LordGood

lead slingers could outrange archers in the right conditions (up to 300 yards), but only lead slingers. Lead slingers can be reserved for mercenary/champion roles. Stone slingers may have a shorter range (60-80 yards), but they would fill the role quite fine as 'light archers'

We should be sparing with unit counters. Before the soft system it was all some units were good for, everything had a counter applied to it regardless of whether or not it was needed. Good discussions here, I like the involvement.

attack rate/attack range/speed/armor(type effectiveness)/counter bonuses

last I recall turning rate, if it is changeable in template, does not affect travel direction or attack orientation.

Many siege towers had rams, the persian ram is based off of an Assyrian stelae depiction of a siege tower, typically the further down the tower, the heavier caliber siege weapons were mounted, including rams. However siege towers like the helepolis were made to clear and capture walls. comically slowly

If a fortress falls or a player is defeated, expensive and slow siege weapons will be left stranded. I would favor buildable units instead of trained ones if they'd be spawned from units. I like the extremely slow siege idea, and the cross-civ rams. We may need to make that a new offhand art project. The unit siege attack idea feels awfully hacky though, and I don't believe its necessary at the moment. I'm not sure when or why pierce damage made its way back into spearman/pikeman attack values, IMO that should be reserved for ranged units

Construction on the field is ideal, I'm thinking of feasible short term solutions that can be easily compromised on. Also lets not let historical accuracy get in the way of gameplay, I'm beginning to learn the error of that train of thought the hard way. If we don't move on an issue because the alternative's details are inaccurate we won't see any movement at all. pushing machines to the siege site, probably not building machines out of thin air on site might seem a bit hacky but ok sounds fun pulling materials to the site to be constructed before pushing in the finished machine very slowly, more likely?

As it stands, Rams and Siege towers behave like tanks on the field instead of strictly siege units, as they ought to be, I would propose a similar fix as is had with catapults and bolt shooters, a vulnerable mobile stage and a painfully slow attack stance. Moving packed siege across large swaths of territory wont be as tedious if we were to just drop unit speed to something more realistic, something we can save for its unpacked variation. Discuss if you would, I have a long standing gripe with rams and haven't played A23 enough to get a feel for how their latest iteration is, so my opinion is likely both biased and outdated.

Why is this in game modification?

The houses do not mix well, I do think administrative buildings could use an overhaul/variations. Now that we have Kush in game we'll retain the Egyptian flavor if we fix the Ptolemaic set

Those are some strong lads lol. I'd go for a smaller log with handles and let the weight hang from their shoulders instead of breaking their backs

If anyone has ideas for that, feel free to pitch them. it could be a cool champion training building, but we have no champions for the zapotecs yet

well the Zapotecs have champion healers with a powerful aura, I'll have to make a note of the larger canoes for light warships.

you cant spam wonders anyhow, I dont think the polycount is too big of an issue. From what i remember the hanging gardens are enormous too. also wicked pissa job on that wonder dayum

This seems to be crusader-era. It resembles hospitaller castles imo maybe a rehash of ayasoluk castle?

I don't think so, I used Ghibelline Italian references for that model, not Greek. You could do something interesting with their polygonal fortifications, which was a neat compromise between the time consuming pain of planning and building rounded fortifications, and the inherent weakness sharp corners brought in squared fortifications

Roman barracks is not a good precedent, since it defies the standard barracks layout. It needs to be replaced. Your walls look a bit rough, look to real world fortifications for reference on crenellated battlements

BUT I JUST STOPPED USING IT AAAAGH

If you wanted to mess with this @wackyserious@Alexandermb, threw it together real quick. forgot textures baked at 1024 so the norms a bit big

I don't know about that chainmail texture, chainmail is fairly dense.That's an interesting effect though

Cavalry animations are already fixed, courtesy of @Alexandermb you should see them in the upcoming release

The carolingian texture pack needs some work, hate to see you struggle with it when some texture wrenching will make these and future buildings much easier

wattle walls, fences, baskets, firewood, tools and such would really liven up this building set. Washed fabrics hanging out to dry from the windows or outdoor cordage, buckets. the little prop section on most of our vanilla texture packs should do you some good service in that regard

Your spec map is way too bright and the normals are weirdly desaturated everywhere but on the stone texture, that might be messing with your parallax

Upgradable walls would be neato