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".

In both the Collins dictionary and the Oxford dictionaries ( both considered to be the most "official" dictionary in England) malus does come up but with a different meaning. Malus Pronunciation: /ˈmeɪləs/ /ˈmɑːləs/ NOUN A plant of the genus Malus (family Rosaceae), which consists of deciduous trees and shrubs grown ornamentally and for their fruit (apples and crab apples) in the temperate zones of both hemispheres; (in form Malus) the genus itself. Adopted as a genus name in J. Pitton de Tournefort Inst. Rei Herbariae (1700) I. 634.Valid publication of the genus name: P. Miller Gardeners Dict.: Abridged (ed. 4, 1754) II. However Bonus does come up as a real word with the meaning implied (see 1.3) Bonus Pronunciation: /ˈbəʊnəs/ NOUN 1 A sum of money added to a person’s wages as a reward for good performance:big Christmas bonuses 1.1 British An extra dividend or issue paid to the shareholders of a company. 1.2 British A distribution of profits to holders of an insurance policy. 1.3 An extra and unexpected advantage:good weather is an added bonus but the real appeal is the landscape Just because a world originating from Latin is absorbed into the English language as a viable word, doesn't mean that its obverse is feasible. That should be the end of the discussion, bonus is an English word and malus is an English word, however it is used to denote a genus not a negative effect.

It's exam season guys, many people are having exams or studying really hard at the moment, so don't expect many people to be playing at the moment, i myself haven't played in about a month. Wait till around june-july there will be a large peak in players

Agreed, played against this guy before, he's mental

I agree the fact that normal soldiers do absolutely no damage to buildings, I can send 70 workers destroy a fortress and get them all killed before I even get halfway. It is not really such a bad thing in my opinion since I see the "normal soldiers" as workers rather than infantry, and I see champs as my main attacking force, the only times i use normal soldiers for a battle are when I use archers or slingers to do some damage behind my champions to give me a slight edge over the enemy when I think the fight is going to be close. Other than that I only use them for gathering resources or building structures. Not such a bad thing in my opinion, but then again normal soldiers being able to destroy buildings would also be nice as borg pointed out.

This is actually a pretty good idea, I am all for it, maybe not for all buildings, but for civic centres, fortresses and defence towers that would be awesome.

I personally do not see the problem with having to hold Ctrl to destroy instead of capture, many people have complained about this, however i don't find it being such a big deal

I want to keep this short and concise: Capturing adds a whole other level to the game-play, strategies are more complex, games are more diverse and overall it makes things more fun Capturing is NOT overpowered, neither is it underpowered, it is a situational feature, meaning it is really good in some situations and really bad in others, never will I ever only use capturing, in fact the way I play I still destroy most buildings instead of capturing. As many people have pointed out it is more historically accurate It has buffed things that needed to be buffed (Walls for example were rarely used before capturing), and nerfed other things that needed to be *cough* Yodhas *cough*. So if anything it has balanced the game a bit more. TL;DR In my opinion capturing is just fine, and unless someone can bring up a specific point on why it is not I cannot really see what is wrong with it.

Agree with everything there, all I really mean by competitive scene is having a few teams and clans for people to play a bit more seriously. Also it is insanely fun!

@Dade I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was merely pointing out that in my first post I was not talking about professional competitive play, I was talking about just normal competitive play in matchmaking. I do agree with you about competitions, in fact I never said that the devs must do the ideas I proposed, I was simply answering the question of the title of this thread, in a forum called General Discussion & Ideas. It is simply feedback that they can take in consideration, or if they want to they cannot. Nonetheless I completely agree with you about tournaments, they should be small and simple, something for just the time being. In fact having tournaments isn't needed for competitive play, having teams/clans is good enough. As for SMITE I think you misunderstood me as well, I was using the games variety of gods (the characters available in the game) as an example that variety does not necessarily mean unbalanced. By unbalanced, I mean having a civilisation (or in this case a god) that is by far much better than others. Finally, kowtowing to random players is indeed the worst thing developers should do, but that does not mean that they should completely ignore feedback and ideas. And I don't see how AssaultCube is an example for kowtowing, in fact its the opposite. a large portion of the devs did not listen to feedback and made changes which made a lot of people leave. For example, they reduced the maximum map size by a lot, basically decreasing the mapper community to null. Furthermore in the next update the devs want to get rid of a bug called "hax jumping" which is a collision bug that causes players to jump slightly higher, this basically annihilates the GEMA community, which is like 30% of the user base.

Nice stuff! I have never really played around with that stuff, is there a thread or something where i can learn more about it?