Dizaka

It would be interesting to see this at play in a mod. Though maybe 1.5 humans being 1 humans needs renaming of the term 'population.' Specifically, what I find problematic is that the population dynamic would dramatically impact the current 1 human : 1 population dynamic for models. With currently how elephants/rams are I can understand the 5/3 population distribution (e.g., rams cannot kill units or farms).

The also come from the celtic embassy, sword cav. You can choose 200 wood or 200 stone per building. Using 200 stone + 200 wood gives you 2 sword-producing embassies in p2. The interesting thing about Carthage though is I'd actually want the embassies p1 buildings. This strategy is interesting and can be scouted. Though I think the sword cav need to be weakend by anywhere from 10-25%. I think the rush strategy should be viable - it makes carthage unique. But I don't think it should be this dominating (though is should dominate more than a regular skrim cav rush).

I actually don't think they contradict each other. The only reason on what happened between a23 and a24 happened because it appears that (1) conventions in the simulation weren't standardized and (2) archers needed a lot of fixing as they were unusable. However, a23 had a good balance of uniqueness, imo. Right now, what I am seeing is we're going with a25 where slingers/archers/skrimishers are more balanced and now the civs can be "topped off" with their uniqueness. It's a shame of what happened to Ptolemies (no-wood buildings, requiring more time) but right now there is a really pretty close to being a good base for all civs/strategies. Generally, I'm excited for what will be happening in the future. However, gotta complain and make sure voice is heard on what my opinion is on current uniqueness of civs. Also, macedonians need a lot of love. Rome could use some of it too. (talking about siege)

I don't think bands/sets are necesary. As long as there is a "basic template" for damage and bonuses based on "history" there is still place for uniqueness. If people want a balanced 1vs1 then they should play the same standard civ for 1v1. However, I think civs should be balanced and unique so that there isn't a preference of a certain civ that dominates multiplayer.

I'd be okay with them being gimped and experience bringing them up to current levels.

@Ceres My understanding is with the modern CPUs encryption doesn't decrease performance. However, it may be bad for SSDs as they'll get "used up" faster. I haven't had an SSD die yet. The raid I use is software raid (on desktop, don't have raid on arch laptop). My motherboard supports raid but needs special drivers to setup (works with windows) but that won't work with linux. I use the nvidia drivers on both, desktop and laptop. The lvm I did more for personal knowledge with multiple reformat for the arch laptop. Attached are the "commands" I use to install arch. I'm using IWD on arch to manage wireless networks. Makes life so much easier but was difficult to setup due to a need to mask wpa_supplicant since it sometimes auto installs on full system upgrade (took a while to figure this out). The links in the file direct to the tutorials I used in addition to the arch wiki. Arch Install.pdf

I use debian on a desktop. Arch on a laptop. I've found arch really difficult to install and it was a steep learning curve. However, it seems like it was worth it. When doing the installation I recommend you follow the tutorials and write down the commands you use in some sort of document. It's useful to figure out where you go wrong and understand everything more. I started with a regular install of Arch but now it is a raid install on lvm2 that is encrypted. Really happy with it. I think it is actually easier to install 0ad on arch than on debian. I could be wrong but I still can't install newest 0ad on my debian system - just using the 25-rc5-25848 version.

Currently they are 300 stone and 100 metal (+15% gather speed). A barracks costs 100 stone and 200 wood. An elephant stable costs 200 stone 200 wood. p1-p3 metal/stone upgrades cost 100, 200, and 300 stone, respectively (+25% bonus). If you build 2 pyramids it is the equivalent stone of 6 barracks or about 90% of the stone to p3. The only real place I would build 1 pyramid to max out the pyramid's usage. Such a location is by the CC's stone/metal so that food gatherers can also benefit. In such a situation you get the most benefit for your resources. I wouldn't really use my first pyramid near a woodline unless there is some kind of mine there. Stone/metal upgrades in p1 use 100 stone each and 200 food each. The way I see it is that it is more prudent, early on, to build the barracks and use the storehouse upgrades for stone/wood. I view the pyramids as more of something to "top off the bonus" rather than supplement it (due to being 15% vs 25% for wood/stone/metal or 20% for food). Allowing it to be a p3 building nullifies this disbenefit and adds a unique feature - a p1 building that is a p2 building counting towards p3.

Same thing as previously. Except person has been quiet and gathered everyone's IP addresses. Makes it look like bad connections. However, it is not. I haven't reset my IP in like 4 mos.

Ah darn. Then it makes it sort of pointless until endgame to be built. The beauty of the pyramids being built in p2 is b/c they count towards p3 and help resource gathering. If they only help w/ resource gathering they're likely to be built later on, instead of earlier - especially with the build time. Should pyramids be moved to p1 and count towards p3 would make then used more for kushites, more uniquely provide a different gamesytle for kushites, and add to the uniqueness instead of the normal "p2 buildings for p3."

^ Definitely whoever does it is still around. Clogged my wan port. @BreakfastBurrito_007 saw it happen.

I think it will. Especially if (based on the chats there) costs are reduced and it still counts towards p3 (based on changelog). Additionally, you can build it when going from p1 to p2, so it is possible to spend ess time spent building things in p2 for p3.

TY. Sort of coding / coding tools illiterate even if I can do basic stuff. That may make Kushites really fast, especially if pyramid becomes cheaper then you only need 2 buildings in p2 for p3.

Pyramids actually did affect their gamestyle. Most good kushite players built a pyramid around/near metal/stone and then also built their farms around this pyramid. Usually, kushite farms are built in such a way that they are within the range of the pyramids. That change would be awesome though. That's what I'd like more of for civ differentiation. The only issue I see is that currently pyramids count towards p3. Being a p1 building I guess they won't count?

Mace had a dmg bonus vs Athens/Spart and a dmg debonus vs Romans. This in effect made Macedonian silver shield bearers better than maxed-out spartan spear champion - effectively best spear champion IG. Romans had a defensive bonus - as long as they fought on their own territory units had extra armor (I believe). Mace/Rome got a kick in the gut going from a23 to a24, effectively. They were also unique in sense of multi-building siege capability as not other civ had that.

Big difference between an accusation and a thought. Jumping to the accusation based on what was written by @BreakfastBurrito_007 is concerning. There was only a thought without supporting evidence that may imply something. Yea, how does one know of something that isn't a secret?

Pikeman line formation in front of eles (but between eles/skrimishers) then normal attack. Make sure skrimisher in rear micro the eles first thing. Don't let eles got on skrimishers as they are 1-2 shots depending on upgrades. Eles that appear to get unblocked from Pike should be targeted first. Also, eles are really effective at pike, therefore, as mentioned previously, make sure skrimishers prioritize eles.

Joined 8 hrs ago. Knows about this game developed for decades.

Note: @aixois 100x more competent in Computer Networks as he does it professionally. I'm just someone who studied it in college and can understand the concepts and basics of what is happening. I definitely don't have the knowledge that @aixo has. Whatever @aixo says is probably more correct than what I say on Computer Networks.

Looks like Sparta/Ptol win.

@Player of 0AD but what you had in splash you lost in mobility. Cata-heavy armies could be outmaneuvered. As a cata-heavy army the disadvantage was you had to know when to unpack and not do it too early or too late. Very few players could manage catas. Most cata armies started appearing 16-18 mins into the game and that is only if you intentionally went cata. Also, only 2 civs could do it (Rome/mace) due to arsenal/encampment as other civs would only be able to do it in the 20-23 min mark. Also, catas are a good anti-snowballing measure. Finally, they can be easily countered with cav. Catas are not much worse than champ cav ...and with current metal availability plenty counters and better alternative strategies (e.g., champs) than catas.

@LetswaveaBook Alexander the Great (Macedonian) and Romans used it on infantry formations. I'll get historical references later as on mobile. But more than 'shattering' for debris damage they were intentionally used on infantry formations. Maybe it can be unique to Macedonians and Romans. #savemacedonians

Catas weren't too OP. It was just a different strategy. If someone went mass catas they weren't mobile. This means instead of attacking a strong point - the cats mass - then attack and destroy their base (packing/unpacking, chasing were impossible with catas. To play catas well you either forced enemy to come to you by attacking a base or played slow with walls). Afterwards destroy the catas and the units defending them. Rams can't attack people and can't destroy farms. It's unrealistic imo. If a person got Infront of the barrel and get there is no reason why they wouldn't sustain damage. If a farm is an object with structures on it then there is no reason why a the structures on the farm cannot be destroyed by a ram. Additionally, if a catapult-ball were to shatter on impact and soldiers were nearby no reason why soldiers should be immune to such damage. @Player of 0AD yes there is a range difference. However it wouldn't prevent archers from killing a cata. However, that range difference currently makes it possible for catapults to stealth-kill a base. Imo, decrease range and add splash and make catas harder to kill for archers.

You can u garrison archers and kill a catapult safely from a distance ...

It conveniently happens when you're enjoying yourself. 9/10 times it's likely intentional. For @2 I don't think people, in general, appreciate things that make stuff easier or protect them as you do not notice those things. Therefore, you tend to underappreciate them. Conversely, people definitely don't appreciate things that create agony and make it known. Therefore, a lot of effort that has been put into DDOS prevention goes unappreciated (e.g., password games, user1 taking time to read my pms and those of others, etc). Mainly because ddos isn't an issue until it is an issue. @Angenwho implemented password protected games has a great idea on a whitelist that ties in with buddies list and makes passwords unnecessary. I really look forward to the alpha that has that feature as more people will be likely to use it as password don't 'flow.'