Mr.Monkey

@Stan` Hi! Thanks for the quick reply, I'm on Windows 10 64 bit. To be exact I'm on version 10.0.18363

Hi there, I recently got the urge to go back to this game to play with some friends, however I am getting this error when I try to open the game after installing. I have a Ryzen 3950x, if anyone here can help me out I would be incredibly grateful!

I agree, ptolemies have been very weak for awhile for that reason and also the fact that they can only spawn champions from fortresses. I haven't played Seleucids for a long time, I will be sure to test them out a bit tonight.

Hey guys just wondering what you all think on the new changes. What do you think has become stronger, what is weaker, and what is viable. Personally, even though I haven't played too much of a21, from what I could tell champs have been heavily nerfed (rightly so) when it comes to destroying buildings, which indirectly buffs rams and crush units such as the Mauryan Yoddhas and the Iberian Champion Cavalry Skirmisher. However I don't think either of the civs are OP since they lack in other areas. The good old Skiritai commando rush pretty much got an overall buff, and Spartans also got another buff which is the ability to get champions at phase 2, granted they are very expensive but it can be worth the rush. So Spartans seem to be in a very good position imo. Civs like Macedonians, Britons, Iberians and Mauryans will continue to have good late game since they still have strong champs and battering rams, however they wont be as strong as people will most likely start using rush tactics with citizen soldiers and 2nd phase champions. This is just my personal opinions, what are your guys thoughts?

Minute 10 is when he attacked you meaning its when the course of his and your economies changed, what his economy is at minute 13 in this game is nowhere near what it would be if he had not attacked. That is why I had to "imagine" since the demo you gave me only had useful information till minute 10. Lets say Nobody_ was able to keep his economy intact after attacking you, lets look at the numbers At minute 13 Nobody_ had a total of around 100 infantry, 0 being champions and 38 being normal workers, meaning he had made 62 skiritai in 13 minutes, which I give you, its pretty close to your original claim, however his economy is in a terrible state with only 200 metal, 400 food and 900 wood. There is no way he could of built an army of champs in those conditions. At minute 13 a civ with a normal economy should have around 1000 metal to start building champs.

At minute 10 you had 20 skiritai, no champs and 79 workers (most were women) that is 100 people at minute ten, pretty good, pretty straight forward. But even still you were nowhere near 70 skiritai and 20 champs, even if you had another 3 minutes you would probably have just around 50 skiritai with no champs. Even your opponent who had a pop of 122 only had 30 skiritai by minute 10 and no champs.

I'm not looking for a match here, I haven't played 0.a.d in months due to exams, even still if you beat me it wont prove anything, I am just asking if you have a demo of you getting to 90 units (70 skiritai and 20 hoptiles) by minute 11.

You only get the skiritai at town phase, so unless you rush to it (which would reduce your economy even more). Furthermore 11 minutes? an average player would be able to get around 110 people in total at that time, lets say you are above average and you have 130 units at that time, you say 90 of those units you get after phase 1, meaning you only had 40 units before you went to town phase, if you are above average that would mean you go to town phase at minute 3, even if im generous and i say minute 4 that is still going to affect your economy by a LOT. I simply cannot believe that you can get 90 units after town phase by minute 11. Do you have a demo?

There is no way you could have 70 skirtai and 20 champs when the enemy only has 40, if you are playing against against an unexperienced player yes, but an experienced player with the great economy of macedonians should have 50 champs around minute 13, there is no way you can have 70 skiritai and 20 spartans by 13 minutes, the amount of metal needed for that is crazy. I understand that spartans are strong, but due to their slow economy, and their units not being the strongest, they are not in the level of britons, mauryans and macedonians.

This isn't really true, see the problem is civs like macedonians or any civ that has faster production will not wait, as soon as they have 40-50 spartans will only have 20-30 if not less, that is simple not enough for defence, even with a bunch of citizen soldiers (which is a bad idea because they waste a lot of metal which you desperately need after building a bunch of military halls). Also if any devs see this, the Macedonian Silver shield regiment upgrade does not work properly, it only increases their health by 10% and it does not increase their attack or armour.

There are a few things that I would change on this list 1. Macedonians > Spartans. Why? Because you can spam more champs with just barracks. On the other hand you need special buildings to spam spartan champs, which are actually quite expensive, and considering that you should atleast build 5 (as well as baracks for normal workers) your economy will be set back quite a bit when compared with macedonians. That way macedonians will be able to are able to build 70 while you have built 50 (just an estimate). They are able to reconstruct armies much faster, and they are able to rebuild barracks much faster than you can rebuild the special buildings, moreover macedonians have slingers which overall gives them a better economy. Finaly Macedonians have an actual potential to build defences while spartans cannot. 2. Mauryans > Spartans Why? To put it simply mauryans have the most complete arsenal in the entire game, they have the strongest meelee champion in the game (on par with britons, romans and iberians and gauls), Yodhas which experienced players DO build (in an army you should have around 20) they are the best to just run attack a building while the Maiden guards take on the people. Their worker elephants also play a huge role as they allow mauryans to have an economical advantage over the spartans. The only thing that makes britons better than mauryans is that they have a better hero, and they can keep up economy wise because of their slingers. (romans have that hero too however they can not keep up economically). A few more changes which I will quickly point out, here is my overall list. I tried to keep it with your format so it is comparable. Exceptional civs: Best civs at the moment Britons (Best meelee with best hero and great economy) Mauryans (Best meelee, has many styles of play, great economy) Macedonians (Very good meelee, great economy, moderate defences) Good civs: All of these are equally as good and have to potential to be exceptional with practice Spartans (Very good meelee, not as strong as they used to be) Iberians (Best meelee, good cavalery, good defences, bad heros) Romans (Best meelee, best hero, mediocre economy but it can be good) Okay civs: Unique civs that are decent, however they lack many important things that others don't, some have potential to be good with practice) Athenians (Best archers, mediocre economy, has potential) Cartagenians (Best defences, Mediocre economy, good arsenal) Gauls (Best meelee, Mediocre economy, unique) Challenging civs: Selucids (Mediocre but unique arsenal, Mediocre economy, has potential) Ptolemies (Great economy, terrible arsenal) Persians (Great arsenal, mediocre economy, NO CHAMP SPAM)

Honestly these points are pretty good, however I think that they cross the boundary where Gameplay > Historical accuracy.

I think it should be the opposite, some most civs should be able to spawn champs from barracks, and others with special units (like spartans) should have special buildings. Even though, I don't think the Devs are interested in balancing civs that much at the moment.

Exactly and it is even worse if the definition of malus in the dictionary says that it is a genus of a plant XD

Yes but I have never seen an actual, solid and trustworthy source that suggests a homograph of malus to have the meaning of "a negative effect".