borg-

The cost of a dog and a soldier is the same in total resources. One can only attack, the other can attack and collect res and building, how can this make dogs a mega op? For you to have a dog you need a lot of food, so theoretically less soldiers and women in the wood, less wood, less farms, less food. I don't really understand your point here.

Every dog trained is a unit unless you could be using it to collect resources, if you are not effective in the rush you lose the game. In late game they can be a great help for the troops, but that was already in a23, so nothing has changed.

Well, to say that it is a mistake p1 dogs because a much better player than you killed many units of yours, is not a valid point. If you lost 100 units to 20 dogs, the problem is with your skills I think, no offense. Dogs are extremely vulnerable, you can make towers, palisades etc.

Exactly. Dogs not very effective vs melee + ranged units. They are used to "make 100 slings and crush all".

Edit.

Understand that balancing is not as simple as it looks. Having hp bonuses again after passing the phase increases the amount of health of the units in late game, making champions op. If the problem is defense construction, then we will change defense construction. Bonus ptol is better now, you want free cuz more difference? Outpost i agree.

It is a valid strategy, mainly because we want Celts to be rush civilizations. Dogs can kill women easy yes, but they can hardly do that inside the CC, because they have a very low vision range. The current state is better than the dog in a23 which alone can kill 10 women. To train a first dog you need to invest 350 in resources, while your enemy can train like 4 soldiers with the same resource, a matter of choice. If you play against brit be aware that it is a viable strategy, and training soldiers or making towers can be interesting to avoid this rush.

Extra house would be a useless bonus in nomad games for example, i prefer the center bonus.

Me too.

If an archer is bad in a23 there is a complaint, if he gets stronger in a24 it is also a complaint. What i see is that it is still too early to know what is "op" or useless. Most players have yet to see half of the changes, so arguments like "archer op" for me are not valid at this point.

I see the a24 server full now. It is normal, every alpha has adaptation complaints. Anyway this is not a dispute between a23 and a24, you can continue playing a23 without problems if you didn't like a24. But in no way will we stop the development of the gameplay and stop in time with a23, as I said before, this is in constant development and some descriptions had to be taken to fix many things that were wrong.

Certainly any feedback is very useful (mainly what is wrong), but it is fair to bring some improvements too, like: 1 - stronger cavalry 2 - ranged units weaker 3 - champs back to the game 4 - spear cavalry attacks correctly now 5 - cant dance 6 - hero cannot be trained after dying 7 - melee units chasse easer 8 - formation works better etc.., etc... It seems to me that there are more positive changes than negative ones, so I think we are on the right track. What I can recommend to you is to keep playing and maybe have a different view.

Saying that you don’t feel playing 0a.d doesn’t make sense because 0a.d isn’t a ready game, it’s constantly changing, but I understand that, it’s been a few years playing the same version, it’s normal to feel different, but you can get used to it with the changes. Anyway, we can bring some necessary changes back in a25.

Is rams attack soldiers realistic? Catas and shooters have soldiers operating, so in theory archers would be killing those soldiers and not attacking the catapult, and it was also to balance, because these units are now stronger. Rush is still very plausible, I already proved it in my games, I won all with rush (although I don't like the rotation). Say that civilizations are the same now for me is not true.

Has not been forgotten, it’s just not a priority for a24 and it’s not something we’re going to change in this current pre-release state. Understand that one error does not replace another. The fact that he does not have an aura does not mean that he must have more health than the other heroes. We fixed a mistake that was extra health, for a25 we will give it a more interesting aura.

keep in mind that it is a job that is constantly working. a24 is still far from what we imagined in the end. for a25 he will have a specific aura, but not everything was possible for a24. particularly i don't care about not having all civilizations balanced now, as i said this was not the main focus for a24, we had a lot of "problems" in the queue, anyway as civilizations are very balanced that a23

Thanks for the feedback. Well, what advantage does gaul have to have siege weapon spam faster than any other civ? Our vision of gameplay is not limited to thinking that a civilization like Macedonia had only a fast siege as a game alternative. We added two new units. The balance is under construction, and we plan specific changes for each civilization, but only for a25. One of the proposals for Romans is that they can build immobile catapults for example.

If the cost or training time increases, it is preferable to train citizens than mercenaries. The mainly point of mercenaries now is precisely to cost less and train faster to make up for the lack of resource collection and surprise the enemy in numbers. Maybe a max pop count can work, we can test this for a25.

Generally free values do not work very well for balancing. Having a population of cost 0 is a huge advantage against any player with a civilization that does not have mercenaries, and the situation only gets worse in team games. Another example would be a nomad or deathmatch game, where you can have a clear advantage over your opponent. Putting a number limit on mercenaries that can be trained doesn't seem like a good solution either.

Seems to me a good addition for Spartans in a25.

Elephat stable can be reduced. Stronger sieges don't necessarily have to be more expensive. It can be like a "Historically bonus". Buildings by pop dont work. I agree with teambonus. This will be worked on a25. Theatron can be reduced. Many other civilizations have archers, this does not mean that all must have "archery tradition" Some civilizations have unique technologies, and more for a25. Rome castra can no longer train siege, so it makes sense to train level two units and have high firepower. However it must be reworked in a25. Dogs seems ok. Maybe some new upgrade for a25. Crossbow has a high haccuracy. Must be better worked on a25. Iber doesn't have a good variety of units mainly siege weapons, so it seems fair.

This game cannot be used as a comparative because I clearly troll (unranked) with second cc and no economy upgrades all game. I'm not trying to take the merits of the opponent who made a great game anyway. Silver can win gold players but is very very hard. Last 30 games me vs stock, win ALL for example, and for sure stock is a better silver player.

Hey, tnx feedback. The infantry mercenary costs 20f/60m, how can this look like an 80f/60w/80m champion? Training time is very low than champions. Infantry mercenary in a23 cost total 100 res, in a24 cost total 80. The high metal cost is fair cuz they can be trainee quickly, and cost less than Citizen unit, and add more realistic gameplay. Mercenaries were hired to fight, so cant get res add more realism and seems like a "new units". Mercenaries have a Very efficient technology, so can be a good strategy.

Balancing cannot be done using the reference fun. Fun is subjective. I don't think it's fun at all to have 80% of the players choosing ptolomeus all games, cuz some buildings are free.

Pls, we can have this for a24?