Tango_

Shardas45 -> mmmmh, good question, didnt thought about it. i see 3 options : - the embassy and buildings around slowly loose pointlife as usually, and at the end are destroyed. - the embassy and buildings around slowly loose pointlife as usually, and at the end the building begin to win point life, but its now the building of the player in his territory... - the embassy and buildings around become gaia property, they can be destroyed (as when a player leave a game), or caught (if something like this become possible)

iNcog -> just decrease skirm cav lifepoints, decrease their damage shot , and why not increase women life point would have been(i think) easier to do than to put melee cav and spearmen for everyciv. or , just increase skirm cav cost, that is to say increase their cost to 200ressources for each one, and increase their pop place (actually1) , to 2 Actually, by doing melee cav and spearmen for all at age1, it really looks like aoe3 (about gameplay)

Sanguivorant-> in late game, i think women have done their job , so i never hesitate to suicide some of them to make soldiers And, if this tech should be implemented, its better to do it for everyciv

CC is a good defend for your farms. wood spot are not defended by CC arrows... wood spot have to be defend by units, especially sprearmen and i think that's worther than ranged cav unit problem, because, if you rush skirm cav, your opponent can do the same. with the solution you have, romans and iberians cant hold on.

if skirm cav is only trainable at age2, civ which dont have any spearmen at age1 (romans, iberians...) have a considerable disadvantage -> their only way to counter melee cav rush; will be to train melee cav too, when other civs wont have to train anything especially, because it fals within the meaning that spearmen will be trained yet.

Hephaestion->"Though I see the embassy would be very attractive to be attacked by the enemy as all your buildings in ally territory would decay quickly thereafter"Sure, but thats the same for CC ... A,d dont forget the embassy shoud be build in your ally territory, and, your ally have at least a CC close to it. so there's still defense. Lion.Kanzen->ok, so wait and see

Hephaestion -> "Embassy is no bad idea, but too much art work for our team of only 2..4 artists. If you can reinforce the team e.g. by recruiting, then it might be different." I can understand that this embassy represents a huge work, but i think this idea really worth it. about recruiting, i'm a noob at computer science, and know anybody really good at, so... "I think allowing to build more buildings in allied territory is better. And you always can send gatherers as those can already use the allied storehouses if I'm not wrong." About allowing more building, i dont agree. If you build an embassy, it aims to take the fight. so, it only needs military production units, or some defense buildings( but only really simple : wood walls, outpost...), and why not storehouse (if we consider that the embassy cant be used as a stock place). I see this embassy as the building which allows you to build in your ally territory, so it means its not yours, you're just present on your ally territory to help, this should not be the place you will make your eco... But nothing prevent you to build a CC near your ally ... Moreover, if me and my ally should put our building on the same restricted zone, its gonna be a huge @#$%house ( cause we dont always have the time to place our building precisely) About the storehouse, on the actual A16, its not possible yet. "Sending soldiers to the ally, the ally then can control as mercenaries is also helpful?" This seems to be a really good idea, especially when your ally is in a bad situation, and that he needs some units to make his eco. But i think it gonna be badly used. I'm sure some teams gonna accord on the principle that one fights and makes little economy, and the other doesnt fight, makes a huge economy and stays hidden behind huge walls. if this last one send constantly units to his ally as mercenaries, the ally fighting will hold on againt the opponents, however it wont be a 2v2, but a 2 (each opponent army) vs 1 (double army). so it gonna kill the game on my mind. If you can use your ally storehouse, an option as " 1) ressources go in my own stock. 2) ressources go in my ally stock" would be interesting, and bearing the first situation. Lion.Kanzen -> So in the situation you quote, i suppose you all were age 3 ? Then i understand why you think stone wall should be buildable in ally territory (spartans hoplites ). Why the embassy could not have some improvement? something as: -age 1/ age 2: only barracks, stables (and storehouse), and an improvement which allow to build outpost and wood walls near or on the border -age 3 : same as age1/age2, and another improvement which allow you to build stone walls and defense towers near or on the border, and why not fortress?

Lion.Kanzen -> i agree with you, but i personnaly think that only wood walls should be buildable... dont forget that the ally who has built the embassy, still isnt in his territory ... then, only the dude who has build the CC or the Colony could build stone wall (because he is "at home")...zzippy -> sure dude My proposition is only based on my 0AD feelings, and only aims to increase team work, if somebody has another idea, i would enjoy to read , and analyze it.

This is my personnal point of view, certainly not true for everybody>>>I agree with cuyo on the principle, because i actually think that, for example, 2v2 are more two 1v1 in the same game than a real 2v2. I explain myself: One of the famous "strategy" (and probably the most used generally) is to build a civic center next to your opponent. Thanks to this , you can put pressure on him, and hope to beat him. So in 2v2, your ally should more or less do the same : both players expanding simultaneous on the same opponent is something i've never seen (still in the way that you age2 and build CC before fighting). The fact that each player can only build in his own territory prevent some real 2v2 battles, because allies cc (were troups are sensed to be) generally aren't so close from each other ( at least at the beginning of age 2). so, indeed, i think, and personnaly see 2v2 as a double 1v1. SO, build in your ally territory should be something interesting. And I think i have a potential solution : An embassy . I see things like this: -The embassy is a building that you can build in your ally territory, and which allow you to build some buildings around it. -The embassy should have a considerable cost, to not be abused or OP. -The embassy allow to build only military production buildings ( barracks, stables, and why not fortresses?). -The embassy give to his builder a zone (not his territory) where he can build. This embassy zone should be fully in the ally. territory -> no embassy buildable on your ally border and no man's land (or opponent border) to win territory. Thanks to the embassy, allies are on the same field, so , your opponent ally will have to help. then we gonna have 2v2 battle, with a real team work. These 2v2 battles are i think the most important thing in RTS multiplayer games, because, it is together that you win, not alone. Furthermore, the embassy concept could allow some new team strategies, and this time really thought (not the usual romans rush at 5min with 30 swords, that you and your ally do together, on the same ennemy = efficient, but boring.). Just 2 examples: > I go age 2 asap, and my ally build army. when i am age 2, i run to build a cc near one of my opponent. CC built. My ally build embassy and a barrack (or stable) when i put some defense towers on the borders. When my ally fight, i build my eco, or an army, or think to age. > Me and my ally know we gonna be rush. So, one of us aims to go age 3 asap. To be short : play as usually, and at a moment my opponents build cc near me. i defend the best i can. i know i wont hold on. my ally, still in the way to go age3 asap ( as the offensive is on me), come and build an embassy in my territory to help to hold on. Conclusion : This Embassy is just my personnal idea, which can improve the game, on my mind. On the one hand, it would increase the team work, and would increase the intensity of the games. On the other hand, thanks to this embassy many strategies, based on team work, could emerge.

"If you had units there to build the CC, why did you let his three units build their walls instead of just killing them and then continuing to build the CC without having to worry about any walls?" ---> because these walls are built very fast. because you will agreed with m that you cant always looked your cc being build. because i knew that if i kill them, he sent other to built them, then they would have been finished soon.

hi all First, i agree with zzippy's wish. "Actually, i think walls should be harder to destroy (except the door), but fire nothing except if they are guarded by mens. And there should be weapons that are able to makes mens pass over the walls without to destroy it." [Andjety] ---> so you want strongerwalls? ok, np, let me tell you something which happened to me: i was on a game. i age2 fast, then i send troups near the closer enemy( a carthaginian) to build a cc. he was slow, to slow to counter my offensive. he saw my cc building. what did he do? he came with 3 sldiers, and built 3 walls (so 2 of them are wall turrets) just in front of my cc. as he's carthaginian, these walls totally were 45000life points. also, my cc was dead and usefull, before to be built. why? just by shhoting, his walls will destroy my cc. the second thing, is that units i could product from this cc should have been really injured , just after being produced. finnaly, if i age 2 fast to put the pression on my ennemy fast, i'm really not able to go age3 asap, to product seige weapons and destroy these walls. ----> my cc was useless, he had yet won the game by this way, just with 3 walls. do you think this is fair? So here, you can understand that these walls are pretty cheated. "Well, if he has no doors, he will be starving (out of ressources) very fast. Puting 15 catapults (with + 5 bonus), protected by mens and cav will put this walls down enough fast. Without doors, he can't even attac the catapult with cav or a hero, so it should be very fast. " [Andjety] --->On the one hand, as somebody told you yet, even if he has no ressources, he could still continue his producction with merchandizing. pn the other hand, you say 15 catapults, some cav and infanry should be enough. ok, i agree. but tell me, when these walls will be down. what will you do? send an attack? ok, so, 1 catapult = 5pop. 5* 15= 75 pop, only for cata. so, after destroying walls, you're on the bad way for the battle, cause your ennemy has 75 free pop more than you.. then, you will send your cav. they will be shot by wall turret, and other tower or fortress. before to fight in his town, your enemy has a so biiiiiig advantage : -75pop more than you (cause of cata) - all your unit coming to the battle will be injured. -what tell you that your enemy wont build other wall during the battle, to close his townfortress? -during the time you were destroying his wall, with your cav and infantry next to your cata, as protection( so they're idle), your enemy can continue to gather ressources, as food which is an infinite ressources, then he can change this food on the market. so you have an economical disadvantage. SOOooo, if i follow you Andjety, i wont play anymore as i actually do. Now, i should develop my eco asap, make of my town the biggest fortess you've never seen, then begin to expand . be sure if i have to do that, that you will never see my first cc, unless you wait hours, in order me to be bored, then be afk, to attack my walls and eventually destroy my cc. Still in the game