Lion.Kanzen

Why the name? The polis was the city-state. It is a small order in the midst of external chaos. The polis, because of its scale, is overtaken by the tide of the cosmopolis. The Greek philosophers had spoken of the cosmopolis, the “world-city” in which all individuals are related to one another, regardless of country, race, or religion. But with the coming of the Hellenistic age. The idea of a cosmopolis is also used to describe cities or regions that have a global influence and act as centers of cultural and economic exchange. So if the second phase is a polis and the third a big city, the fourth should be a cosmopolitan city. In ancient times, the term "cosmopolis" referred to a city that was considered "universal" or "global," that was the center of a culture and that often attracted people from all over the known world. In ancient Greece, the term "cosmopolis" was used to describe cities such as Athens, which were considered the center of culture and civilization. Similarly, in ancient Rome, the city of Rome was considered a cosmopolis because of its political, cultural and economic importance in the Mediterranean world. In the Ancient Ages, the term "cosmopolis" was used to describe cities that were the center of cultural and social life and attracted people from all over the known world. Alexandria was one of the most important cities of antiquity and is considered a cosmopolis because of the diversity of cultures, languages and religions that coexisted there. Founded by Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, it became the capital of the Ptolemaic Kingdom and one of the main commercial and cultural centers of the Mediterranean world. The city had an important library and museum, where scientists, philosophers and literati from different parts of the world met to exchange knowledge and develop new ideas. In addition, Alexandria was an important port connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea and India, making it a meeting point for diverse cultures and civilizations. Alexandria was also an important religious center, as it was home to various temples and sacred sites of different religions, including the cult of Serapis, a syncretic god that combined elements of Egyptian and Greek religion.

we are in time to add a fourth phase. The Cosmopolis.

I leave the aforementioned battles. I've done those tactics in multiplayer myself.I understand that many players get frustrated by an early rush like this. The turtle tactic is not so used in 0 A.D.

That's why I talk in another post about giving more power to infantry, both spearmen and swordsmen. And reduce early game ranged attacks, and melee cavalry early in the game is economically unfeasible. I think it can be enhanced with upgrades in the smithy or production buildings. I watched the MarcAurel and Cronelius multiplayer fights. Almost all of the early was ranged cavalry, and that has been the meta for several alphas. I'm thinking about ranged anti-cavalry tactics. There is not much that can be done, other than making anti missile formations(shield wall). Adding missile infantry in rear and defenses. It would be interesting if the defenses were more viable against a ranged cavalry rush.

AoM in 0AD I command the spear cavalry and they make no difference against ranged units. They make differences against those of range cavalry.

That's ok. The problem is not that there are no such weapons, it's that archery is not very popular in many of them. That is why it is necessary to include range infantry in a single pack.

I'm just using the game diagram. I can use the AoE II. it's more troublesome.

this pillar should be what defines the game. Spearman vs spear cavalry vs skirmisher/archer. With these 3 counter is enough.

Spain is basically Castile, Leon, Aragon, Navarre and Portugal.

honestly the counters should be at the basic triangle of units. AoE IV it has that from the beginning. it's basically the core of the game in combat.

on the contrary, they do not resist them.

Lots of hybrid units will look better with two types of attack when implemented.

Crossbowmen are good for quickly finishing off infantry units. I still think that a 1.2 X counter of melee cavalry vs ranged infantry should be used.

I'm not complaining, that's fine. That style suits 0 A.D.

Slingers and skirmishers should take more missile damage from defenses. But less damage from infantry. This with only two types of attacks very difficult to adjust. Because it would mean they would have to have more piercing armor which would be what most skirmishers and slingers wear as shields. But in a combat against a melee unit they should take less damage. Therefore they are only useful to more or less back up the siege and be more or less a kind of cannon fodder for the towers as it similar with infantry even more. (It should be taken into account that melee infantry would gain experience base and improve their resistance against towers). Now the difference between the javelin and the slingers would be that the slingers would give more damage to the towers (crush damage). Certain Hellenized units like teurophoros and pelsalts would basically wear armor. So basically they would hold up much better in combat against archers. Therefore to be useful archers should not only be useful at a distance but also be cheap (the citizen soldiers). In the case of slingers and javeliners they should also be cheap but have much less health. Since they were recruited from low classes but as they gain experience they become much tougher units.

The 0 A.D icons are based on Age of Empires III icons. There is no way around that. I have a feeling that the claim is coming from somewhere else. I mean it's already something unrelated to what you suggested.

I don't think so.

I would prefer to remove rate of fire from archers. Especially mounted archers. Or have less accuracy.

He had fun, but I must give him more learning space. In the middle of the game he had 29 units in the second phase vs 117 of mine.

Me(Chandy) vs Gismox - Multiplayer Don't expect a big battle, I was teaching him how to play. Still, he didn't want to learn. He asked me why there was a game like AoE.

3x is very exaggerated.

A28? because we are in bug fix phase.

in Spanish too.

I made a small summary with the help of the ai. During the Formative Maya period, which extended from around 1500 B.C. to 250 B.C., Maya communities began to settle in the Mesoamerican region. During this time, sustainable agriculture developed, allowing the cultivation of corn, beans and squash. Small villages and towns were also established, and stone and mud architecture began to be built. The Formative period also saw the establishment of the foundations of Maya religion and mythology, as well as the early use of writing and the calendar. The first monuments carved in stone also date from this period. After the Formative period, the Classic Maya period began, which extended from around 250 BC to 1 BC. During this time, the Maya built great cities and monuments in the Mesoamerican region, and there was a great flourishing of architecture, writing, art, and mathematical and astronomical sciences. A centralized system of government also developed, with city-states that governed themselves but often came into military conflict with each other.

that is what I meant by the fact that the game lacks a lot of maneuverability and the melee units die very quickly. That's why I want to make the melee units last long enough on the battlefield to be able to make tactical moves.