Tango_

serveurix -> there's a huge difference between rushing under the 5 first minutes, and harass after 10minutes... rushing aims to kill asap, to prevent long and boring games. harass aims to little by little, take the economical advantage on your opponent, to this difference in the battles, in your favor of course. considerable difference, that you dont seem to see. I'm up to show you what rush aims in a game. i'm not advocating rush, just saying my opinion. try some RTS games as aoe3, you'll see that in 7 mins (except if noob games) the opponent will be there, and not with 1 cav. For me , RTS games = rush , so a no-rush at all game is useless to play, in my opinion. For me, no rush game is finally , first simcity "bla bla, oh, how beautiful my city is!!!!! love that !" , then becomes only battle game, as total war. Games like 0ad, aoe... allow to make city, and in same time doing battles. If you dont want any rush, then ask developpers to create a no rush kind of game, or fix the rules before starting playing. Finally, if you want to prevent rush at all, let me tell you this: -age1 is useless: indeed, you cant fight in age1 without cavalry, as you cant make another cc, and build military production building closer to the opponent. -some tech will be useless, as the berries one, only usefull at the first age, cause it brings you a bushes (only) gathering bonus -> at age 2, you got farm tech. -you kill all the strategy of the game. yes, all the strategy. see: actually, if you're rushed, it means your opponent has eco disadvantage, so he'll try to damage your eco, to reduce it, and finally take the eco advantage. against this, or you'll try to rush him , like he's rushing you, or you'll try to hold on this rush, keep defensive, and use another side of the game, to finally win. Indeed, personnaly, if i'm rushed and dont want/cant answer at 1age, i'll try to go age2 asap to make some defense towers on my spot, to be safe, then i'll be aggressive. - lets imagine no rush at all in 0ad: what people will do? go age 2 asap, maybe to have cavalry, right? but, there arent many differences between age1 and age2 (only some buildings and some tech), and age1 units are yet the counter of cavalries... A good player at first age1 can hold on against another who's age2, cause a age1 player has nothing "special" to fear against a age2 player (except something as tower rush, but , still based on the buildings, not on the units). So, in my opinion, and if i would play a no-rush-at-all-0ad, my goal would not be to go age2 asap, but to go age3 asap (Age 3 is really interesting (compare to age2) : heros, champions units, fortresses (buildings, but which buildings!)...). so to go age3 asap, i would prefer stay age1 longer, click age2 when i have many military units to hold an eventual tower rush, or whatever age2 strategy my opponent can make. Like this, arrived at age2, i build my phaze buildings, and click age3 asap. In the hypothesis when my opponent had tower rush me, as i'm age3, i'll send some units near his first base, to build my 2nd cc, while i hold on the battlefield near my base, by making a fortress... now i'm in a better position than my opponent. to be short, if you do 0ad no rush at all, age1 is just useless. everybody will go age3 asap, to have champions and fortresses (especially because a player who's at age2 cant hold on if his opponent is age3) ... new strategies are created to answer to some others -> if almost everybody do the same... Where is the strategy ? How some new strategies can appear?

"You can always harass its traders and destroy its fields. There is a new farmland paradigm planned, which should make the farmland economy much harder to defend (fields taking a lot more space, and farming bonus/malus depending on the terrain) in the future. " i'm talking about the first age... by the way, you also say that traders and markets are available at this age... ? Or at age2 ? dont understand. And, to be honest, for me, rush = attack the opponent under the 5 first minutes, or, 7 or 8. Attacking traders or farms , or wood cutters after this timing, is not rushing at all, it's harassing. Important nuance to see, cause i'm talking about the rush, not about harassment. Whatever, rush should be in 0ad, even if almost all actual players hate it. I think the game havent to deal with this... But the players have to learn to counter somebody rushing them...

"thx, didn't know how the spread changes turn out. I wondered what less than 1 changes mean. Having no cavalry units in village phase looks okay to me. Perhaps make them all depend on a cavalry tech, which itself is auto-researched when town-phase is reached. (or make all cavalry depend on the town phase if that's prefered). You will find a solution." If there arent any cavalry at the first age, and if cavalry id only available at age2, it finally aims to kill the rush on 0ad. Rushing without cavalry is not a rush, or at least a really bad rush, infantry just walks too slowly... By the way, a RTS game where you cant rush, is in my opinion a bad RTS game. The fact you cant prevent or disturb the evolution of your opponent economy is huge mistake, cause rush is , to be short, the most important strategy in RTS game.

"Give Melee cavalry an anti ranged-cav bonus. Make them run faster than they do currently." i'm sorry auron, but melee cav are yet a really good counter against skirm cav. Maybe you just dontmanipulate them as they should be. Honestly, if you handle your melee cav well, the opponent skirm cav just look underpowered. i'm up to show you this in a game, and why not record it to "spead" this manipulation, and end with all these useless "melee cav are useless against skirm cav bla bla bla..."

Played svn this afternoon, did some games... Seems for the moment good. Really really appreciate ! "Things could be balanced further by removing ranged cav from Phase 1 and giving every civ a Phase 1 melee cav instead. Or look at ways and unit combos in Phase 1 that keep a simple rock/paper/scissors dynamic (that does not mean give every civ the same starting units, but look at different combos that can work; some civs have historical considerations too, they are important)." i have some ideas about the cav problem, at first age. first, having melee cav for all civ at age1, could be a solution, but would create some problem... just see romans: actually, take macedonians, make 10 cav , and go on the roman opponent and he's done -> romans only have skirm inf and sword inf, so almost impossible to counter. i think a good solution would be to increase the cost of the cav, more especially one of these 2 cost: -pop cost : that is to say that 1 cav unit, count as 2 in the population. it will necessarly involve more houses, so an undirectly increased cost of these cav. By the way, the rush would be later (need more time to mass the cav), or still so soon, but with less units. -ressources cost: something as 100food 60wood per cav could be good. same reasoning that for pop cost. Actually, playing with the units stats to have something balanced, isnt necessarly the good thing to do, in my opinion. indeed, reduce skirm cav stats to prevent an op skirm cav rush in age1, would necessarly involve a useless skirm cav in age 2 or age3. Unless some considerable stats improvements, available in the blacksmith. About the problem of the farm rushing, some people want to have skirm cav almost useless to destroy farms... i dont agree. indeed, in reality, a melee cav or a skirm cav, its the same: you've never seen a soldier on a cav destroying a farm with his weapon. So, i see 2 options: - farms cant be destroyed at all. So the rush only aims to ruin the eco, more especially the units, and why not some buildings -houses...) - farms can be destroyed, but not by skirm cav weapon, or melee cav weapon, but by the horse in itself: a cav could destroy a farm, just by passing on it. seems more realistic than using a weapon, and the problem " skirm cav can destroy a farm without being damaged.. bla bla bla" would not exists anymore, cause the skirm cav would have to act as a melee cav.

Peregriino -> yes, i use around 10 cav, a bit more. but, the most important is to care about your units, not really their number. for example, if with 6 units you manage to injured or kill some units of your opponent, without loosing any, you can consider you did good job .

hi all ! As many people see the skirm cav rush uncounterable by age 1 melee cav civilisation (macedonia and romans), you can see on my channel a video which show how to counter it. However, i didnt annotated this video to exactly explain how i did. That's why i bring you this new video, which is annotated, and which explain how i beat a skirm cav civ, with romans http://youtu.be/DsGZ-Mr7dJM Enjoy!

Hey folks ! a new video, multiplayer FFA. Enjoy

hey dudes ! another french here : D !

Hi all ! Enjoy and feedback ! http://youtu.be/kzqFJRPFMcE

40 persians champions is ridiculous for unlimited pop cap game, for the example

hey folks ! just an idea to share about formations. As they will allow an important advantage to its user, i fear that next alpha will be formation party... So, to prevent this, and to allow some "normal fights" without them, why not creating a technology named "battler order" which allow you to use these special formations (testudo , phalanx...). I personnaly see this tech available at the age2. any opinion dudes?

Hello everybody ! Bringing you new videos . These videos are what i call "Twin videos", that is to say that my opponent and i recorded our game. Then , each video show how we both played. Interesting to see what was wrong, and what make the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSh-aL0KkkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLgWtP6Ifbw Enjoy !

Peregriino -> first, of course melee cav worth nothing against spearmen. But, you need to know that a rush first aims to disturb your opponent (make him loose gathering time, destroy his farms...), so if you're romans against a skirm cav age 1 civ which have spearmen, think first to disturb. Kill some workers is of course the best, but disturb is your first goal. you should know too, that play a age 1 melee cav civ, against a age 1 skirm cav civ, is not really judicious (unless you agreed no rush 5min or 10min). If you still choose to do this, you can make skirm infantry , with 1 or 2 outposts on your wood spot (skirm cav rush aims to kill your wood eco). If you react fast enough, garison your(s) outpost (they each do 20 damage per arrow, so considerable advantage in the battle) and your other skirm inf will shoot. A no noob opponent will go back, and come back later with more (but you also have time to increase your skirm inf army to defend, or make others outpost(s) ). >>> if you have so melee cav near your wood spt attacked, send them, they will spear the opponent skirm cav, so your skirm inf will shot them without being damaged ... thats another +, which can make the difference globally, in this situation, and with romans, you should try to age 2 asap, to be able to product skirm cav. hope this was clear enough Enjoy !

Maxoen -> ca fonctionne, c'est juste qu'on s'y prenait mal. et ecris en anglais .it works, but we did it in the wrong way. and write in english

Hi everybody. Bringing you a new video, about formations. I advise you to read the description. http://youtu.be/giydS7IcdP4 Think to feedback please. Enjoy!

Hi all. This is a new video. This one is annotated with some remarks. Feedback are welcome! http://youtu.be/ToGiYbJl4IE Enjoy!

iNcog -> ahah, yes obs is working for me now ^^probably more videos coming soon

Hello everybody ! Here is my first 0ad video. Enjoy!

3FFA-> if spearmen , as you say, run faster (to be short), then spearmen gonna be OP againt melee cav and against ranged infantry unit

i'm still convinced that increase cav pop from 1 to 2 would be really benefits indeed actually, the problem with skirm cav is that they're op, and can be producted very fast if 1 cav take 2 pop in your globally pop, the skirm cav ruh will be retarded (cause you'll need more houses), so it lt time to your opponent to build a better eco, and so defend better moreover, if skirm cav take 2 pop per unit, the counter skirm inf > skirm cav will be really better respected, because you'll have 2 skirm inf against 1 skirm cav. it will be more balanced. If to this "solution", you add a little increased cost for skirm cav, the balance would be better again. About Incog's idea about balancing, i think you played aoe3 too much incog, and your gameplay ( i saw your vids) is aoe3 gameplay, not 0ad gameplay ^^ indeed, aoe3 was just a war game, 0ad is an historical war game. So, in aoe3, counters were really op. not really true in the reality: e.g : in aoe3, with a fast age3, if you product something as 10 french cuirassiers, you can defeat easily something as 50 or 75 strelets... wtf, where's the reality? nowhere. so, the counter balance in 0ad is better than in aoe3-> idk, i'm one of these strelets, i try to put the cuirassier down of his horse to kill him, instead of shoot at him to damage him almost not at all.. so i mean, actual 0ad coutners are all ok, except for skirm cav (but i bring a potential solution).

trading emissary -> i see it still as a kind of trolley, that you product from CC or your market. This emissary could have 2 goal: - be send next to your ally market (the one your are trading with) -> this emissary, when ready to work (after a short preparing time), looks as a kind of old time shop, whih allow a trading bonus (+5%, +10%, +15% ...) - be send in ally territory, whereever it is inside. you put it in place (preparing time), and it works as a little independant market only for trade. so this looks as an inferior market ( why not give it a trading malus? -5%, -10%, -15%...), which only allow you to trade. so that kind of emissary is a movable market, but this capacity include a disadvantage, this trading malus. Economic emissary : still the same, a kind of trolley that you send in your ally territory, on your ally spot, to increase gathering rate. 2 options: - this emissary is only a benefit or your ally: you come, put your emissary (still looking an old shop) near the spot ( food, wood, stone or metal) your ally use, to give him a little gathering bonus (" oh cool, my ally is close to me, i'll work harder", see you?), +5%, +10%, +15% ... - same process than the other economical emissary propostion, except that this option is only available if you can use your ally storehouse or farmstead or cc to stock ressources. still give a gathering rate bonus, but this time for you and your ally. So this gathering rate bonus should be inferior than in the other economical emissary proposition.

Hephaestion -> i see this emissary as a kind of trolley, with the emissary on it , or as a cav ,moving next to this trolley. You product this unit, or double-unit, from the CC or from a specific building that you should build. You have to send this unit in ally territory, when its there, put it where you want.Some details: -Depending if this emissary is buildable from CC or specific building, his price wont be the same. Of course more expensive if buildable from CC - to use this emissary, you have to be in ally territory only (not your , not no man's land), the process should be like the catas (a short(smthg as 10sec to give an idea) preparing time. - when preparing time is finised, you can use the trolley to product units (for the example of a military emissary). - this trolley can, after another preparing time, be moved, and "rebuild" further. - lifepoints should be weaker than a building as a barrack or a stable e.g

Another idea to increase team work, could be : an emissary. Indeed, emissaries were generally men who were send by a lord to his ally, or his enemy, to announce something. I think all civilisations had emissaries, or at least something which worked as. So, the historical base of 0AD would be respected, or improved. i think this emissary idea should more or less run as the embassy. Except that you should not build an embassy in your ally territory, but send an emissary. This emissary would still allow you to build in a delimited zone, or just to be your military production building in ally territory, which is still not your territory (just a zone where you can build.). Emissaries should have (relatively) high lifepoints, but less than a real military production building, to allow you to fight, but who could be "easily" killed. Emissaries cost should be well thought, to be high enough to dont abuse of it, and not too high to be buildable in usefull time. Why not differents kind of emissaries, where each have their own role (military, economic, trading...)? Why not create this emissary with a kind of little caravan, which allow to product unit only in the ally territory, or to do things (in function of the kind of emissary)? So? >>> this idea is i think easier for mods to do, and generally too (so could maybe appear sooner ?). but i'm still convinced that the embassy is the actual better solution