Dizaka

I think merc P1 / P2 strategies are interesting civ "diversifiers" for Carthage/Ptolemies. Specifically, it makes civs more unique in what they offer and diverse gameplay. If people want "balanced 1vs1" they should be both playing the same civs.

@BreakfastBurrito_007. I like the idea. Maybe even have traders impact the market rates? For example, traders being the devices used to "correct" the market rates or maybe even skew them more. I agree, there's a lot of angles to this and could result in unexpected gameplay. But it would be interesting to have a traders "micro war" based on what your traders trade for.

@BreakfastBurrito_007 I like @Freagarach idea. @Freagarach what happens if everyone has a lot of coin? Inflation? Rush on the market. @BreakfastBurrito_007 when you were describing the second idea I was thinking of traders being "reactionary." For example, if someone is trading for metal, and 1 metal costs 100 food/wood/stone then traders are actually able to carry more metal than current max X (like 2x,3x,4x,5x, etc).

@BreakfastBurrito_007, they are implementing better alternatives see at

Plz hold me while I cry at the gutting that Romans are on receiving end of. Rome used to be such a fun cIv in a23. Don't remeber when I selected them volutarily in a24. Siege aoe nerf ... Encampment no siege ... Now encampment dmg ... They used to have this fun and signature way of 10 rams behind an enemy if enemy permitted it by not scouting territory. Or spearmen paired with cata/bolt slow push with dmg hero - which only worked if you controlled the selection of where fight occured (so usually attack enemy base).

Summary 0ad gameplay if no fights happens in the 10-15 min mark. Instead, fights happen in the 16+ min mark. I think nerfing archers should be cautionary. I really don't want them to end up like in a23. I think, at present, it may be best to use archers as a baseline and bring other units in line with them.

Currently, defensive map control is EXTREMELY easy with forts having the "root" that civic centers do. It's annoying. In a23 if someone forgot to defend their base and sent all units to the enemy their base was toast if someone attacked it. Currently, all you need to do is place a fort near where your army is. This forces the defender to always have an advantage as their building "root" can be located in multiple places with multiple forts. This forces the attacker from being unable to take over bases defended by women, even more so when walls and undefended forts are present. In a23 only Ptol/Sele had this ability (secondary cc's of smaller cost). A24 really promotes turtling and winning by forcing the other side to "run out of resources" or an enemy newbie making a really small/big mistake (that amplifies) which can be picked up on by an ally who went all cav (e.g., enemy border did no walls, pocket from other side sees this and overwhelms with cav).

But the berries patch.

Grab a woman and have her attack a rabbit. Auto-explore.

Awesome, ty. I think the camel archers are a p2 push that continues from p1. If the camels are successful in p1 they can easily continue onto p2/p3. The issue is they don't work well vs archer civs. Less effective vs slingers. Extremely effective vs spear/skrim/sword/. Also, they are weak vs spear cav (So rome/mace can defend vs these).

Using a24 only with mods. A25 is from SVN using different directory structure.

Actually, P2 siege towers sounds interesting. It forces players to diversify armies when P2, especially if going vs a P2 siege tower civ. Additionally, P2 siege towers cost 500 wood and 300 metal. That's a ton and substantially delaying P3. Palisades are available P1. Carefully placed palisades counter siege towers really well. Actually, putting 500 wood into palisades is an extremely long palisades wall. I wonder, can "Britons 1" "Britons 2" "Britons 3", etc can be made in the balancing mods to test impact of different changes to civs on balance? Therefore, instead of theory actual gameplay can be tried out vs other players using the way the civ is setup?

Tested a Death Match game vs sandbox AI to see the build for Macedonians. Will a test run normal game vs sandbox tomorrow to see the timings and see how it could impact meta. I know with @letsplay0ad's letsfight mod Macdonians were strong and competitive vs Mauryas with arsenal counting towards p3 and without siege towers in p2. Couple things I've noticed/concerned about (some of the concerns cancel themselves out): The arsenal doesn't count towards P3 (Note: only 3 buildings that count towards p3) However, you can build siege towers in P2 Companion Cav (champs) are immediately available in p2, not after some time. lk I like the unit movement. Is that the same as the @ValihrAnt mod? Also, will test other civs. When trying spartans get the following errors: Can't build anything but women from the CC/Agora. Error occurs when selecting the CC/Agora.

Looks like a bug. Hope it is a bug. I definitely do not want Rome to be gutted more ;/.

Wow, I love the way this was described. Hereinafter I'm reserving the name "seal clubber" for some 1400-1800 players. Can we have a "title" system where, with rank, come titles. Titles could be "Seal Clubber", "Amateur", "Normal", "Above Average" based on the rank of players you've won your games against?

What civ is that on? I just logged into SVN and don't see this? At least not from the "Structure Tree." An interesting change (I think it is a change) is that the Camp/Village for Kushites count towards p3. Likely more possible to do a Kushite macemen push and still get p3.

Roman camps needs siege to be built from them. Otherwise, they are just decorations on enemy territory.

@BreakfastBurrito_007 p1 and p3 turtling employ same strategies at different scales. In p1 if you are pushing and build forward tower, build palisades around it. That makes tower uncapturable. In p1 palisades may be expensive and used sporadically. However, correct placement can give huge advantages. p1 = palisades prevent unit movement p3 = palisades prevent siege movement Both are equally important in their respective phases. However, at p3 palisades are really OP with their low cost.

Issue with string of towers is the ability to capture them. Got to put palisades around your towers or, no matter what, enemy pikemen will be able to capture them even if garrisoned.

@BreakfastBurrito_007 Noob wall (It's not invisible, it's the noob wall): Cost: 0 wood but frustrated allies The "I built a wall, no idea what went wrong" wall: Cost: 300-400 wood (allies go "meh, he built a wall") Normal game wall (Rams delayed maybe 15-25 secs): Cost: ~1K wood, happier allies Pro wall (Note how walls are in parallel. This delays ram movement substantially only for 500-800 more wood. Rams going to be delayed for 2-3 mins minimum): ~1.5-1.8k wood, (each line of 3 turrets 2 wall units is about 58-60 wood) The "I hate you, have fun" wall (The "meh, I don't want to deal with this, let me find another entry point"): ~1.8-2.1k wood, pros have too much wood. Garrison sword units in tower preferably.

Can this be done so that "connected" units get damaged/destroyed and not those within a "radius?" For example, if you have a palisades like this o--o--o--o--o--o--o and the actual damage is this o--o--o--x--o--o--o then what gets destroyed is this o--o--x--x--x--o--o. In another example, if you have a palisades like this o--o--o--o--o--o--o and the actual damage is this o--o--o--x--o--o--o then what gets destroyed is this o--o--d--x--x--d--o (x=destroyed, d=damaged, o=still standing).

That's actually the problem. The cost-utility is low. That is, the utility of palisades is so great, because of their low cost, that it's frustrating when allies don't build them and get overwhelmed. The problem summarized: Weak players fail to utilize palisades while strong players overuse them as they know their utility. Also, palisades are "short" between the "towers." I think they should be longer and the "towers" farther apart thereby if one "wall" is killed more units can fit through. Palisades decide games, tbh.

I like the sand-color that makes the berries stand out. IMO, as long as there is some color differentiation between "map green" and "berry green" it is visible.

I'll help with what limited knowledge I have. Hopefully my limited knowledge makes me more of a doer than a sayer.

Oh, ignore my stupidity :D.