chrstgtr

Sounds like you’re garrisoning all your units into defensive structures. Don’t do that. Do eco with them. And the fight with them when enemies comes (they’re stronger outside structures but obviously more vulnerable)

Fine with me

This was previously known. At the time there was concern about cata becoming roaming lighthouses. Expanding vision would make them easier to protect, but I don't have a big problem with that. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4511 Or decrease attack range. I personally think cata deserve a slight nerf so decreasing attacking range would serve a dual purpose. I don't really care which of these options the team proceeds on. It's this. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4511 I also suppose it would happen when you are firing from a higher elevation.

Don’t really care, but I would rather lean into what we have now and further decrease costs/build time. Sele bonus does more for CCs and Maurya bonus does much more for temples

Especially if the garrisoned units are javs. The fight basically has to be right in front of you for it to ever make sense to garrison javs. I would personally prefer if they just become like towers and shot out arrows.

You mean the turrets? Those do nothing--it was changed a few alphas ago and I think it was a mistake.

I mostly agree. I like it when things take inspiration from culture (see Alexandria Library or any Wonder), so I don't think it should be totally ignored. Also wouldn't want to foreclose future possibilities. For example, I think if we ever get an imperial Rome then I would want to see Christianity and conversions as part of the game. Same with early Islamic empires.

Is the game supposed to be a sim city civilization builder? The game has victory conditions related to military success--the bolded is a function of that. I don't really think that is a problem. If you want a cultural exploration game--great. But I think that is a separate game. Or at least a very different form of what we have with different victory conditions.

I'm telling you that your form of communication isn't constructive because it doesn't say why you want anything. If you want to be helpful (and I hope you do) and you want your opinions to be considered (and I hope they are) then you must explain your reasoning.

Read back, @real_tabasco_sauce and I discuss it extensively a few pages back. You also flatly rejected something that is explicitly meant to improve and which, as you said, doesn’t have a branch yet. This is axiomatic. Again, you just say “no” without saying why. It’s like if I reply saying: “I love the principle and it should be applied to all infantry, including melee. It will only make the game more exciting and relatable, with all units filling the right purpose.” See, it’s just conclusions with no reasons given. It’s not a constructive discussion—it’s a monologue that just says “no, no, no.” If you want to be helpful say what you want AND “why, why, why.”

Yeah, I really like the multiple armor and attack system we have for cav and inf, but it’s a huge pain to try to get right. I just don’t care enough about ships to do something more complicated and your proposal works/is a huge improvement compared to what we have

Chiming in again to explain since there seems to be some contention. I don’t necessarily disagree with anything said by @real_tabasco_sauce or @wowgetoffyourcellphone. The reason why I like what @wowgetoffyourcellphone put forward is because it gets away from our current model which is just one “type” of ship where the only strategy is to get more full ships earlier than your opponent. @wowgetoffyourcellphone’s system is more or less a rock paper scissors approach, which introduces strategy and relatively easy to balance

I like this quite a bit. I think the numbers will need to be adjusted a bit (it sounds like naval battles will be very quick otherwise), but I like the overall concepts. Also, I vote free scouting ship or to cut it all together. Lastly, I presume you would keep merchant and fishing ships the same? No objections from me, if so. Nice work! Edit: I know you've been working on ship art lately. Could you post the classes' corresponding art? It would be nice to get an idea of the relative sizes.

Your statement is uninformed and not helpful. @real_tabasco_sauce’s entire idea is to buff melee units. @borg- and I have proposed an alternative idea that could be used in conjunction with @real_tabasco_sauce’s idea or by itself. All share the common idea of buffing melee units. Your statement is the equivalent if the 300 pound sports fan yelling at a player to run faster—it isn’t helpful, it’s not telling anyone anything they don’t already know, and it’s negative towards the people who are actually trying to do something. Randomly dropping in to say “no” isn’t constructive discussion

I mean arrows from buildings will become relatively more impactful because armies would kill roughly half as fast There will be other impacts too, but making armies half as effective at killing units will have huge ripple effects.

Yeah, I’m just worried about it becoming a spam meta where mercs dominate. But, yeah, definitely something to try in the community, if there is interest

Agree. If you decrease range it will have a whole series of cascading impacts, such as turtling becoming much stronger.

I’ve been saying this for awhile. It’s logically consistent with what we have (farther range units move slowest) and should also help balance by slowing melee to engage

I took the post to mean that you could do some sort of upgrades once at level 2. Kind of like centurions are at level 3. Not sure what upgrade there should be, though Agree with the second part. I took the post to mean that you could do some sort of upgrades once at level 2. Kind of like centurions are at level 3. Not sure what upgrade there should be, though Agree with the second part. Edit: I also question whether experiment where mercs producing at rank 2 has failed. It's caused huge balance issues and isn't particularly interesting (see @wowgetoffyourcellphone above). I wonder if we should try a different route. Maybe making merc produce super quickly. I've also thought that since mercs fight for the highest bidder that maybe they should be convertible (i.e., you can bribe a portion of the opposing army to change sides and fight for you. I'm not sure if the game even supports that, though. Convertible units would prevent pure spam strategies if mercs get trained super quickly.

Why not decrease the range? I agree crossbows are very good at sniping, but they're pretty bad otherwise. They are very weak against melee in straight up fights, move slowly, and have lower dps than javs/slings. Decreasing range slightly would mean that sniping is less effective because units won't be able to just stand in one place and won't be able to (as effectively) out range other units. Decreasing range also won't greatly harm the players that don't micro (i.e., it won't make an otherwise weak (no-sniping) unit worse). China feels like a civ that should have a lot of pop. I would rather get crossbow sniping problem fixed than take away the pop bonus. Also, as I previously said, crossbows are only actually good when used for sniping, so a pop nerf would hurt the non-sniping players. I otherwise mostly agree with your analysis.

Good point. I kind of like the uniqueness of it. But it makes it easier to concentrate your army focus. I would suggest keeping separate, but raising the cost of each.

Hear, hear!

Yeah, my larger point is that beyond a rough inspiration, the game does a lot of historical cherry picking and inconsistently introduces arbitrary restrictions. With the above said, Mayans??? Or, for me, anyone but another Hellenistic civ

But why? Caesar’s contemporaries exist. There is Vercin. There is Cleopatra. Other civs include a wider date range—Ptol includes their first ruler and their last ruler, which begins earlier and ends later than Rome’s Punic Wars depiction. Why restrict Rome only to the Punic Wars period? To me, 0AD civs should depict the greatest period of those civilizations. For a civ like Rome, that extends up through Caesar. Without Caesar, without Augustus, without Marcus Aurelius Rome just feels incomplete. Yeah, maybe some of that should be built out in a separate Roman Empire civ, but even if that happens, where does Caesar exist? Would Rome’s depiction really need to be that different if it included Caesar?

champ cav are quite common (and I would say too strong). For infantry, I completely agree. I would add a fourth choice and make them more accessible via shorter train times and/or eliminating the research required to unlock them