wowgetoffyourcellphone

Dunno bro. I've used it in DE and saw the AI massing a giant invasion army or his citizens building a civic center expansion where I had not seen his units previously. The relative costs can also be adjusted so that it's more attractive.

I'd really like it if individual (non-shooting) wall joints (we call them towers currently) could be individually upgradeable to shooting towers.

This is surely a bug, but maybe we can just call it a feature. lol

Great post. I could see the Sasanids going into either base game Part 2 or M_A.D.

IMHO, a tech can be niche and only "useful" in maybe 10% of games and we could still include it, but obviously if only <1% of players ever use it, then that's a big problem. Why can't we do what I suggest (extend the effect to all units) for a release cycle and see if it's an improvement. If it's not enough to be marginally useful, then we can retool it. We could also do something like the tech is auto-researched the moment you train a Hero (easy to implement) as an additional bene to training a hero.

One of the reasons we should expand the Spy feature to include all non-hero units (not just land traders-a silly nerf).

IMHO, adding some kind of mechanic just to balance champ cav is too much. Perhaps Caltrops can be a tech that adds an attack bonus vs. Cavalry for infantrymen.

Indeed, I'd like to add garrison flags for ships.

Unlock_females (at houses) stands at 10%, lol

That's what I mean, there are more Naval skirmish maps than what you mentioned.

I think number of items is a fine enough improvement, but length of time is better if achievable. If not, I'm perfectly happy with the incremental improvement. Good job.

Skirmish maps?

In a 4-phase game (like my mod), I'd agree. However, the base game of 0 A.D. focuses on creating action as soon as possible. Scout Ships are super weak (or can be made to be more so).

I'll mention that in my first draft the techs were a lot more impactful. ;*

I would very much like to reduce warship size by 25%, which I believe would reduce collisions and weird overlapping noticeably (but of course not eliminate it, that requires more pathfinding work).

I'd say almost 100% of games of 0 A.D.'s type have no garrison effects for ships. Because it's not a "crew." The ship already comes with a crew. The garrisoned are passengers, not rowers. This is possibly a concern, but we were proactive in mitigating this with the tech tree. See: Flaming Projectiles for those civs without Fire Ships or Siege Ships. There was some thought put into this, despite the implications in this thread. It's also funny that you say melee ships are OP when another much better player is saying arrow ships are OP. I'd be down for moving Siege Ships to Town Phase. So, my generic proposal would be: Phase 1 Fishing Boat Purse Seine Salt Curing Merchant Ship Scout Ship Lookouts Shipwrights Phase 2 Arrow Ship Melee Ship Siege Ship Phase 3 Arrow Ship Tech Melee Ship Tech Siege Ship Tech

Tangentially related: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7666

Well, let's try the former before the latter. Yeah, we can rebalance this with health/armor/bonuses. I agree. I'd like to redo the tech tree. Also, there's a problem with presentation of the techs where in other games the tech that affects a specific unit is placed right below that unit. In 0 A.D. this is not possible. Please, someone code this. Asked for it for 10 years. Huh? What's this? AFAIK, every civ that had a siege ship before still has a siege ship. Possibly. My original design for this had Scout Ships available in P1. I forget why that was changed. But Scout Ships aren't supposed to be effective against other warships, at least. It's a scout ship. But perhaps it should have an attack bonus vs. civvie ships.

Ima be honest whichall. Old system ain't coming back, lol. So, focus on making the new system better. Thanks @chrstgtr for his analysis and suggestions (I have quibbles, but w/e). Any new overhauled system is gonna be trash in the first iteration (see: capture/attack balance). This alpha changed a lot of things. Keep playing and give suggestions to improve the changes besides "changing it back." There are many valid reasons for the new changes that aren't invalidated by an awkward 1.0

I'm not understanding this one.

Well, at some point you have to actually design the game. Not everything can be an option.

Ah, I assumed that's what you wanted for default. My bad.

What would you do to achieve the current shift-click behavior? just deprecate it? No es bueno, senor.

Checkboxes next to the objectives of the scenario, etc.

It could very easily have been a more accurate simple design and done the same thing visually.