Mythos_Ruler

The Seleucid Empire lasted 250 years (30 years longer than the Persian Empire), while Alexander's lasted less than a decade. It was the Seleucids who truly brought Hellenism to the East. It was the Seleucids who participated in the epic battles at Raphia and Magnesia, using massive war elephants and huge 40,000-member armies. I'm not saying the Samnites and Etruscans are not important, but they just don't have the massive international reach that the Seleucids had. The Seleucids bring a grand scale that the Etruscans and Samnites do not.Yes, they influenced Rome, I'll give them that, but are they more important than the Seleucids who had an empire of tens of millions of people and who fought against half a dozen of the factions currently in the game (Mauryans, Romans, Gauls, Greeks, Macedonians) or being planned (Ptolemies, Parthians)? I'm not saying the Etruscans and/or Samnites couldn't or shouldn't be added, but the Seleucids make more sense for an empire-building game like 0 A.D. To be honest, in addition to the Seleucids, I'd love the game to also have Etruscans, Samnites, Thebans, Syracusans, Thracians, Pontus, Armenians, and Illyrians, and then split the Iberians into the Lusitanians and Celt-Iberii.

Gonna disagree there. The Seleucids had an empire that spanned thousands of miles and brought Hellenism to the East. They had a highly developed and diverse army that fought against the Ptolemies, Macedonians, Romans, Gauls (Galatians), various Greeks, and Mauryans. They're a perfect faction to include after the Ptolemies.

Indeed. And 0 A.D. Part 2 will have Imperial Romans facing off against Republican Romans and Eastern (Byzantine) Romans and against Athenians and Spartans and Mauryan Indians, and Parthians vs. Achaemenid Persians, none of which makes absolute historical sense, but which gives greater range of opportunities for gameplay in single and multiplayer. If there are ever singleplayer campaigns, I don't see how more civs would hinder them, only expand the possibilities.

They don't have any bonuses against each other, so it was strictly stats vs. stats. The skirmisher has a slightly higher attack, so I would expect skirms to win. The benefit for archers is their range. You need them to have a good meat shield so they can stay out of the fight and slaughter from afar. Also, it was initially about 25 skirms vs. 10 archers, and half the time the archers were tasked to retreat (not firing themselves).

Knowing your computer specs would help the team diagnose the problems.

Seleucids make the most sense, since they connect the rest of the Mediterranean world with Mauryan India.

Some ideas for Mauryan technologies: Chanakya is a teacher, so he actually can "research" technologies from himself. Perhaps 4 broad technologies that take a long time to "research" (teach). He also empowers research for buildings he is tasked to empower (like the Egyptian "Pharaoh" unit in Age of Mythology). The Mauryan Fortress would have 4 unlocking techs based on the "four-armed army" philosophy, the Caturangabala. These techs would be exclusive, meaning you can only choose one of the four: Infantry / Cavalry / Chariots / Elephants. A player would choose one of these arms to specialize, unlocking a batch of techs based on their choice. For instance, the "Infantry" choice would unlock a batch of 4 infantry techs and 1 tech each for the other 3 arms. Choosing "Chariots" would unlock a batch of chariot techs and 1 tech for each other the other 3 arms.

Yep, Onagers seem to have been used earlier than first thought. Though, definitely not at the time of the Punic Wars, which is what the Part 1 Romans represent. Best to leave the Onager as an editor unit for now and give it to the Imperial Romans for Part 2. Helps differentiate the imperials from the republicans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QwtUeaTlxk

Here's a vid by a decent player who gives a good rundown. He makes some entertaining comments, but also assumes a lot. Not a bad thing to hear though, since it gives you an idea of what some players may assume is in the game.

Very difficult to watch. lol. Though, he does sound like Owen Wilson a little bit. Owen Wilson is playing 0 A.D., guise.

Roman eagles and standards would be cool. Another is the "Bones of Theseus" for the Athenians. http://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Heroes/Theseus/theseus.html "Generations pasted without much thought being given to Theseus. Then during the Persian wars Athenian solders reported seeing the ghost of Theseus and came to believe him responsible for their victories. The Athenian general Cimon received a command from the Oracle at Delphi to find Theseus's bones and return them to Athens. This he did and he was reburied in a magnificent tomb that also served as a sanctuary for the defenseless."

Need some confirmation from someone who is in the know. They're called "Laghu Aśvānīka" here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?466774-Preview-Taksashila-(Mauryan-Satrapy) Right. The Spartan player tends to make tons of swordsmen already, so probably better to give the bonus to their women, which also makes a little historical sense as the women were the "last line of defense" for the Spartans many times.

Just need a Sanskrit/Indian name for it. I think their swordsman could definitely be tweaked a bit, specifically a bonus vs. siege would be good, or give Spartan women a bonus vs. siege.

Perhaps a cavalry swordsman for them. Just use the swordsman textures and props. It'll help them in early/mid game with raiding and then help them in late game against enemy siege.

Dunno. I've heard plenty of comments about how 10 elephants can come through and steamroll everything. I suspect things with them will be in flux as things like trample damage and running amok are implemented.

How many archers? Nothing much should stand in the way of 30+ archers firing at you, not even a war elephant. Rams are a different story though, since they are mechanical.But elephants are more multi-functional than rams. Elephants tear down buildings, yes, but they also can kill most other units rather easily, so it made sense to make them a little more vulnerable by slowing them down a bit. Battering Rams themselves need their own balancing though.

Though I am no longer officially part of the team, I'll go ahead and commit these balance changes since I was thinking about them/working on them since before I left. Someone else will have to tweak from here, but at least it gets the ball rolling based on our discussion here. http://trac.wildfire...changeset/13196 I have: Slinger Reduced attack from 15 pierce to 10 pierce. Increased cost from 40 stone to 50 stone. Implemented 2x vs. ranged infantry and 1.5x vs. melee infantry. Fixed the range bug for all the Celtic advanced and elite slinger units. (the bug had the advanced and elites actually lose range, lol) Elephants Reduced their walk and run speeds to 5 walk (from 7) and 10 run (from 14). Fixed the Ptolemaic elephant description and gave proper attribution. Feel free to playtest and to take everything from here.

I was thinking 2x and 1.5x just to keep with the "primary counter & secondary counter" convention. If the attack is reduced the right amount, then they're just viable against their counters and slaughtered by anything else, which is probably what we want. I really don't think it'll take that much playtesting. Balance is important, even at this stage, but there are still many other things the team members want to add to the game, so they are very busy on those things, plus their own personal lives*.*This is really the biggest issue at the moment. Many of the chief developers have other distractions to contend with as far as I can tell, which is a big problem for a non-paid voluntary team like WFG.

Depends what you have to do or want to do in the late game. Are you hard-pressed and want to defend? Build Fortresses and walls and stuff. Are you in attack mode? Mass slingers if you want to (no sense in using the stone to build fortresses in your territory if you're knee-deep in enemy territory and have them on their heels).I'll make the point that you probably wouldn't be making your argument if this whole time the slinger stone cost was 50 stone instead of 40 stone. Anyway, since I'm no longer on the team someone else will have to make the stats adjustments. Have fun.

An additive solution (in addition to something else, like the revamped Night's Watch tech that unlocks arrow shooting from wall turrets), is that the Iberians can start with, say -300 stone from normal. This takes into account somewhat the "free" nature of their circuit wall. So, in low resource games they start with 0 stone and then in higher resource games they start with 300 less stone than everyone else. Maybe 1000 less in Death Match.

Well, now you're talking about swapping the skirmisher and slinger. That's fine. Felt silly to me to just move the slinger to Town and then not replace it with anything in Village. Though, historically, slingers in Athens would have been low-born poor citizens, while skirmishers were hired mercenaries from Thrace, making it more realistic to have the slingers at village phase. But that's not really a huge consideration, just a minor one. Well, okay. The game is in alpha, btw. Balancing happens in beta. No harm in thinking about balance at this stage, but don't get too upset if no one else is jumping all over your suggestions. Anyway, "tackling the root problem" regarding the slinger would entail changing its stats to make it balanced rather than just moving it to a later phase, which is what we are now discussing since I chose to tackle it head on here. The problem with the team at this stage is that there is no one willing to make the changes in a consistent manner. It would be good if someone (quantumstate, pureon?) took up that mantle. I'd keep the bonus as-is and playtest with the suggested stats changes first. If those changes are insufficient, then perhaps 2x vs. just ranged infantry and 1.5x vs. melee infantry or something like that. If still OP, then maybe 1.5x vs. infantry.