Dakara

I crush

you should train woman for eco.

athens champ archer spam is viable no? maurya champ archer spam is good too. Some persians play immortal (cheap archer champ) Kush are ok tiers. Merc cav available. Champ cav in stable, feature of pyramide, bonus heroe ok, large choice of infantery melee, siege tower available, tanky building with tech. Maybe one die we see a proplayer use elefant? but other civ do it better i think but stone dependant for go in a lot of way.

Wonder give passively ressource income, and in the past gave a little amount of maximal pop. Today you have to build it with a lot of builder and they waste ressource for 2Min tech, instead spam champ. It useless in basic game, only useful on long game for average player. It only good for win by wonder in funny game. And have a big temple -- Many old technologies have already been removed, and the game is evolving. Maybe we can come up with something better.

We've already given the Maurya some interesting features, like the fish effect. Many ancient civilizations were strong in BOW. So I vote for not making more differentiation on such a basic unit. Furthermore, if we boost champion archers too much (I find them decent in TG pocket but a bit below the others), we'll be rewarding people without skills. Their strength is their range. This is invaluable in stats, like a unit's speed. --- lets reduce all resistance of woman to 0 also ! they should die easier for improve the skill

Hello @ProPlayer thank you for compiling this list of balancing suggestions! I agree with a lot of them. I think I'll go ahead and make the PR for the han changes. They are currently 3 pop, like catapults. Also, ranked up units do have higher capture attack. GIVE THEM a counter siege unit X5 PLEASEEEEEE No, it's civil building.

Athenians Anyway theses wall suck because we lost the property of wall in gaia territory except let a hole for cross, you can't control the door. Nothing to add, you right, but why this kind of building cost METAL? they should cost stone and wood. Britons No opinion, but i vote for a upgrade tech for dogs. With expensive cost in P3 600 food 600 metal. They pop level max then. Carthaginians If we implement this technology, it will become indispensable. And I don't think that's good. For example, if we use stone, it slows down the various game options available for Carthage (slinger mercenaries or stable/barack spam). Perhaps we could come up with a different idea? For example, after 12 civilian constructions, the technology becomes free (same mechanism as the technology where you need three traders to harvest from allies). Gauls Bonuses Suggestion: Nerf eco bonuses (similar to Ptolemies, who pay with slower build times). Lets go Kushites Option 1 is legit Good idea to give a little advantage for compensate the building cost.. need a maurya as ally I don't understand his bonus for reduce the cost of same units( what unit it is??), i think the healer reduction is interesting (even if we don't use a lot, it should work on briton heroe healer!) They have 2 heroes ok so its fine Ptolemies +1 ; / think its a big up of ptol but thye need something to pump them. Let's try it. But could be (win time for will to fight or build wonder in some mod of game), but their P3 is very stone dependant (and it slingers civ..) so they need something for deal with other civ Romans Agree it not balance, it should't convert alive unit, just change the next unit. Onagre is not already 3? Spartans Agree, and delete the malus on training time skirmish? General Balance Capture System Currently: Large houses = 550, small houses = 500 (small houses are OP). Suggestion: Large = 550, Small = 350. it already the case, they have 4 capture instead 2,5 no? Theses units don't have capture attack.. it why. And it the reason i don't like siege building, easy to loose it, it was funnier when siege was train in fortress. Disagree, we should have some common rules, infantery champ = 5 capture attack. Marines have also 5 and they are cheap. - I prefer we delete this tech Little clarity, no fun, we don't know exactly what it brings, some civs have it some don't have it, so we might as well encourage having more buildings. Rome have alreayd a little bonus So no opinion This building hasn't found much use. We have no idea how much extra space we'll end up with. It could be either OP in some cases or completely unnecessary. This is a big topic. Previously, melee units were just cannon fodder to receive hits. But we realized they should be good in infantry combat too. Without more talk we can't change something. Disagree, i think it normal they are expensive. Have quality should be expensiver than have quantity. If archers become better, all META can change, take care Melee unit received a lot of buff, maybe we can have a tech for increase the speed of upgrade unit archer? Why not Disagree, i prefer people train healer or micro the low life unit. Disagree, annoying turtle Why not This tech afford a really uninteresting mechanic. let's delete it. Until we find a better way to balance this building The only funny thing is garnison 50 unit. Barter Suggestion: +1 Please don't add tech in market ahah Siege Techs Siege already op. don't up them

100 slingers do the job if no defense army

I see your point, and I agree that this alpha brought more variety and dynamics in team games compared to older versions. I also like that captures add another layer of tactics. Also I think a lot of strategy of today were usable in past too. It more about how people play and communicate. I remember 2 big army in phase 2 could take a CC even with 20 citizen troop inside even in previous alpha. My concern is mostly about late game (Phase 3) when some strong buildings like CCs or fortresses can still fall relatively quickly to capture. In those cases, I feel destruction (with siege or units) should remain the primary way, otherwise capture sometimes feels too cheap compared to the investment in defending and upgrading. Tower seems annoying to use (put men inside etc) for a low result and easy capture. 3 or 5 men can't give enough capture resistance. But you can tell me we can obstruct access to the tower, it true and I do. I will try do more tower for have an opinion Maybe the solution is not to make captures impossible, but to adjust ratios depending on the building type and upgrade level. Civilian buildings and light towers could remain easy to capture, but core military buildings (CC, fortresses, barracks with garrison) should require much bigger numbers unless the attacker has already crippled them. If you play a civ with hero elefant you can't have a CC with hero garnison. That way, we could keep the current dynamics you enjoy (more tactical choices, not always relying on siege), while still ensuring that capturing a well-defended CC in late game doesn’t become too much of a shortcut. What do you think of this middle ground? Just run on cc and then capture all building is annoying. It should be exceptional situation. if you invade an enemy without army to defend or refusing the fight, you still can capture and destroy some building in my point of view, they enemy will be hurt and he don't recovery easy. He still has to micro for garnison some men in the important building, just less. It open also the strategy of counter attack in some way. also i said " here’s always the option of heavily damaging a building to force the garrison out before attempting to capture it. " with some military tech, the cc it easy to destroy if your opponent have no army. I will add in the most of situation, except if you retard spam them, palisade give a fake feeling of security (and that's normal for the low cost of ressource invest), they are easy to destroy if you right clic with an entire army on it. I like a lot turtle and protect my building with other building for win some time.

I think that a building such as the Civic Center or military training structures, when properly defended (with at least half of their garrison capacity filled), should be almost impossible to capture in Phase 3—except in cases of an overwhelming numerical difference, for example at least a 1-to-15 ratio (10 defenders against 150 attackers, not counting champions or mercenaries). The idea is to avoid capture becoming the “default option,” and instead make destruction through units or siege weapons the more realistic and relevant solution. Of course, there’s always the option of heavily damaging a building to force the garrison out before attempting to capture it. On the other hand, I think it would be interesting to keep a moderate capture speed depending on the type of building: Light civilian buildings or watchtowers could still be captured quite quickly, as they are now. Un-upgraded towers could resist capture at about a 1-to-5 ratio (e.g., 3 defenders vs. 15 attackers), while upgraded towers could resist at about a 1-to-10 ratio (5 defenders vs. 50 attackers), with capture becoming much slower beyond that. Military buildings without defenders should still be capturable, but they ought to resist better. We just need to find the right balance so that capturing them isn’t a trivial action but more of a time sink for the attacker.

Dans un monde vidéoludique saturé de titres standardisés, produits en série et bourrés de microtransactions, il existe un jeu qui rappelle ce que jouer veut vraiment dire : 0 A.D.. Oui, ce RTS open source est bien plus qu’un simple divertissement. C’est une déclaration, un manifeste en acte : on peut créer un jeu exigeant, beau, riche, sans céder aux logiques commerciales. Et c’est précisément pour cela que je l’aime. Il est à la fois traditionnel et moderne. Je joue aux RTS depuis longtemps. Ce genre est le plus noble du jeu vidéo : il met l’intelligence au centre. Pas de script figé, pas de rails à suivre. Seulement un champ de bataille, des ressources limitées, et la liberté totale de construire sa victoire ou de creuser sa défaite. Un bon RTS, c’est un duel d’esprit, un ballet de décisions prises à la seconde, une tension où l’on doit tout équilibrer : économie, défense, expansion, attaque. C’est brut, c’est exigeant, c’est pur. Et j'aime particulièrement ce jeu car le socle de connaissance est limité et la micro-gestion pas trop exigeante. 0 A.D. incarne cette essence. Il ne cherche pas à séduire par du clinquant, mais par sa profondeur. Il fait renaître des civilisations entières, les dote de leurs spécificités, et les oppose dans des batailles qui respirent l’authenticité. Jouer Sparte ou Carthage n’est pas un simple skin différent : c’est une expérience stratégique unique. Là où d’autres jeux capitalisent sur l’instantanéité, 0 A.D. rappelle qu’un RTS doit se construire sur la diversité, la patience et l’équilibre. Mais ce qui le distingue radicalement, c’est sa communauté. Pas de grands studios derrière, pas de budgets marketing colossaux. Seulement des passionnés, bénévoles, qui bâtissent ce jeu pièce par pièce. Voilà la vraie révolution. Dans un secteur où tout semble dicté par le profit, 0 A.D. prouve qu’on peut faire autrement : coopérer, partager, créer ensemble. Ici, les joueurs ne sont pas réduits au rôle de consommateurs. Ils deviennent des contributeurs, des voix qui comptent. Et cette communauté, je la revendique. Elle est le cœur battant du projet. Quand un bug est corrigé, quand une mise à jour sort, ce n’est pas une opération commerciale, c’est une victoire collective. On sent que le jeu évolue parce que des gens, aux quatre coins du monde, y ont cru et y croient encore. Ce n’est pas une entreprise froide qui déroule sa feuille de route : c’est une aventure humaine. Alors oui, j’aime 0 A.D. Non seulement parce qu’il est un excellent RTS, mais parce qu’il est une preuve éclatante que le jeu vidéo peut être autre chose qu’un produit calibré pour vider des portefeuilles. 0 A.D. est libre, gratuit, ouvert. Il met en avant la passion, l’histoire, l’intelligence, et surtout l’humain. Et c’est exactement pour ça qu’il mérite qu’on y joue, qu’on le défende, et qu’on le fasse connaître. J'ai la gaule en écrivant ces mots.

I will try, but i didn't like the cheap cost of wall. for me in vanilla game it okay

with the old bonus civ macedonians, it was worse i guess

Hello everyone, I noticed that the capture system has recently been modified in the A27. (compared to Alpha 27). I would like to better understand the reason behind this change. What was the main motivation for adjusting the capture mechanics? (nerf the capture resistance) Was it mostly for balance purposes ? Are there any design notes or discussions I can read to follow the reasoning? I’m asking because the capture system is quite central to gameplay, and as a player I’d like to know the vision behind these changes. In the long run, what does the team (and community) want the capture system to be? A strong resistance mechanic (buildings being very hard to capture, taking time, mainly when base is empty capture is a nice decision)? A moderate option where some buildings are hard to capture and some moderate to capture? Thanks you

I don't think walls should cost less. It's going to get awful if that's the case. In the current situation, with a few hundred timbers, you can protect yourself from a disturbing attack quite early. Of course, you won't stop them if they're very motivated, but you'll buy enough time. Building + few palisade and you are ok Stone walls are quite solid and balanced in their construction time. What bothers me most is how catapults are so tanky against melee units. They should melt more if attacked in melee.

gauls were famous for iron and forge ,rome learnt from us are you talking about iberians lol?

+20food and -1 piercing armor and it ok , start lighty

You're free to move your hero, it's micro. However, there's no reason why a fleeing unit should run faster. and of course a heroe can kill woman and run!

only A9?

if i can change the setting of keybind for camera i can try send some scrennshot

Ok lets play corral with sword infantery for pick the goat for wood we can palisade the entire forest

then how you go attack his base for stop the fanatic spam? you send 30 spearmen CS acrros the map??

you picked mercenary XD plus how you do with a civ of archer? i'm agree fanatic OP on situation, not all time . If you build wall, have a civ with good civ, didnt start spam cav in 4vs4, etc, etc etc etc plus we don't know why gauls has a extra tech of food. You know this kind of bonus don't make civilizations unique, it just makes them unbalanced.

did you see the fanatic are not micro too? plus the distance unit are in circle

video, random stuff, no micro, just think what you want, this unit is a counter of cav, you can tell me i don"t have enough melee, it true, but anyway , fanatic run faster and they can pick the moment to fight (as cav) 1) One example with not bad placement for blue : 5 fanatic = 600 food 500 wood *** high speed, not able to pick ressource, big counter of cav 10 crossbow = 500 food 500 wood + 3 sperman = 150food 150 wood = 650 food 650 wood *** capacity to collect ressource / take more spot in house / feel good with 13 units to counter 5 units made for counter cav video 2) 5 fanatic = 600 food 500 wood 9 skirmish = 450 food 450 wood + 2 sperman = 100 food + 100 wood = 550 food 550 wood video 3) 20 archers + 3 spermen vs 8 fanatic = loose 1150 food 1150 wood vs 960 food 800 wood 8 champion infantery sword gauls win also (only 3 remains) 2.mp4 1.mp4 3.mp4