Grugnas

I am not sure but perhaps reducing decay rate would make the trick. Perhaps capturing 2 adjacent wall turrets could make the wall layer in between decay. Indeed having decaying ungarrisonable wall turrets is unwanted. Also the purpose is to avoid wall towers build abuse.

it is if you can't garrison a wall turret decaying over time in enemy territory.

Don't worry, a changelog keep trac of the versions. Next thing to di is to fix neutral walls decay for roman siege wall and athenian wall which actually decay in neutral / enemy territory if not garrisoned...

someone is a unbeliever

imho the problem is to be addressed to the great amount of hp and armor the turret has with the ability to have units garrisoned in it and shoot arrows.

quick bugfix: 22.1.3.1 now wall turrets aren't garrisonable as intended.

Updated to 22.1.3.0 Added new athenian civ bonus. barracks cost some stone for any civ. Blacksmith technologies have been revisited. Now citizen soldiers loot increases with rank. Wall turrets can't be garrisoned anymore. Athenian hero aura revisited.

here you go: EDIT: i just noticed that moving the code into the spoiler in order to shorten the message just removed the paste. here you go: Armour.prototype.TakeDamage = function(strengths, multiplier = 1) { if (this.invulnerable) return { "killed": false, "change": 0 }; // Adjust damage values based on armour; exponential armour: damage = attack * 0.9^armour var armourStrengths = this.GetArmourStrengths(); // Total is sum of individual damages // Don't bother rounding, since HP is no longer integral. var total = 0; for (let type in strengths) total += strengths[type] * multiplier * Math.pow(0.9, armourStrengths[type] || 0); // Reduce health var cmpHealth = Engine.QueryInterface(this.entity, IID_Health); return cmpHealth.Reduce(total); };

OMG!!!

they can and they should, but perhaps destroy a ram with 2 or 3 hits only is kinda frustrating. The main issue with walls is that wall turrets can actually shoot arrows and have thousands of healthpoints. More healthpoints than ordinary wall layers and with no build restriction distance on other wall turrets thus spammable. Simply by removing the possibility to garrison the wall turrets with soldiers and prevent those to shoot arrows would already be a great footstep to allow their use in multiplayer.

i partially agree with this. Usually civs that can train elephants can also train other kind of units to crush buildings ( mauryans have yoddha, persians have rams, seleucids and carthage have catapults). Swapping some crush damage (which is already higher than rams and perhaps not fair) to hack would make them much better against units. On the other hand elephants are really easy to kill with a bunch of skirmishers and destroy sieges like flies (maybe with more hack damage would be even worse tending to opiness). EDIT: i recall a game where, as spartan, i trained more than 50 champions and couldn't stand at the opponent archer cavalry spam (perhaps more than 80 units) because he kept baiting my hoplites then split his army in more directions forcing me to split aswell and chase hoping. The only possible thing to do was to train rams as long as archers were basically untouchable because of their high mobility, but 1 elephant just destroyed every ram i sent even in batch of 3 units.

this may be true with buildings but units trying to capture by default a siege instead of attack it is somehow confusing. modify the game is very easy. The difficult part is to convince others to play with you online with your mod.

I still can't get it. It is also true that concpetually spear > cavalry ( see spearman). If you take medieval tournaments as example, the first weapon used by horsemen was the lance because it had longer range thus easier to hit a rider than a sword which requires a closer distance. Plus the lance could let the opponent fall from the horse. While sword is easier to handle and slash infantry units, also it doesn't break as easy as a lance or a spear.

Indeed ranged units have to do some damage but the point is that in a brawl multiple ranged units can hit the same target while melee units are more likely to focus random targets, and that's already a great advantage for ranged units. Indeed skirmish cavalry should yes be strong against melee but let them breath a bit (accuracy ). Most of the civs in the game have spear champion cavalry while 4 only have citizen soldier swordsmen and 1 only has champion sword cavalry. Checking the current melee cavalry stats, swordsmen have the highest dps vs infantry than spear cavalry. Thus with a simple bonus against cavalry, spear cavalry would be a counter to javelin and sword cavalry, while sword cavalry would be good especially against ranged units.

Most of your points have been taken in consideration in my balance mod Monkey Wrench. Matter of fact i proposed a cavalry hp nerf in order to let buildings be more effective against cavalry, especially skirmish cav (spear cav can be hit by spearmen) without the need of a bonus against cavalry. Despite the realism, sentry towers are weak against a bunch of skirmish cavalry which shouldn't destroy any building. Buildings should be basically immune to any kind of pierce damage. Having a general reduction of ranged units Max Attack Range and scaling their accuracy would also make them more vulnerable to melee attacks (perhaps ranged units should also deal slightly less damage). Indeed skirmishers deal more damage than melee units, but they should be easy to kill with no protection. Spear cavalry should basically have a role as cavalry counter ( hard hit while in movement and higher attack range than a sword cav).

Actually the idea is good, it would also increase building capture points. Perhaps one of the purpose of buildings attachments in Sc2 is to unlock more units or to train more units at once trained from that building, another is to research specific technologies in the attached module without being enqueued in the main structure production queue because it is treated like a separate entity. Indeed more civ specific or unti specific technologies available from that module would be nice to emphasize phase 2 from phase 3.

Summary: In this game I wasn't a nice team mate because I focused into having a rock solid economy in order to rush for siege towers. Matter of fact, while one of my allies was suffering from a coordinated cavalry rush, the only type of help I could give was tributing the extra wood and food stockpiled because of slingers low wood cost and a reached full population (my ally was brave enough to hold on and continue to play). Till siege towers played a role in this. Researching siege technologies in order to get discount on trained sieges slowed me down but Fight of Will greatly improve siege towers. It is always interesting to watch siege towers randomly shooting at everything and see their potential. Actually they have crush damage which barely destroys defense towers and houses, although 10 Siege Towers can really be hard to destroy with no rams or perhaps skiritai. Even more interesting is that many people just train 1 unit, the one the retain OP or at least the best that their civ could get, thus they lament to not being able to destroy Siege Towers with skirmisher or archer cavalry. Arrows's Pierce damage doesn't destroy wooden or stone buildings / sieges. Despite Siege Towers are amazing, they aren't a valid "tool" to go for against cavalry rushers because they won't perform really good if not massed. 10 siege towers still require 100 units to work. Enjoy the replay. 2017-09-10_0009.zip

Actually balance opinions always travel on different trails and that could be reasonable as long as they are mods only. multiplayer is the only thing suffering from that mods splitting tendency because getting more people involved to play and try mods online is quite time spending. Also most of strategies invented in multiplayer are also valid in single player. My personal point of view is that knowing already used strategies helps a lot to know about different units performance and perhaps how civs game style could "evolve" during the game.

There are some balance mod out there, but it is difficult to play multiplayer. As stated many times, cavalry has too many healthpoints because they can stand at shooting buildings without lose any unit since the structures hit random targets and there is a minimum distance between towers. Indeed if structures would hit 1 target at time, they would decrease attacker dps, but this isn't the only solution. While infantry units need 10 sec to train, cavalry requires 12 only rushing is clearly convenient as long as they cost 1.4x more than infantry, train in 1.5x time more than infantry and have more than 2.0x hp than infantry. Also another thing that doesn't help at all is tower attack range which is higher than its actual vision range. Anyway, as you can see from the replay, camels can destroy and deny buildings despite the towering. As you can see from the replay, spearmen can't even get close to camels because cavalry is really mobile but personally I am ok with their movement speed ( not increased by techs ) while i think that reducing overall ranged units attack max range and scale their accuracy as is it now but calculated for the new shortened range would at least give some more advantage to melee units at engaging. While ranged cavalry ( which used to have lower accuracy than infantry in previous alphas while now they share same accuracy of archers ) clearly shows the range advantage, this happens with infantry ranged units too. Infact in previous alpha slingers used to decide the place where to fight because of their mobility and high attack range.

I have no words to describe this replay, really. 2017-09-09_0010.zip

make sure you both downloaded the same version (alpha 0.0.22) version of the mod and you both have the same version of the game 0AD alpha 22 Venustas.. after you download the mod, you should go in Options -> Mod Selection -> find Delenda Est in Available Mods List and click on Enable. You will see the mod in the lower list Enabled Mods. Don't forget to press on Save Configuration before click on Start Mods. Since DE is a rich mod, you will notice for sure that the main menu background is changed and you will be sure at this point to correctly loaded the mod. This is Out of Sync proof! After that procedure, you can go in multiplayer lobby and start your own game. If you experience lag, probably the servers are bit far

you can upload more proposals independently of this one. You should be sure to remove all the previous changes you made to the svn version by typing in the terminal: svn revert -R ~/0ad/binaries/data/mods/public in the case you added new files, you should manually remove them by typing: svn remove path/fileName Arc is a powerful tool but it is easy to upload unwanted stuff ( it happens to me quite often ) EDIT: I wonder if this thread could be pinned and perhaps used as official question/ask thread

I think that as long as the game isn't a simulator, playing with vision ranges makes game interesting especially when lower vision ranges make the exploration of the map more challenging and despite the unexplored map may feel claustrophobic, once the map is explored having low vision range open the door to more strategies like outflanks and expansion near the opponent territory influence. Also outposts are barely used when units have higher vision range in comparison ( 1 idle cavalry unit on the map gives higher vision range than a garrisoned outpost without vision range extension tech ). Anyway i strongly agree about modify vision range with elevation. I can't get the point of decreasing units movement speed though.

All cavalry now have 50 more hp than infantry, thus in late game civs with no archer cavalry will have more chances to stand to their great range and hp. While skirmish cavalry are an "upgraded" version of skirmishers with more hp, damage, range and mobility, Spear cavalry should be strong against ALL other cavalry only but less effective against infantry, matter of fact sword cavalry is much stronger against infantry units as intended. Decresing their attack rate will make them stronger vs infantry too.. I should try different combinations of attack values to fit with 2.5 to achieve the same result they could have already. Also notice that in Vanilla version cavalry spear weirdly have less attack range than sword cavalry, matter of fact in this mod Spear cavalry has more attack range and their its seem more natural thus realistic. Actually I'll consider to add 10 hp to skirmish cavalry, but what struggle me is that the strength of javelin cavalry will be too high in late game ( they gain more hp per phase up ) despite their attack max range reduction. ( 10 hp isn't a big change though ) I recall testing cavalry and actually spear cav seemed to win against skirmish cavalry, but if those 2 type of cavalry can be somehow "equal" it will still be an improvement. I am still of the opinion to have spear cav as counter of other cavalry. I will make some tests though. That's what I noticed. By having barracks as prerequisite to train cavalry, we can have diversification of civs already from the first minutes because of their barracks costs! The idea is to allow some civs to rush slightly faster than others because of their barracks cost: e.g. Celtic barracks cost 300 wood and build faster than any other civ, this means that they will be able to build barracks asap ( even at start of the game! ) and train cavalry to raid, on the other hands they will have to use all their wood and the rush will be delayed a bit more, while other civs have the barracks cost splitted between wood and stone but they build bit slower than celtics giving the chance to ANY civ to defend against a possible cavalry rush. E.i. Persian cavalry stable is the prerequisite for persians to train cavalry and its stone cost makes rushes easier to perform, while Roman cavalry is too easy to train because roman barracks cost 100 wood and 200 stone making the spear cav rush much easier than skirmishers. In @wowgetoffyourcellphone Delenda Esta mod all barracks cost stone and that's something i really liked, and i kinda share the opinion that all barracks should have at least a part of their stone cost. This may make sense. Seems like units in Aggressive Stance won't attack units further than their vision range, matter of fact more than often war dogs stay idles on the battleground and I guess it is because of their short vision range. What i have done in this mod is to decrease all infantry units vision range from 80 to 40, cavalry units vision range to 50 and archers max range from 72 to 60. In this way they will be able to shoot at max distance only in phase 3 ( because citizen soldiers gain +10 vision range at every phase) making the usage of outposts more tactic in order to help archers into having higher range at early phase. Still I am not sure if i should change spread according to the new max range and let units aim be less accurate though.

Having barrack as prerequisite to train cavalry give more room to player who likes to play defensively with no need of cavalry. Also the vision range and attack max range of most units has been reduced drastically to feel the game more adventurous while scouting for the first time. Vanilla vision range 80 at any phase: Monkey Wrench vision range 40 at phase 1 ( every phase give +10 vision range). infantry phase 1: