Philip the Swaggerless

In game name: PhiliptheSwaggerlessInterested for the following schedules: Weekly BO1 or BO3?: BO1

To consolidate our discussion about the initial topic Cavalry vs Palisades (Sword) Cavalry should get a 0.3 attack multiplier against palisades. This is a simple template adjustment so it is easy to implement. Siege units vs Palisades: Option 1 OR 2 Ram, Catapult, War elephants, & Juggernaut ships also damage palisade sections that are directly adjacent to the section they are attacking. Good because it does not give cause for cost rebalancing not sure how to implement. @wowgetoffyourcellphone @Freagarach, or Make palisade sections longer, comparable to stonewall length. bad because it requires cost rebalancing ...also not sure how to implement lol Unit Behavior Make non-siege soldiers not attack palisades unless commanded, like other buildings.

Both of those ideas seem good to me. Although the only real cav issue is sword cav, I think. One benefit of making it so adjacent palisade sections are also damaged by rams (and catapults & elephants, I suggest) is that the palisade cost would not have to be rebalanced as I believe it is based on the number of sections.

I don't think that is a good solution. For example, there is no way to reclaim the walls once they go Gaia.

That is correct, manned walls still decay.

The Roman Siege wall is a really cool thing to have in the game, but if you build it anywhere other than your home territory you lose ownership of it very quickly. So if you build it for a siege in enemy territory, it will soon become the enemy's and they can just delete it. Also in neutral territory you will lose it right away, so there is no point to building a gate. I think it would be cool if siege walls within a certain range of roman military fort just mirrored the ownership of the military fort. That said the A26 catapults, with their 100 range and increased damage, will be would probably be overpowered in conjunction with the siege wall.

Palisades are built in smaller segments than stone walls. When a ram attacks a palisade, it attacks the edge of the palisade, the center of the palisade, and the other edge of the palisade. Each part of the palisade has 700 health, so an un-upgraded ram, dealing 150 crush damage, will need at least 5 hits to destroy each part of the palisade. Having destroyed a section, a tiny bottleneck of soldiers can then follow the ram through, but they are especially vulnerable to the defending army since they must squeeze through a small space. (Another trouble for the invader is that soldiers (especially ranged soldiers) get distracted fighting the palisade and do not immediately stop when enemy soldiers come into range) Stone walls are built in larger sections and of course have more health. But once the main section is destroyed there is a large gap for an army to pass through. I think palisades are too strong versus siege compared to stone walls and the main issue is that they have smaller sections that each need to be destroyed. I propose that the length of the middle section of palisade walls be extended to the same length as the stone walls.

Is it intentional that the storehouse can be placed directly on top of the wood on the eurasian steppe biome?

Yes, but since it specifies "melee" it only affects melee attacks. { "value": "Attack/Melee/Damage/Hack", "multiply": 1.2 }, { "value": "Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce", "multiply": 1.2 }, { "value": "Attack/Melee/Damage/Crush", "multiply": 1.2 } Cyrus of Persia, for example, also has Attack/Ranged/Damage/..

The Han Liu Bang 2nd Aura says "Cavalry +20% attack damage", however this only applies to melee cavalry, not ranged cavalry. { "type": "range", "radius": 40, "affects": ["Cavalry"], "modifications": [ { "value": "Attack/Melee/Damage/Hack", "multiply": 1.2 }, { "value": "Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce", "multiply": 1.2 }, { "value": "Attack/Melee/Damage/Crush", "multiply": 1.2 } ], "auraName": "Confucian Reforms", "auraDescription": "Cavalry +20% attack damage.", "overlayIcon": "art/textures/ui/session/auras/attack_bonus.png" }

Unless I'm confused I don't think there has been a change to Gaul's food gathering rate from a25. What I am more concerned about now is p3 to late-game fanatic spam, but I think I need to play more competitive games to speak definitively about that.

Thank you for this initiative. Thank you for your work. The point against smurfing is that it creates unbalanced games. I didn't really see any rebuttal to that, other than an accusation that those who dislike games that are imbalanced due to smurfing have "ego" problems. Is it a severe problem? It's similar to dancing I guess. Was there a poll?

Yes, but since there was no reduction in speed before it didn't feel wrong. It feels wrong to me now but maybe rounding of corners is out of the scope of these tests.

Things I saw while playing today: Cartography and Diaspora icons are swapped. Persian Immortals can move while upgrading changing weapons but have no animation. So they don't run they just slide across the screen. Running units do not round corners. When making turns that are not even sharp they slow down and begin accelerating again.

It takes immortals 8 seconds to change weapons? Why not instant? I can't see myself using them.