Hannibal_Barca

The Cavalry Archers from CC of Ptolemies (only civ with cavalry archers from civic centre) aren't horsemen, they are camelry (or whatever you call those).

Currently traders trained from markets can be set on custom trade router (to avoid enemies), but once trained it is impossible to set a custom route. Training traders from the market then setting them between CCs will make trade routes take fastest way, hence maybe into enemy territory. This is illlogical as you should be able to tell the traders to "go this way or you will be killed".

4 basic unit types : skirmishers & spears swords slingers Of these only 2 use the same resources, arguably because a javelin and spear composition is similar in resources While mercenaries require high upkeep, more metal. (I just had to reply to such a detailed post)

Another main pillar of a civilization is the mass of indifferent looking people who power the whole machine. Anyway, why some of your proposals could maybe fit into the game (after some adjustments to fit into the game), I find that the restricting units trainable from civic centre thing unappealing. It would make the early game much more eco boom centred, which is currently fine. At the moment you can choose to "rush" enemy or concentrate on economy. Rushing an enemy of equal skill is risky and makes you neglect your home economy. It is also a burden on your growing settlement as wood is needed to train men to fight which could otherwise be used to further economy with farmsteads, houses, more strategically located storehouses etc. That's my personal opinion on your suggestion for the Civic Centre. Also for example your idea of prolonging fights and making units into battalions isn't appealing either, one of the fun points of this game (IMO) is the speed, sudden changes and battles that can decide the victor of tiny wars between players or even the whole game. Anyway, as I feel that the topic has strayed off too much (you might also lose interest in talking with me again) , this is my final post here. I wish you luck in your "concepts", but to tell the truth, I do not see the need for you getting the "Gameplay Developer" official title. You should observe, discuss with other players (since they are the ones who are actually testing and playing this game, people who don't play really shouldn't just start changing stuff without prior discussion with them) and finally suggest changes and maybe even upload a patch if its agreed to by most. There is no need to get a title for all that, if your opinions and suggestions are good they will be heard anyway without people feeling that you are above them.

Concepts are there, lots of them. Concepts for reducing side and rear vision of units, concepts of corralling animals, trample damage, charge damage, ramming, stamina, upkeep etc. There is no shortage of ideas of features to be implemented, it is the actual implementation of such things that is the problem. So if you are going to add yourself to the mass of people asking for this feature and that, I don't see how it would further the game. Unless you would actually create patches (after approval) and put them up to be tested and reviewed. Micro is fine, teaches you that without a sound, stable, detailed plan of economy you won't get far. Military could use more features but as mentioned they are already in form of ideas, just waiting for the time when they finally will be accepted or rejected for good.

Replying to @drsingh: Food and wood are the most common resources and fastest to gather, currently players have to choose whether they want to phase up and get a champion army, or build up trade for later profit. Also what does the cost penalty mean? Factions with trading bonuses? Currently a few civilizations team bonuses are trading bonuses. So this would not be very practical, since only the allies are affected, not the player itself, making it extremely complicated. might be ok They are already quite raidable, speed isn't such an important factor here. This would remove one of the main features of the market building-not really that good IMO. Trading with a limit of traders per market with minimum distance basically is the solution. Trade is easily raidable unless the enemy "turtles". But if there is a maximum of traders per market and a minimum distance between markets, players will find it harder to spam trade. If they control enough of the map to have several markets and traders, it means that the enemy is letting them do this by being overly passive.

Another few options to choose from: 1) Add a minimum distance between markets (80-160m) and set a limit of traders/market(5). This will make sure that max 2 or so markets will be made per base and if that player wants to trade using more than 10 traders, he/she must expand(thus partially solving problem reported by @Grugnas). Also reduce trade income with ports by 50% to prevent abuse of those. 2) Add a total limit of X traders/player with upgrades to expand this limit. 3) Limit of 1 market/civic center and limit of about 10 traders. Trade Income should also be reduced by maybe 30-50%(since there are quite a few factions with trade team bonuses). I feel the 1st choice would be the best, since a set limit for a certain unit isn't that inviting.

I am an active player, that might be true. But I find it strange that you march in and want to change this and this without any previous contributions to the game. Many people in lobby also feel the same - and not all of them play that good. Also you are evading my questions with a single "nope" which is not really a good answer for someone planning huge changes to the game. Every player has a right to know and inquire about the exact nature of any change in the game which he is currently playing. So you are saying that only people who don't play the game should discuss changes to it? Sorry, but you are very blunt and rude, how can you possibly get along in future with developers or other people if you are chosen as "Gameplay Developer"?

Nothing has changed gameplay wise? Unfortunately that's not true, you probably just peek inside, see no "obvious" changes and go away again. If you want to improve anything you should keep track with the game. You say you played a bit in alpha 19 and 10 games in recent alpha.. does that mean you skipped alpha20, or you are unnotified that alpha 21 has been released? Pardon me, but I feel you are absurdly negative, just because this game still needs lots of work on it doesn't mean you have to say that it is 0 right now (that IS what you are saying). You should also go make a mod with all the suggested changes and then we can see how well it turns out and maybe even consider implementing some elements into the official release. The changes you propose are of a huge magnitude. I am also a bit unclear as to what "Gameplay Developer" title would entail. From what I read so far I can only deduct that you suggest changes and want others to implement them right away?

Personally, I haven't seen you playing multiplayer matches, could this be because you are using a different nickname than on forums or something else? In my opinion, before suggesting a total revision of the whole game you should be intimately familiar with current gameplay in order to see what to improve. (No offence intended by this remark)

It has been discovered that a quick set-into and right away out of formation will let the skirmisher champions travel at the speed of 21.2, therefore sidestepping this difficulty. But this should be implemented "legally" and not just be due to a buggy feature.

Grugnas errs in the place where he mentions that the Peltast Aura doesn't work for Skirmisher Champions, but otherwise I wholly agree with Finch and him. Skirmisher Champions get from 16 to 18.4 in speed with Iphicrates Peltast Aura and to 21.2 within formation.

Especially in team games on "normal" maps where there isn't too much metal - maximum 3 metal mines for a player if you are VERY lucky but more likely 1/2. For the total metal cost of the tech and 1 espionage(1200) you can currently get 16 spear champs or 12 sword ones. In a game where military is important everyone sane will choose of course the champions.

I recently used this spying feature ingame and it was one of the most unprofitable thing I did 900 metal itself is already too much in my opinion, but also you need to research the technology which adds an extra 500food,wood and 300stone,metal!! Much more profitable to send a suicide cavalry which will even see more than a trader. The only imaginable case in which Spying would be useful would be if you are interested in seeing the defences of a person with 3 layers of walls and bristling defences (aka TURTLE).

Still looks cool.

Mention of market added, about water not sure, i find it quite picturesque this way.

In late game some players really "turtle" up, nerfing elephants will make them even harder to kill. Elephants are already really weak to skirmisher arrows and garisonned buildings, they can be countered, they aren't op. Remember, nerfing elephants will encourage players to sped those resources on champ spam and that's exactly what we don't want.

As of newest description (known of by elexis): Warning: It is inadvisable to disable treasures, since there is no gatherable wood. Not recommended for inexperienced players. I think it is understood that "inadvisable" means you can still play without treasures.

Since players start with markets and there is a lot of food on map to sell, I wouldn't think it that big a problem.

Map: Unknown Land Players : Grugnas, Feldfeld, Hannibal_Barca, fpre vs. JeanClaude, borg, arcadius, Boudica An interesting game showing current op-ness of slingers while showing that teamplay makes the day. uland4v4(II.17).zip

Hi, after playing 0ad for quite a while now I've noticed that a few units could do with some adjustments. 1)Spear Cavalry(citizens) These units are basically only good for molesting women and harassing small numbers of ranged units. They utterly fail in defending themselves vs their fellow skirmisher or sword counterparts, due to their extremely slow attack. While riding and fighting with a lance may be cumbersome, it still doesn't justify their snail-like attack. Light cavalry (their armour is minimal) are known for being fast(which they are) and for a reasonably fast attack due to the lack of cumbersome equipment like heavy weapons/armour. Currently these are the cavalry statisitics: Spear Cavalry Skirmisher Cavalry Sword Cavalry Attack: 6H(hack) 13P(pierce) /3.5s (seconds) 20P /1.25s 6.5H / 0.75s Armour: 4H 3P 15C(crush) 3H 1P 15C 4H 2P 15C Walk Speed: 22 17.5 20 Seeing that, spear cavalry has the best speed and armour but worst attack by far. Spear Cavalry shouldn't really be much faster than Sword Cavalry, since it is arguably harder to ride while carrying a lance than a sword. What i would suggest for this unit: 3seconds attack speed but 21 walk speed (currently they are already very efficient vs women due to speed, no need to make it much worse) 2)War dogs While we all agree that war dogs and kennels are a fine decoration in the Structure Tree, nobody ever really uses them. They are weak with a tiny vision range, they can't attack buildings (but somehow can attack siege, although it is hard to imagine a dog destroying a catapult) and they got a low attack bad armour combo. Also, kennels cost 200metal 50stone and 50 wood. Why do they cost so much metal?? War dogs were used by the Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Sarmatians, Baganda, Alans, Slavs, Britons, and the Romans. Historically, they were formidable foes, useful for breaking enemy ranks to be followed up by an attack composing of other units. In my opinion, these hardly-ever used beasts could use a buff in armour and/or in attack. Also, kennel costs should maybe be 200 stone 50 metal and 50 wood instead. (Replay in which @Grugnas used war dogs in quantity but lost them almost instantly and causing few casualties is attached at the end of the post.) 3)Pikemen Pikemen, the weakest, slowest and most armoured units in the game. Amazingly, even the lumbering Siege Tower (would-be slowest unit) is faster than our slow friends here. Their champion version reaches a phenomenal speed of 7 (0.5 faster than Seige Tower and same speed as catapults or bolt-shooters). They have a hack attack of 1 and a pierce attack of 3 for every 2 seconds. Although their high armour makes them valuable "tank" units, they are too slow to be used in a battle in which maneuverability is needed. Due to their exceedingly low attack, even their 3x bonus vs. cavalry doesn't help them at all, cavalry (other than spear ones) can kill them easily. The difference between champion and citizen speed is just 1, while in other cases it is usually 3. What I would suggest is to make them as fast as catapults (7) and their champion kin to have a decent 9-10 speed, also to give them a 5x bonus vs cavalry (who they should rightfully skewer on those long pikes of theirs). Currently their slowness is extremely unrealistic I think. And finally... 4)Archer Elephants These units bear a great similarity to horse archers and have matching statistics in all but 1 point - speed. Horse archers have a speed of 17.5 while these are stuck at 8.5 (less than half) All through Alphas 18-21 these units have for sure never been used to much effect. They are slow(as mentioned above), bulky and low in armour (like horse archers). While I agree that their speed is realistic, I think this unit could use extra armour/attack/HP (note that their hp is 120) to compensate for it and to make some people decide to use them. 7_players_ffa.zip

Although suggestion of Serengeti/Savanna isn't bad i personally prefer African Plains, and it is committed under that name.

I agree that siege towers are too costly in their current state. Historically, siege towers were used to capture the walls of a city or a fortress. The entrance to the engine is located in the back, from where ladders are located leading to the different levels of the tower. Thus when ungarrisonning the siege tower, units should ungarrison at the back of it. Since of course in 0ad everything is scaled down a lot, it would be sensible to keep then garrison limit of 20 while maybe making it garrisonable by catapults and/or bolt-shooters. Summary of Siege Tower: It is a slow, awkward unit which doesn't have a high enough attack nor defence to justify the high cost of the unit. It is unworthy of the name of "Helepolis"(meaning "The Taker of Cities"), and should be just called an assault tower and not siege tower. Unfortunately, the siege in 0ad is still very weak and can be easily destroyed. A few upgrades for siege(like blacksmith for organic units), for example 2 levels of armour and 2 levels of attack upgrades might make sense. Currently, 5 champs are enough to destroy any siege in just seconds, making siege only worth to train once you got a huge army of champs to defend, then do one of those "lightning sieges" where you do most damage not with siege but with champs.

Libyan Coast might be a good choice. Central India is meant, suggested names sound great. Ravines was made like this so that players are forced to take control of surrounding bluffs or die. Still a slight increase could be made.