Prodigal Son

Attack and defense types are the counter system now.

This isn't a bad alternative, it's quite a different approach though and not fitting with civ specific discussions.

Thanks:). Destroying the CC early on isn't that easy, while spamming archers as the Mauryans and Persians (with their train time techs) makes for a good economy and a numerical advantage. Once the opponent loses the battlefield, their Civic Center won't stand for long anyway.

This just makes the early game more confusing for new players for no real gameplay value. Again confusing and requiring extra balance for no real benefit. If some bonus is intended for Macedonian skirmishers, attack or attack speed would do (simulating their fierce northern tribe recruits) without messing with the economic balance The idea on hoplites isn't bad, it's one of the ways to have them different and historical, it could also mix well with existing suggestions. The rest seem more or less like random things popping out of your head, or hard to implement for no real value (last stand - can just make them stronger). That would be the pilum used by swordsmen, not skirmisher javelins. Iberians had heavy javelins as well, before the Romans. I'd make such a thing a tech buffing swordmen's missile damage if pre-charge projectiles are implemented at some point. That should be the case for Persian and Mauryan early units (besides the cost - it should be unit-dependent and the cost differences should be on wood. An average human would eat more or less the same no matter where he's from). As I've told you before.. replacing starting walls with palisades solves only half the issue. Weird wall pre-placement and forced town layouts remain and the desired starting stone fort aspect is lost. I'd say make the civ center a fort. One more default arrow and some extra health and here's the forty-anti rush attribute without many issues. Weaker soldiers don't really fit with Iberians imo and the house bonus is a boring one, unless we really lack bonuses for them or it somehow really fits with some other of their aspects. Your last suggestion on them could prove interesting from a gameplay perspective. Since they are a mostly defensive faction, they are prone to choice by new players and not having to micro veterans in and out of eco would be helpful to them (or to players like myself who almost never bother with that anyway). It could also just not decrease for them instead of increasing. Ptol archers might be a common strategy but it should be removed imo. A mercenary unit, spammable in the village phase and one that wasn't even used by it's faction doesn't seem right. If we want a civ with heavy early metal use for mercs so that this tactic isn't lost, let's have that be Carthage. I'll also repeat that imo mercs should cost metal (their payment) and if full metal is too much, food instead of wood (they'd be fed by army supplies/not wood, and this is not messing with game balance anyway since they both are common resources). They should also train faster than other units overall. I'd say a good farmer civ should have a default farming bonus. Let's keep the econ tech-tree clear.

- If it turns out to work the way I suggested for slaves in general (and that if they are added to the core game) I can't see why Helots shouldn't lose hitpoints if other slaves do. Treatment of Helots was varied, depending on the period, different Spartan leaders, need for extra manpower in war etc. I wouldn't say they had it better on average compared to other slaves. The Spartans even had their youths and crypteia murdering and torturing Helots without a reason but to harden the former and oppress/demoralize the second. Differences I'd suggest are helots being bonused at farming, being trained at civ centers for food instead of bought at the market for metal and perhaps some tech(s) having to do with liberation/military enlisting. - Then, if it's not something related to/alternative to late reforms, it could work historically. However there's already the agoge tech buffing spartan hoplites. On the aura thing, I've suggested something similar.. an aura buffing allies or one debuffing enemies, related to their fame as the best soldiers. Could be a default or tech, or something coming with rank up for citizen hoplites.

- The Spartan Hoplite could be trained in many different ways, your suggestion could work for better or worse compared to mine, depending on how early game balance works in the end. - I've suggested slaves with degenerating hitpoints as a further differentiation from normal workers, simulating the increased abuse on them, often to the point of death. They could also combo with healers this way to increase their effectiveness/prevent revolts (if those are implemented). Your suggestion wouldn't be bad or unrealistic as a Spartan specific though. However helots did fight as skirmishers/peltasts and in general followed the Spartans into war in numbers often bigger than those of the Spartans. - I'm strongly in favor of a merc camp for all factions, a buffed one for ptolemies and a super buffed one for carthage, and rebalancing mercenaries in general. Mercenaries weren't trained the same way as local units. Barracks or (especially phase one) Civ Center training them seems wrong. An extra merc camp for each faction also opens up alternative-metal heavy strategies, with many possible related techs as well. - Perioikoi as the average units for Sparta sounds about right, although I still pref the early hoplites being Spartans (either slightly buffed citizens with a champion version as well, or champions from the start with a limiting factor). - If reforms for all factions get in, which I'd really love, I'd prefer to implement real ones not fantasy ones. Traditionalist "reform" in place of the Cleomenian one wasn't possible because: "true Spartan" manpower was in the low hundreds and hoplites were severely outclassed by other units for decades (and outclassed for almost 150 years) by then. Gameplay-wise it could work/add variety though.

A couple more: 0 A.D. Multiplayer: Prodigalson vs Hanniball Massive Mauryan archer rush vs Hanniball's Carthaginians, Alpha 17. 0 A.D. Multiplayer: Prodigalson vs phalanx A rather fast game in which I planned for my usual booming (economy development) before going in for combat, the rush attack I faced though acted like a call for counterattack. Phalanx as Carthage and myself as Seleucids, Unknown Land, Alpha 17.

As much as I'd love several extra civs for the core game, 12 are already hard enough to balance and some of them still need extra artwork, especially the Seleucids.

Agreed that it's worth a separate thread. I'd be 100% for more varied factions and I'd be full of ideas on it, but since it's a game with 12 of them and not 3-4 as in games with huge differences, I believe that would result in a tough to learn and hard to balance game. Something more than AOK but far less than Warcraft III/Starcraft/AOM should work. Specific building requirements to advance phases isn't something really needed, even though it could work, as in other games. It's a little limiting in strategies and build orders though. Here's my thoughts about factions from the other thread: 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 doubt an elephant (with a smaller percentage of extra weight as well) walks slower than a human. But let's see their final role and how it works out. I know damage frenzy is planned but I keep mentioning it since it seems to be one of those things easy to implement, thinking it might just be an oversight that it's not in yet.

I haven't played cossacks (but I've heard/read good comments on them), I've played a little bit of "Alexander", by the same developers though. Combat didn't seem more realistic or complex than total war and at the same time managing formations (especially adding new trained troops to them) + economy was a bit of an issue. I don't really like torches (in AOE III and Rome 2) for some reason they make the game feel stranger than hitting structures with weapons for me. I still can't get why:p. I still believe rams should get unable to attack troops and balanced in other ways (like increased hp or slightly reduced pathing size) I'd like elephants to be an expensive all-around superunit. They had uses in siege warfare, such as tearing down gates, but that shouldn't be their focus, nor they should have much lower pierce than hack armor. About them being slow, they should be faster than (most?) infantry. As a weakness they could run amok going gaia + aggressive when reaching some low hp percentage, making them nice targets for focused fire and a potential threat to their owner's lines. Currently they are probably the most underpowered unit considering their high cost, low massability/late availability and relatively weak combat performance.

It's great, getting it in game as well would be even greater. I just noticed some tooltips have full costs and some partial (like only lumber and time for some units that have other costs as well), perhaps a result on reading from main unit files and missing costs that exist only on templates?

Two more games: 0 A.D. Multiplayer: Prodigalson vs SwampGremlin This match starts with some peaceful booming until around 19:45, then the offensive kicks in, resulting in some pretty intense combat around three fronts, with both players focusing on cavalry. SwampGremlin is playing as the Gauls and I'm playing as the Seleucids. There's a little bit of an effort on commentary during the first few minutes before I get absorbed by managing the game. 0 A.D. Multiplayer: Prodigalson & LordigorIIIOfKiev vs theMario & erejum31 A 2v2 with an unexpected twist, having the player considered weaker during team set-up decide the outcome. Myself as the Mauryans, Lordigor as the Iberians, theMario as the Macedonians and erejum31 as the Athenians.

While there's no need to directly copy one of those, the game has to get a fine balance between micro and macro if it is to get successful.

One more, 0 A.D. Multiplayer Commentary: yray & Varrus vs Philosopher & Parkour3k Observing and commenting a game between 4 players I had never played with before. Includes some tips on mistakes that might be useful to some of the participants and new players in general. It's on alpha 17, game map is Watering Holes. Commentary starts at 0:55.

Currently the biggest issue imo is the combat roles for some units: Elephants are too weak for their cost and only semi-useful vs structures (very weak vs troops).Melee infantry isn't that useful in it's supposed main role, doing the core combat... as ranged units do that. Which is very unrealistic for the ancient era. Instead, with the reduction on building hack armor, melee infantry now do the same percentage of damage vs buildings with siege weapons on average, and that added to mass-ability and mobility makes them the game's effective siege weapons, with a secondary meat-shield role in ranged unit wars. I'd suggest an increase of around 25% to structure hack armor.Ranged units are still a little op, especially ranged cav (not to A16 levels though). Imo they all need to do less dps than melee, be even more weaker in defense (compared to melee), be cheaper and get balanced along those lines. They were almost exclusively support units, but in the current state of the game almost all players focus on them. Furthermore they need far more differentiation from each other, but I've wrote on this before and seems it's a bit early for such changes.

Well I wasn't actually suggesting that:p. You got wrong (or I phrased it wrong) that I wrote about doing it with a corral tech, what I ment was that the corral already has a cavalry-related tech. I can see that it could also work with an unlocking tech though. What I ment was that using the corral as a requirement for cavalry will delay it's training, not encourage it. Especially if coupled with a slight nerf on their food gathering rate, which seems needed. At the same time since the corral produces sheep they can slaughter and has a cav tech, it would fit for a cav-related strategy. It would make sense as a "stable" providing horses for the majority of civs which don't have one, and since many herding societies were quite strong on cavalry as well, the sheep + cav combo doesn't estrange me.

Congrats team:)

I might make a Peloponnesian Wars scenario if triggers prove easy to use (haven't checked them yet). Btw your Peloponnesian Wars screenshot isn't accurate, those wars didn't include Rome, it was Athens (and allies) vs Sparta (and allies). Nice contest overall, hope everyone has fun with it and it adds some nice maps to the game:)

One more, 0 A.D. Multiplayer: Prodigal Son vs LordigorIIIofKiev I didn't plan to upload this, as the game start included some unwanted external voices and it generally didn't turn out that good, but since Lord will upload his, here's my perspective, with a little bit of it cut off. I'll eventually include a link to his video. The commentary is rather lacking, doing it live during a multiplayer game proved rather hard for me, but... trying will help me get used to it. This video serves to remind me (or anyone else on the same boat) one thing: Never underestimate your opponent. I saw his low rating and win percentage and was playing rather lazily, while random choice gave me Britons which I'm not familiar with. He chose the Persians. Map is Random-Mainland and game version is A17 (SVN). View to see the outcome.

I was wondering about that but always forgot to ask.

A nice time travel indeed:) I don't think Civic Centers should be restricted to settlements, AOM like. Being able to place them wherever you want is more strategic (and realistic), it rewards good placement, punishes bad placement, and makes scouting more important than having to monitor/fight over a just few majorly important points. The current way every part of the map has the potential to be important, even ones without resources and that brings more variety from game to game instead of a repetition of focused fights.

I've recorded a tutorial commentary on early game economy, which might be useful to new players or those struggling with it. It also doubles as a chance for you to mock my terrible English and newbie self-recorder's anxiety:p. Feedback is very welcome:) It's on current SVN, which should be exactly the same with the upcoming Alpha 17 release.

They're not that bad:) The models are very nice actually, even if they could use some extra detail. The textures are quite lacking though, you could work more one them or get someone good with texturing to help you.

Is anyone up for a game on svn? I'm trying to learn/improve recording commentary videos but it feels boring on single player.