borg-

Only gaia can defeat me anyway

Most competitive players are not playing the game often, so it's not being built for competitive players. The fact that we don't have such diverse civilizations is because there is no design plan and someone to command it. I've even started working on it, but it takes a lot of time, and unfortunately I don't have my free time to spend on it anymore, Besides that the part of 0.ad community is extremely ungrateful. You spend hundreds of hours working on various improvements, to find two or three problems/errors and post on the forum all the time when the new alpha is bad. I said several times that a24 was a work in progress and that a25 would be much better, but they continued to talk a lot of crap. Well the "end" result of the work is an alpha25 much better than alpha24 and 23 as I said. Lack of patience is a problem, especially for those who don't move a finger to help with anything. Basically the alpha 24 - 25 was mostly build by me and @Nescio (gameplay/balance), but we're not working on it concretely anymore, so if no one else is interested in this, players are destined to play with these civilizations / gameplay / balancing for many years, like that how was a23 sling + ram.

AOE4 is good but doesn't use full potential. I think one year after the release it is using 100% potential, and I think it will be a great game for a few years. Developers gave up realism and graphic quality in exchange for visibility, and most of that is due to the scenery/hills, so not having any buffs/debuffs is a bit dumb in my opinion. They are listening to the community, and should be working hard on it by the 28th.

Structure tree > mouse over what you want to know.

women 0.7 soldiers 0.75

@Jofursloft @chrstgtr @ValihrAnt @Feldfeld @Pudim @badosu and others, come.

On

@Gurken Khanwhat we have now is not what i expect. We have victory by wonder, but we don't have a sacred place on the map that if controlled for a few minutes wins the game, it's not even close to the same thing. We don't have treasures on the map, we only have a few resources played across the map, no need to fight for them, just use your horse and collect everything before your opponent. It needs to be more complex and fun. I also want to say that these features shouldn't just be available on some specific maps.

I'm referring to special buildings, buildings scattered around the map that you can capture to win the game, for example. What I mean is that 0 a.d doesn't challenge you to leave your small town because you have everything you need in a small piece of territory. What if we had structures that would give you victory if captured? Or nomadic tribes capable of producing mercenaries very quickly and cheaply to surprise their enemy, or even valuable treasures that give some sort of military/economic advantage if captured. This would encourage another style of play besides the snowball.

The biggest problem with 0a.d is that you can easily reach your population limit without having to do anything. No need to expand territory, no special buildings, nothing, all the resources you need are in your reach. I think making the territory something more valuable would be interesting, also future additions of camps to ally, treasures among others, can make this snowball diminish.

Imagine that you have gained an advantage of 30 soldiers against your enemy who is playing Sparta, and your economy is slower because you are producing skiritas. In the time you need to build a new center, it has a chance to equalize in number, and even make a sneak attack on your new center under construction or even on other strategic areas. Colonies would also have a population increase, less of course. It would also make the fight for territory something real and necessary.

Just an idea. wouldn't it be interesting to avoid snowball, give a population increase by cc? For example, if you are playing 1v1 with max 300 pop, then houses and other buildings can give you max population 200, the rest can only be achieved by building new ccs (like 50 max pop per cc). I think this would encourage more expansion/fighting for territory.

Maybe giving the same farm rate to soldiers will solve the problem.

If the problem is elephant and siege tower then just change those units.

Because it’s unrealistic to have these units moving fast, besides that a24 was asked very hard for rams to be slower.

my idea for pikeman is a unit with a high hack damage absorption and strong hack / pierce attack, but slow and weak against projectiles/ranged units. Historically is more correct.

If I remember, not only Stoa is historically wrong, but those mercenaries too. Perhaps changing the name of these units is necessary to historically correct mercenary unit. A specialist in Greek culture would be interesting here.

The changes usually have a reason. Stoa and the champions were removed not simply because we thought it would be better that way, but because they are historically wrong. We seek to emphasize the historical precision in the changes to a24.

Some 0 a.d & mods mechanics in age of empires 4. - Collect food with cavalry/scout - Mongolian pack/unpack buildings - Towers seem to shoot arrows according to the number of soldiers garrisoned. - Can garrison units in ram and siege towers.

Basically any counter is historically wrong. historically javelin / spear / sword cavalry are the same unit, just like javelins of infantry after throwing darts come to melee fight. Particularly I have no problem adding a bonus for spear cavalry as well, the conception would be that sword cavalry can do much more damage to general units, but more vulnerable, and spear a unit with less attack power but more resistant. about javelin cav, you may not need a counter, because it already has a very high damage, I would just do what I proposed earlier, increase the attack, decrease the range and +2 pierce resistance.

Why not? catapults were operated by people, don't necessarily attack a lot of wood and iron. Anyway i think i will make a patch to increase the attack of the catapults and a little pierce resistance.

Even if you give a bonus vs archer to javelin inf too, not every civilization has javelins, so it will never work. A decent counter system will only work if you remove the collection capacity from combat units. Yes, it is less real and changes the whole concept of the game, but I think it would be a step forward for a.d, because many of the changes are stopped because it also affects the economy.

Yes, it is my preferred system, but it cannot be applied to 0 a.d. For 0 a.d I would use only necessary counter. How I think balancing for the future: Melee infantry with the same movement speed as ranged. This would already significantly help melee units to be more effective. Javelin cav/inf - It must be a unit with extremely high damage, but very vulnerable, changes that I would make: Range 30 > 24, Pierce Attack 16 > 20, Pierce amor 1 > 3. This makes them very strong with some melee unit in front, but the cavalry and also the melee infantry are more vulnerable if they are without a meat shield. It also makes it more durable against archers. Slinger - No changes. Archer cav/inf - Decrease accuracy 2.0 > 2.5. Spearmen inf - Should be more effect in battles. Pierce attack 2.5 > 3.0. Swordmen - Must be lethal when reaching your enemy, but more vulnerable to projectiles. Increase Hack Attack 5.5 > 6.5, decrease Pierce Attack 5 > 3. Pikemen - it must be very effective against melee infantry and cavalry, but very weak against ranged units. Increase Hack/Pierce Attack to 3.5, Hack Armor 10 > 8 and decrease Pierce 10 > 5. Spear cav - No changes. Sword cav - Bonus 1.25 vs ranged infantry.