and aggressive at low health)Spartan Hoplite Champion (limited to one per farm or house - can't gather/build)Perioikos Hoplite - if the above two are not implementedPerioikos Cavalry Skirmisher*BARRACKS (Subjects such as perioikoi, helots and skiritae - those were a actually tribe, not spartan commandos, probably being confused with crypteia) Helot SkirmisherPerioikos HoplitePerioikos Cavalry SkirmisherSkiritis Swordsman (or more accurately fast light hoplite)MERCENARY CAMP/EMBASSY (limited to 1 for all but Carthage) Cretan ArchersTarantine Cavarly SkirmisherElean Cavalry SpearmanHellenic Thyreophoros (Spearman or Skirmisher)Rodian or Arcadian SlingersSYSSITION (Champion Units) Spartan HopliteCrypteia (swordsman for variety?) - Special operations and police force, often used to terrorize-murder helots. Could have a helot suppression aura preventing helot revolts if helot workers are used.REFORMS Cleomenian Reform: Unlocks pikemen citizen-soldiers, provides a farming bonus and possibly unlocks some of the mercenaries.TECHS/BONUSES/COMMENTS Replace Agis - who seems less interesting with no aura - with Cleomenes III, having an aura buffing pikemen.*(If my recruitment ideas are rejected)

Such formations are possible I guess but they would have to wait for a better re-implementation of formations. Tech pairs would work well on some occasions gameplay-wise. The example with priest techs is one, thought it doesn't make much sense from a realism point of view. Techs that could work well in pairs and are realistic are the wall example (faster to build or stronger if I recall right) and the one I gave earlier, ekdromoi (light hoplites - gives speed) or bronze cuirass (Heavier hoplites - gives armor). Unrelated things paired like improved woodcutting or handcart don't make sense either way and their removal was a good decision imo.

I would not replace the human workers, I would just make it so that soldiers can't build or work (maybe with a few exceptions like the roman army camp/siege walls and successor kings laying down civ center foundations). Male workers would be added in addition to female, or just a generic worker that would spawn as either of them. This would make economy harassment more viable and allow bigger starting unit price differentiations without breaking balance. The citizen soldier concept is smart and realistic, but it could also be represented just by strength differences between levy and elite/professional warriors. It's more of a flavor than a needed feature, but it's not game-breaking anyway. It could be slightly rebalanced somehow I guess. Another solution I've thought about is limiting Military Settlements to one per CC (and make CC normally buildable for all civs). Building one would mean the region has settler troops instead of just locals, and represent that the successors had to train locals as well if they wanted vast armies. Techs could increase military settlement number or train speed.

That's not a bad idea. Would take a while though especially since I've just started messing with the game files and no clue how many would be willing to test it. I plan to make a mod in the future anyway but that would also have some more fundamental changes included, like the removal of worker-soldiers for example. I might start with the alpha 17 release as a base and implement these proposed concepts first if I get some people willing to test, then possibly introduce major changes sometime in the future.

Detailed Faction Proposals: PTOLEMIES (EGYPTIANS) CIV CENTER (Core regions such as Alexandria - Only buildable by Heroes) WomanMacedonian Settler PikemanThracian Settler Skirmisher*Macedonian Settler Cavalry Spearman*(LEVY) BARRACKS (Subject People Recruits) Judean Slinger - tier 1Nabataean Camel Archer - tier 2Machimos Pikeman Champion (After Reform)MILITARY SETTLEMENT (Military Settler Colonies) Macedonian Settler PikemanThracian Settler SkirmisherGalatian Settler SwordsmanMacedonian Settler Cavalry SpearmanMERCENARY CAMP (Limited to 1 for all but Carthage) Aetolian Cavalry SkirmisherCretan ArcherCarian Axeman (Sword class)Hellenic Thyreophoros (Spearman or Skirmisher)FORTRESS (Champions) Royal Guard (Agema) CavalryWar ElephantREFORMS Machimoi Reform (Early): Unlocks the slightly weak, but cheap and fast to train Machimos Pikeman Champion.Romanization Reform (Late): New Thorakites Sword Champion replaces Macedonian Settler Pikeman and Machimos Thyreophoros (non-Champion) replaces Machimos Pikeman.TECHS/BONUSES/COMMENTS Farming (The Nile)Naval or Naval/Siege (Great Engineering and Fleets)Mercenaries (Focused on them - Related with their agents recruiting from Greece?)Forts (Focused on Garrisons)SELEUCIDS CIV CENTER (Core regions such as Antioch - Only buildable by Heroes) WomanMacedonian Settler PikemanSyrian Archer*Thessalian Settler Cavalry Spearman*(LEVY) BARRACKS (Subject People Recruits) Syrian Archer - tier 1Median Cavalry Skirmisher - tier 2Arabian Skirmisher - tier 2Scythed Chariot (as one-rank non-champion) - tier 2/3Dahae Horse Archer (Could be cut out to reduce troop types and dublicates) - tier 2/3MILITARY SETTLEMENT (Military Settler Colonies) Macedonian Settler PikemanThracian Settler Rhomphaophoros (Peltast would be a more common but dublicate class)Thessalian Settler Cavalry SpearmanSilver Shield Pikeman ChampionThorakites Sword Champion (After Reform)Cataphract Champion (After Reform)MERCENARY CAMP(Limited to 1 for all but Carthage) Galatian Cavalry Swordsman (most troops types possible actually)Cretan ArcherJudean Thyreophoros Spearman or SlingerFORTRESS (Champions) Hetairos (Companion Cavalry)Armored War ElephantREFORMS Cavalry Reform (Early): Cataphracts Replace Thessalian HorsemenRomanization Reform (Late): New Thorakites Sword Champion AvailableTECHS/BONUSES/COMMENTS Their economy not handicaped in any way, as they controlled wealthy farming and trade regions, but they also faced constant warfare and rebellions could work, along with their focus being a strong all around military civ with many choices.MACEDONIANS CIV CENTER WomanMacedonian PikemanAgrianian Skirmisher*Macedonian Settler Cavalry Spearman*BARRACKS (Native and Closely related Subjects/Allies) Macedonian Pikeman - tier 1Agrianian Skirmisher - tier 1Thessalian Cavalry Spearman - tier 2Odryssian Cavalry Skirmisher - tier 2MERCENARY CAMP(Limited to 1 for all but Carthage) Rhodian SlingerCretan ArcherThracian Rhompaiophoros SwordsmanGalatians and Greek Thyreophoroi were also very common after 280bc if we lack some class. (After Reform)FORTRESS (Champions) Hetairos (Companion Cavalry)Hypaspist/SilvershieldHetairos Aspidophoros (After Reform) - Resilient cavalry skirmisher.Royal Peltast (After Reform) - Could be anything from pikeman/skirmisher/swordsman.Kestros Slinger (After Reform) - High attack slinger, or turned into a slinger tech.War Elephant (Possible with Import elephants tech or with full metal cost at the mercenary camp)REFORMS Early Antigonid Reform: Hetairos Aspidophoros replaces Hetairos. Royal Peltast replaces Hypaspist. Adds extra mercenary units.Late Antigonid Reform: Increases Pikeman hack armor and train speed. Adds Kestros Slinger Champion unit or tech.TECHS/BONUSES/COMMENTS Starting having Alexander's army rooster, then envolving into early and late era Antigonid Macedon with reforms.Give them Penteres (Heavy Warship). Could be with the early reform if not by default.*(If my recruitment ideas are rejected)