Dizaka

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.

In multiplayer players can hit CTRL+TAB to view summary for current scores quickly. I think the only time it would be useful is in quick scrimmages early on when being rushed. At that point populations are <100 generally. For multiplayer would it be possible to force the same corpse setting for all players playing? From reading this thread 100 seems like a sweet spot.

In multiplayer, would this be different per user or decided by the host? Would users have an advantage in multiplayer if one player has it on and another off?

I like that a lot as a viable option. I like that because it redefines the term "password" to a more neutral tone of a "buddy game" and adds utility to an existing mechanic. As a "Buddy Game" the icon, instead of a locked lock, could be 2 heads representing a "Buddy Game" and a Sword (or bow) for "Open Game." Edit: Thinking about it, I like this idea a lot. Simple to the end user. Doesn't use terminology that makes it seem "weird" (e.g., password protected). "Password-protected" is weird in the sense that it functions like an added-in feature rather than a feature that was "naturally designed." (idk how to explain it, it just makes more sense to make it "buddy games" and "public games" vs using terminology that is exclusive like "private").

First, the password feature for games to protect host IP addresses == winner. From my perspective, DDOS has dropped off substantially and the person (whoever it is) doesn't do it as the entry point has been raised. Many thanks to @Angen and whoever else implemented this. You can see this feature's effectiveness by logging in late at night and, usually, mostly PW protected games are up. Other games likely have been bumped. Second, there are two additional features that would help augment the effectiveness of password protected games: Private messages between users in the game lobby, and/or (credit to @user1) Allowing users to temporarily put the PW in the game name/title and make it disappear once a game is hosted. (Someone mentioned this to me, forgot who) Ideally, it would be best to allow for "private messages between users in the game lobby." This would be an amazing feature. Something like "/msg Obi, hi, pw is abracadabra". This would allow for users to share passwords with specific users when requested. The added benefit to this is that the community can somewhat self-moderate by not escalating DDOS issues to moderators. Specifically, DDOS is hard to prove (can be proven currently with the PW) but most users cannot prove or show evidence of proving it. To "allows users to temporality put the PW in the game name/title and make it disappear once a game is hosted" would dramatically help at the current state. Specifically, to protect from DDOS currently games get hosted with titles such as "XYZ's game (TG)" where TG is the PW. This protects the host's IP from the lobby. However, this does not protect the game from DDOS as the DDOSer is able to join the hosted game to obtain the IP address. Accordingly, after "XYZ's game (TG)" starts the game could be renamed to "XYZ's game" in lobby thereby removing the PW and making it not possible for the DDOS person to affect the hosting player. I forgot who suggested this idea but it is, in my opinion, a good idea. (Note: You could have a checkbox for "Public PW Announcement" when entering game PW) @aixo @Palaiogos @letsplay0ad @PistolPete @chrstgtr @badosu @Cesar

Let's neuter Maury (worker elephant) like Romans were neutered (catapults/encampments). Better yet. Delete all civs and copy/paste Britons and rename all units with unique names. This way no civ has a unique advntage over another - in the name of balance. If anything, @wowgetoffyourcellphone has a more reasonable suggestion.