Dizaka

Honestly, I think "damage balancing" / autosniping should be a game feature. Overkill creates problems in the big balance scheme of things. Currently, in RL you have small groups of soldiers with their own leadership who coordinate so that same targets on the same battlefield aren't chosen. It wasn't and isn't the responsibility of the supreme commander to choose your targets. Even in early Rome armies were split into smaller more manageable groups. Look at modern battlefield stuff you see coming out of Ukraine. Russia does extreme overkill - not really a good strategy. Why can't there be a formation or a hotkey to manage attacked targets? Why can't 5 units only attack 1 target from each side? (e.g., make it similar to the "production" setting?) Why do we have the unrealistic expectation that the "supreme commander" (player) somehow has some kind of magical micro that makes one better than the other on the battlefield. The current "micro" is a poor emulation of IRL and turns new players away. Also, it's a big enough issue that impacts balance. As long as units don't target others as efficiently as possible then the learning curve for this game will be extreme and result in turning new players away. @BreakfastBurrito_007 @real_tabasco_sauce @Atrik @roscany @alre

There will always be players who are ahead on the automation curve. There is no reason why 0AD vanilla shouldn't include automation. I think @Atrik is onto something. The playing field should be evened out. The game should be about getting more people interested in it. People aren't going to be interested in this game if the curve is too high and current players have a huge advantage - by knowing which plugins to use. Why not make sniping a multiplayer option on game start? If the game has it on, great. If not, not bad. @BreakfastBurrito_007 @real_tabasco_sauce @roscany @alre This game has already things that can't be automated. For example, you can't automate the way you build out your "village" based on natural barriers. Placement of buildings is extremely important in this game, especially if you can waste the time and resources of non-ranged siege civs. To me, sniping is the same as using a hero to lure all the damage of ranged units and get hit for de minimis sums. Except in the opposite direction. Hero strafing, sniping, carthage merc cav, etc., are all in the same boat from my point of view.

I have an idea. I think I've been proposing it for a year: P2 Siege Camps that count towards P3 like the maurya elephants stables do for elephants. That is all, IMO. @BreakfastBurrito_007

It still crashes with TLS for multiplayer selected. TLS disabled has no crash. See below:

When changing "Menu" -> "Game Session" -> "Batch training size" to 1 (or any number) and clicking "Save" then "Close." On clicking "Close" you get an error message saying you have unsaved changes, even though the literal click beforehand was "Save". However, changes are saved when ignoring the warning prompt. EDIT: This only happens once a multiplayer game has started. Does not happen off the main screen.

Winner winnner, chicken dinner. That totally fixed it.

Can't start the alpha release for multiplayer play. Get the following crash on selecting "login" for multiplayer lobby.

Issue: People use garrisoning to take off targetting off units. Example: Someone pushes with barracks using garrisons/ungarrisons from said barracks. That means that targetting of 30 units can be reset by garrisoning them in 3 barracks. Ungarrisoning instantly makes it possible to kill units that are capturing barracks. Suggestion: 4-6 second timer when unit is idle and vulnerable to dmg doing nothing while garrisoning. Alternative suggestion is all armor becomes 0 but unit can attack while garrisoning. Conversely, ungarrisoning units should not be instant.

Oh wow, it's hidden well lol. Didn't see it at first glance. Will look for it.

I was going to say type but OH that is cool. You can promote either of spearmen or swordsmen.

I think you can keep the uniqueness by just switching the costs around. The most valuable damage IG is ranged damage. Make ranged cost metal+1 other instead of just wood/food. Change the cost of melee from metal+1other to wood/food. Keeps uniqueness and makes it more fair, imo.

Proposal: Change the costs around. Make ranged one cost: Stone/Metal (or Metal/Wood) Make melee one cost: Food/Wood (or Food/Wood/Stone) Ranged needs to cost metal. I'm fine with them being split. With it costing metal it is about similar to "obtain difficulty" of WTF.

Can we just rename will to fight?

I'm hoping it is possible. You can disable/enable allied vision being explored. I don't see why it'd be impossible to enable/disable technology trees from lobby. My main concern is 0ad and community mod becoming too divergent and incompatible. I genuinely like the changes but they are drastic. To not change the spirit and intent while increasing the complexity of balancing, I would seriously consider the proposed changes as ones that would need a lot of balancing and input/testing. I think a checkbox would be best choice and I do not mean to belittle your effort because I like the changes but they are drastic but are what is wanted, civ diversification.

Go for it. That's why I included the files so there is no need to "repeat" the work. Ooops Sounds good What I mean by that is, for example: Macdonians: They don't have non-champ xbow. However, the upgrade (Streamlined fletching) for xbow is provided for them. Currently, that upgrade seems pointless and/or their champions too strong? Another Point: Certain civs feel "empty." I genuinely feel that each civ should have tank/ranged for both cav and infantry. There are a few civs don't have both for cav unless you include mercs. That is, cav usually win games. If civs don't have cav tank/ranged combos then they are weak civs. I think this could be changed with more diversity by doing chariots and mounted cav and mixing this up and making elephant cav viable for some civs (sele/Maury). Another Point: Maury elephant archers are sidelined by 2 pop. Their damage has been halved. They are not used anymore. Another Point: Ranged siege is weird situation with infantry attacks. Same with rams. I don't understand why these units can't be used versus live units. Another Point: Kush axemen. Are they sword? Are they Spear? Are they Pike? What is their role? Another Point: Persian Axe Cav. What are they? What function should they serve? Another Pont: Han Halber(sp?)? Are they just reskined pikemen? An hybrid sword/spear/pike? Hybrid sword/pike? Hybrid Sword/spear? Why do han need pike, spear, and hal. Could it be hal+ just another one, not all 3? Another Point: Heroes without auras? Sparta comes into mind. Then Mauryas if temple update is permanent. Another Point: Are merc cav even used/useful? I think the changes being proposed are more of an "overlay" that could be perfected/added in the future but the primary effort should be at making current units more usable. That's why I think, if it does get implemented, it's as a checkbox for multiplayer in the community mod. That is, I don't want to live through another "archer update" (which WAS necessary) to make units viable. I'd prefer all units to be viable BEFORE any changes are put on top for uniqueness. Disclaimer: I'm of the perspective that 0ad matches, ideally, should be 20-30 minute matches majority of the time. Anything over 45 minutes is too "hardcore" to attract casual players. There needs to be an available aggressive early game, aggressive mid game, and aggressive end game. Phases shouldn't be just "transitions."

Here's are my concerns and suggestions for #3 after going through everything and summarizing it for myself (note: this took 2+ hours. Not a simple vote item). Final Conclusion Statement: It's a great idea and it's something where 0ad should strive for "civ differentiation." However, the main issues is that base units needs to be balanced and roles more defined. That is, spear/pike/sword/axe, bow/skrim/sling/xbow, cav vs infantry, need to be more defined. Currently, cav are OP for endgame even without the proposed upgrades. As it stands, the upgrades, I think, would make 0ad a cav-centered game. Suggestion/Middle ground: A checkbox in community mod to "enable" this over base game. Alternatively, a new "community mod" type but then this wouldn't get usage. My analysis is based on the following "data" and extraction of information. · Athenians o Horseback training P1 .65 Attack/Range/PrepareTime .75 Attack/Ranged/projectile/Spread Husbandry P1 1.1 Health/Max Chamfron P2 +1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Pierce Longer slings P2 +5 Attack/Ranged/MaxRange 1.1 Attack/Ranged/PrepareTime Basic Training P1 1.2 Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce Battle Charge P2 1.5 UnitMotion/Acceleration 1.1 UnitMotion/Walkspeed · Britons o Husbandry o Chamfron o Longer slings o Basic Training o Battle Charge · Carthaginians o Heavy draw weight Available P1 Maury/Kush/Carth/Hah 1.15 attack/ranged/damage/pierce modification 1.5 projectile speed modification o Horseback training Basic Training Battle Charge · Gauls o Horseback training P1 .65 Attack/Range/PrepareTime .75 Attack/Ranged/projectile/Spread o Husbandry o Balanced Javelins P1 +30 Attack/Ranged/Projectile/Speed 0.7 Attack/Ranged/Projectile/Spread o Spear Thrower o March training P1 1.1 UnitMotion/Walkspeed · Han o Heavy draw weight o Horse Racing P1 1.1 UnitMotion/Walkspeed 1.5 UnitMotion/Acceleration Lancing tactics P2 1.2 Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce .25 Attack/Melee/PrepareTime Streamlined Fletching Longer Pikes P1 Sele/Mace/Ptol/Han +4 Attack/Melee/MaxRange Basic Training Battle Charge · Iberians o Horse Racing o Lancing tactics o Balanced Javelins o March training · Kushites o Heavy draw weight o Horseback training o Horse Racing o Greaves P1 +1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Hack o Lightly Armored P2 1.3 UnitMotion/Walkspeed 1.5 UnitMotion/Acceleration -1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Pierce March training Hand Guards P2 1.1 Health/Max +1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Hack · Macedonians o Horse Racing o Lancing tactics o Streamlined Fletching P1 1.5 Attack/Ranged/projectile Speed 0.8 Attack/Ranged/Projectile/Spread Longer Pikes Buttspike (Rome?) P2 1.2 Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce 1.5 Attack/Melee/Bonus/BonusCavMelee/Multiplier Balanced Javelins Spear Thrower P2 Mace/Rome/Gaul +5 Attack/Ranged/MaxRange · Mauryas o Heavy draw weight o Scouting tactics Available P1 Adds 10 to vision & range Cavalry Heavy Draw P2 1.15 attack/ranged/damage/pierce modification 1.5 projectile speed modification Husbandry Chamfron Greaves Lightly Armored · Persians o Scouting tactics o Cavalry Heavy Draw o Heavy Axe P1 1.65 Attack/Melee/Damage/Hack 1.5 Attack/Melee/Damage/Crush 1.5 Attack/Melee/RepeatTime Raiding Cavalry P2 1.15 Motion/Walk 1.25 Motion/Acceleration 0.75 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Pierce Basic Training · Ptolemies o Scouting tactics o Horse Racing o Lancing tactics o Longer Pikes · Romans o Horse Racing o Lancing tactics o Balanced Javelins o Spear Thrower o March training o Hand Guards · Seleucids o Scouting tactics o Cavalry Heavy Draw o Horse Racing o Longer Pikes Buttspike Balanced Javelins · Spartans o Horse Racing o Balanced Javelins o Basic Training o March training "Heavy draw weight" Available P1 Maury/Kush/Carth/Hah 1.15 attack/rangedd/damage/pierce modfication 1.5 projectile speed modification "Scouting tactics" Available P1 Pers/Sele/Ptol/Maur Adds 10 to vision & range "Cavalry Heavy Draw" P2 Maur/Sele/Pers 1.15 attack/rangedd/damage/pierce modfication 1.5 projectile speed modification Heavy Axe P1 Pers 1.65 Attack/Melee/Damage/Hack 1.5 Attack/Melee/Damage/Crush 1.5 Attack/Melee/RepeatTime Raiding Cavalry P2 Pers 1.15 Motion/Walk 1.25 Motion/Acceleration 0.75 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Pierce Horseback training P1 Gaul/Athen/Kush/Cart .65 Attack/Range/PrepareTime .75 Attack/Ranged/projectile/Spread Horse Racing P1 Rome/Mace/Kush/han/Iber/Ptol/Spart/Sele 1.1 UnitMotion/Walkspeed 1.5 UnitMotion/Acceleration Lancing tactics P2 Mace/Han/Rome/Ptol/Iber 1.2 Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce .25 Attack/Melee/PrepareTime Husbandry P1 Athen/Brit/Maur/Gaul 1.1 Health/Max Chamfron P2 Athen/Maur/Brit +1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Pierce Greaves P1 Kush/Maur +1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Hack Lightly Armored P2 Kush/Maur 1.3 UnitMotion/Walkspeed 1.5 UnitMotion/Acceleration -1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Pierce Streamlined Fletching P1 Han/Mace 1.5 Attack/Ranged/projectile Speed 0.8 Attack/Ranged/Projectile/Spread Longer Pikes P1 Sele/Mace/Ptol/Han +4 Attack/Melee/MaxRange Buttspike P2 Mace/Sele 1.2 Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce 1.5 Attack/Melee/Bonus/BonusCavMelee/Multiplier Balanced Javelins P1 Iber/Mace/Spart/Gaul/Sele/Rome +30 Attack/Ranged/Projectile/Speed 0.7 Attack/Ranged/Projectile/Spread Spear Thrower P2 Mace/Rome/Gaul +5 Attack/Ranged/MaxRange Lead Shot P1 1.3 Attack/Ranged/Damage/Pierce 1.25 Attack/Ranged/Damage/Crush 1.2 Attack/Ranged/RepeatTime Longer slings P2 Athens/Brit +5 Attack/Ranged/MaxRange 1.1 Attack/Ranged/PrepareTime Basic Training P1 Athen/Pers/Brit/Spart/Cart/Han 1.2 Attack/Melee/Damage/Pierce Battle Charge P2 Athen/Brit/Cart/pers 1.5 UnitMotion/Acceleration 1.1 UnitMotion/Walkspeed March training P1 Iber/Rome/Gaul/Kush/Spart 12.1 UnitMotion/Walkspeed Hand Guards P2 Rome/Kush 1.1 Health/Max +1 Resistance/Entity/Damage/Hack Civ-Balanced.docx Upgrades-Balanced.docx

My understanding: Votes for a change should be informed votes. That is, to make changes as appealing and unanimously supported/voted by the community so that there is a greater likelyhood of adoption in a27 (if even possible) it would be best to vote on this when changes are properly elaborated. Problem: Yes, someone can go through code, but not everyone can read code. Yes, someone can go through comments, but not everyone has the time to read the comments. Doing the items in series is an alternative to if the item is not described properly in the changes. I spent 20 minutes reading through all the items and voting on obvious things. Then I spend 30 minutes reading through the comments to find item 3 changes and to try to piecemeal what the 23 changes are. I couldn't find enough of a descriptive of all the individual 23 items that were changed/added. This doesn't necessarily mean that those changes are bad. But I do not want to jeopardize the integrity of the process. I can't make informed votes on changes, that likely, are good when they aren't descriptive if I want a high chance of other changes making it into a27. My reasoning is that I want to protect the integrity of the whole vote process to make sure that the changes in the community mod are likely to be given a strong weight by stan and the dev team. Maybe add a 4th option "better description needed" in the votes?

Yea, sorry. I don't think anyone is unappreciative of your work, just an fyi. There's a lot of stuff that I do for family that is unacknowledged and when it comes to a group vote I usually get outvoted. Doesn't necessarily mean anything other than a decision was made. I think if 3 was more itemized into 23 items it would get a lot more support. Sort of like #1.

I'mma get bashed for this one: For 4 I voted no. It may be good ideas. Great ideas too. I'd strongly, however, suggest making that "1 item changed/modified then vote for that 1 item." Do not bundle items as riders for voting. It's hard to get a large overview of impact on the individual items/riders. It would be better for a "no bundling/riders" rule on changes to be voted on. Might sound stupid, but riders could be a problematic (a rider is an additional provision added to a bill or other measure under consideration).

Just concerned about the healer changes. If you make healer upgrades/cost of healers too cheap then Mauryas are left with just 1 hero that is useful. Just something to think about. Currently, having mauryas as allies is beneficial due to temple upgrade team bonus and hero for cheaper temples and temple upgrades. I think if the healer changes are implemented then Mauryas team bonus AND the hero upgrade (chariot hero) may need a change concurrently. @chrstgtr @BreakfastBurrito_007 @real_tabasco_sauce

There is an idle counter for units. There really should be a garrison counter for units too. One garrison counter for arrow generation garrisons and another for non arrow generation garrisons.

I like this mod.

So I did this and I have not really experienced the problem. Will continue trying. I did notice that I do have sound though? Is that command supposed to disable sound hence "no sound"?

@Stan` It happens in replays and during games. It doesn't happen until later. This did not happen in A25b. However, I played A25b on Arch Linux and this on macOS. Not sure if OS makes a difference. I did not manage to play A25b on Windows (but before I played all on Windows). I will try with passing -nosound and report back.