borg-

Many games have similar units with minor status changes, this doesn't seem confusing, he's still a spearman. Yes it resembles the pike and that can be a little bad, although historically this unit was like a tank that protected the back lines from artillery. They used their big shields for that, but they weren't that good at close combat. Just jave and ax available in phase 1. I don't think it would be a problem to have archer cavalry at phase 2 Ax cavalry is not very effective at destroying buildings. My idea is to just move it to phase 1 to make it much more useful and just a few minor changes needed.

Archery was very common in Persia, it shouldn't be unusual to see women shooting. Your attack ingame should be as low as a dagger. I will take a look to see how this ice house works.

My intention is to make it become a more useful and special unit precisely because it is in phase 1. I wouldn't change much about this unit, maybe it would give a capture bonus or something. She would be a much more notable unit in phase 1.

Apparently everyone seems to agree with the changes: - Persian women have a bow to defend themselves rather than the conventional dagger. - Archers are more accurate than other archers and advance in rank faster - Decreases the attack of citizen spearmen considerably, but increases armor pierce. - All Persian cavalry are available in the CC, except champions. I'm going to remove the gardens because it needs a new model and I think that might be a little off topic. About all cavalry being trained in phase 1, i think we can just leave javelin cavalry and ax cavalry. With the changes proposed by @real_tabasco_sauce it can work very well. As for the recruiting technology, apparently it was well received but it can't be turned off. Anyway, I think that with adequate values it can still be very interesting and effective during the game, as long as the player has enough gold accumulated or possible mines to collect, but if denied the gold the game can be lost. I think it adds interesting decision points. I really like @Dakara idea of market training slaves. I'll look for historical basis for this. I like this idea of @berhudar --> Cavalry health upgrade should be researchable in p1. @alre idea about the immortals is something i did in my mod. Only problem is referring to the status of the units. Both archer and spearmen must have the same health, armor, attack etc.. with the exception of the bonus of spearman against cavalry. So finding good numbers for both is a little difficult.

Yes, it would be a new building. True, I confused it with the upgrade of some building or unit that can be turned back.

EDIT. As you all know, one of the biggest problems we are currently encountering in 0a.d is that all civilizations are very similar in gameplay. My goal in this topic is to discuss plans on how to make the Persian civilization more attractive to players and at the same time seek to differentiate from other civilizations. Why start with persia? because it is one of the least used civilizations. It is important to point out that the proposed changes must correspond with the current stage of development (no features not yet implemented), and I also ask that you do not deviate from the objective of the topic which is to focus on Persian civilization. Well for starter, I'm going to list below some ideas of what I think would be interesting. - Persian women have a bow to defend themselves rather than the conventional dagger. - Archers are more accurate than other archers and advance in rank faster - Decreases the attack of citizen spearmen considerably, but increases armor pierce. - All Persian cavalry are available in the CC, except champions. - Can train ax cavalry in phase 1. - Remove conscription and current unique training technology, add a new technology. All units cost an amount of gold but can be trained much faster. - Cavalry health technology moved to phase 1. Verify possibilities: - Immortals switch from spear to bow and arrow - Market can train slaves. Well, these are some of the ideas i have for persians, i would like your opinion.

Exactly, you pay 500 gold to a tribe, it gives you 10 extremely fast units with a very burn power, but weak for general combat, or 5 units of 2 men and a trunk, much faster than a conventional ram, capable of destroying buildings in a more stealthy way. We could have relics around the map as an old metal mine, with infinite metal or a large metal mine and some towers around, which would make it difficult for the enemy to fight these collectors.

I like the core idea of how 0a.d works, so maybe I wouldn't change anything about how it works now. Regarding spam, I think adding viable strategies on the map, such as treasures, alliances, abandoned fortresses among others, can help. The objective is to add other means of achieving victory other than just making large numbers of soldiers. Champions must be trained in p1. They must be really strong compared to conventional soldiers, this would encourage them to spend resources training champions instead of more citizen soldiers. Also champions must have some sort of special skill, like being able to train siege units or special buildings like towers that can be built on enemy terrain.

Resistance is futile

Worker elephant can join on cc.

I don't know if it's a known bug already, but working elephant can't get inside a cc if it's on the corner of cc. It's an easy to find bug, just a few tries by mauryan.

It can be that way too, instead of having 3 generic civilizations at the beginning, we can start with Greeks and then choose which Greek civilization we want to expand.

You start the game like in the dark ages of aoe1. You can choose from three generic civilizations. All civilizations look very similar (only a few differences provided by branching models). Civilizations share the same units, women (food), basic spearmen (food/wood), javelins (food/wood) and a scout (food). Scout is like a spear cavalry, able to fight and be trained in age one. At that moment we will have a good rock/paper/scissors for all civilizations. Each of these three civilizations has some very basic bonuses, one of the civilizations would have a bonus for economy, another for aggression and another for defense, pleasing all players styles. When ready to pass the stage you can choose which civilization you want to evolve to, if you choose Sparta for example, you will have some bonuses like as stronger women, faster and stronger infantry.

As long as we are focused only on balance, we will be chasing our own tail. 0 a.d has reached a stage where it needs a design overhaul. A design document is needed to guide the next steps. The idea of starting with a generic civilization, and then being able to choose which civilization you want to steer towards is extremely fun. I would start with a standard civilization and then the second phase I could choose which of the 14 civilizations I would like to play with, with their respective bonuses. This would add a very interesting element of surprise to players, especially in team games. If I had to choose one idea, I would certainly go that way.

All this to play slinger/jave + ram, super interesting. That is, supposedly before you had many "diversifications" but without any utilities, while today you have less diversification and more choices of civilizations / units, so the current design is correct compared to the a23 Look how incredible, before you had a super "unique" construction of Macedonia but no one would choose this civilization, while today it is a preference in 1v1 games for example. You cite technologies and bonus as being "diversification", so we have more diversification for sparta and athens now with hoplite tradition, or else with the bonus slinger of rome, or the gain of food from ptolemies, cavalry of gauls. I can go deeper, now you have playable mercenaries because they have improved their design and you can also build more than two embassies, and Cushites can build in neutral territory, etc..etc... Anyway, this argument doesn't seem valid to me.

Do you think giving stables to other civilizations makes the game poorer? Is that your view of gameplay differentiation? Sorry for me this is very poor. When I think about diversifying civilizations I think we can be much better than keeping a stable for just one civilization because it "looks" different. Where was a23 most diverse? Only 2 or 3 civilizations were used, and the same units every game. Having a kennel or stable only for Persians does not make the game "diversified". The change in mercenaries is rather a design change and not just a balance change, and they are much more used now.

It's hard for me to understand. When we had slinger + ram spam in every game on a23, they complained that the game was basically limited to these few units. I remember very well many players asking for melee cavalry to be more powerful and appear more in the game. I also remember that they asked for melee infantry to be more powerful in the game, as we now have cavalry and melee infantry appearing much more, along with mercenaries that were once a completely equal unit. I agree that there are still some fine balance adjustments to be made, but bringing up arguments like "we should go back to being like a23" or "remove stables" is extremely ridiculous. It seems that most people would rather go the easy way of simply removing what's bad than working harder to try to fix it for the next alphas.

I'm in favor of changes and when I said, maybe to a27. It's a feature that's being discussed a lot on the forum, so I think it should be looked at carefully.

I think it's an interesting feature but it's not the ideal time to implement it in my opinion.

Zagreo (Ζαγρεύς), reencarnação de Dionísio, o deus do vinho e da festa.

Gold is a metal.

You can have a 5v5 or 6v6 game but you will have to reduce the max population to 150 for example, which might make the experience not so fun since you need a good amount of units to collect resource and another to fight.

They are totally different games. What causes lag in 0a.d is not the number of players but the number of units moving on the map.

Lag in 4v4 games doesn't have much to do with computer setup. em

Editing the code isn't the problem. 0 a.d still needs a lot of optimization and playing 4v4 games is already quite complicated, so 5v5 and 6v6 in my opinion is still unfeasible.