wowgetoffyourcellphone

I'll look at the footprint sizes. I've often thought that palisade gates need to be wider, even in the base game.

I think there could be a distinction between Attack Ground (where you target a specific point or area on the ground terrain) and Attack Group (drag-selecting a bunch of enemy units to tag them as preferred targets).

Towers are ridiculously easy to capture if they are ungarrisoned, but then if they are garrisoned they are ridiculously difficult to capture and ridiculously difficult to destroy without siege. But your troops default to capturing behavior so they get massacred needlessly. The implementation of the capturing mechanic in the game is supremely frustrating and it's one of my chief criticisms of the "game design", such as it is.

Healthiest first

I imagine in the civ json the "capitol" civic center name could be dictated, or a small list of good capitol names (capitol being the starting civic center).

Romans didn't employ many mercenaries during the epoch of the game (though, they did do it from time to time; Balearic Slingers and Cretan Archers for example). About half of their armies were made up of Roman citizens, and the other half made up of local allies (local to the theater of war; the Pergamenes and Rhodians in the East for example, Numidians in North Africa), and their Italian subjects (the "Extraordinarii" were picked from this group). Later, the Social War in Italy would force Rome to make all free Italians into Roman citizens, increasing manpower for the legions ten fold.

Lol no. Just my suggestion.

Tell me Blizzard didn't have playstyles in mind when they designed the civs for Starcraft. Tell me Westwood didn't have playstyles in mind when they designed the civs for Command & Conquer.

I would like to see a mid-game "Spartan Phalanx Push" be just as viable as an early game "Britons Slinger-JavCav Rush." Spartans wouldn't be locked-into that strategy, but their military would be generally geared towards it. As much as Macedonians would be more geared toward a late-game combined arms approach, and Persians heavy on cavalry and Mauryas relying on massed archers, augmented by War Elephants and Chariots later.

He does it to everything I post.

Zeugites.

I'm pretty sure the main weapons of heavy cavalry were spears and lances, not swords (swords were side arms). So spear cav should be ur main melee cav unit in the game, not sword cavalry, which are largely apocryphal and only included to pad out the unit classes.

Having sword cav be your mainline cavalry unit doesn't make sense historically.

The "stone thrower" could be a "slinger" class unit, but with higher attack, slower attack, and shorter range. Just one suggestion.

Honestly I thought Spear Cav should be the main line cavalry, with Sword Cav being the counter cav. Similar to Spear Infantry being the mainline heavy infantry and Sword Infantry being the counter inf. Archers the mainline light Infantry with Jav Infantry or Slinger Infantry being the counter ranged.

Metal is relatively more plentiful now though.

Cyrus and Boudicca are out of Empires Ascendant's timeframe too. Unless a better alternative could be found, Temple at Uppsala could definitely be a good choice.

Examples from some popular games^

I personally don't like long research times, but longer than the standard 40 seconds would be good. In DE, upgrading ranks adds extra cost to most of the units, so I for sure agree with that element. Perhaps additional train time would be enough. We could "self balance" Blacksmith techs by making them a little cheaper but add extra cost to the soldiers they affect. I think the Elite upgrades would be reserved for those units that civ is known for. Hoplites for Greek civs, Archers or Cavalry for Persians, Swordsmen for Romans, etc.

This is overblown. One's suitability to join the army on campaign was often predicated on economic status and age. Middle class Greeks and Romans did serve in the infantry, but lower peasants and those too young and too old often did not. A certain number of upper class citizens had to provide cavalry for the army, but those were often the sons of the landowners and serving in the cavalry could be avoided by being willing to supply additional horses. Often a campaign did not necessitate a "full call-up" of available manpower either. Full call-ups usually only occured during times of severe national emergency or siege. Athens could only field 10,000 hoplites from a population of 30,000 citizens and 100,000 non-citizens for the "national emergency" Marathon campaign. And Gauls had a warrior class, separate from the peasantry.

Could be as simple as making it +1 pop instead of +2 pop.

Hey guys. My mod was never intended to be woke, progressive, or to "right historical wrongs," or to reduce female representation, remove/promote misogyny/misandry, or anything pro/con politically or socially. I just felt it made more sense to have male and female variants of civilian citizens, aka "villagers." That's pretty much the extent. I think it also just looks cooler to have male and female villagers working side-by-side.

Well, male gatherers make more sense, historically, than female soldiers. True, but then that would then be turned into the Citizen Rush. Agreed there. I would just merge the two-gender citizen mod into the base game, so you don't have to install a mod.

I think they are a step up from ours though. They look a lot denser and I like how the farmer moves around and harvests the grain and new green stalks grow in place.

Clicky -> https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/0-A.D.-Alpha-24---Two-Gendered-Citizens