chrstgtr

Interesting--thanks for clarifying. Do you know why it is intended as a separate game? It seems like a logical extension to just expand the date range so you can have a larger number of civs play against each other. Not saying we're there yet, I just don't understand what seems to be a permanent arbitrary cutoff. At some point it seems like EA will stall because new interesting civs become less interesting (see discussion in other thread on why additional greek fractions are unappealing). Yet, EA will never truly be finished. And, starting a new game from scratch will be tough to get initial buy-in (why play with 4 civs when you can play with 16+ in EA, why split the player base, etc.).

Where does this come from? I’ve seen people say this a few times, but I don’t know what supports this proposition. As others have pointed out, that timeline isn’t strictly followed. The about page on the website also identifies the timeframe as 500BC to 500AD: https://play0ad.com/game-info/project-overview/. (Personally, date ranges seem arbitrary until you start introducing gunpowder, but I’m more curious where this date framework comes from)

You're missing my point. It's a game, not a simulation. And, your statement that you want American civs cannot exist if you believe the above.

Yeah, I want both. All I'm saying is that I'm not keen on the logic that would always exclude American civs

That's my point--excluding American civs for "historical" reasons is silly These two statements can't coexist. Until you start adding American civ then no new American civ will ever have any real historical connections during 0ad's timeframe. Besides, it's a game. It's not a historical simulation. Sparta and Athens both existed at the same time and did interact with each other. We don't need the game to perfectly replay every one of their interactions. If the outcome was already determined then it wouldn't be a game.

This is specious. Until American civs are added this will always be the case. If other non-American civs continue to get added then American civs will only become less related Han were far away and unrelated before yet they were added. Earlier in the thread you said Xiongnu now have to be added because Han are now in the game. You’re falling into a self-fulfilling prophecy. The game should go where there is demand

This couldn’t happen in a26 because of the Han farming issue, which made the mod the de facto version of a26 for anyone who cared about balance at all.

I’d rather do what’s discussed above. Plus it’s already really tough to recover if you lose an initial naval battle—promotions would just make it more difficult

@FreagarachI largely agree that your suggested changes would make walls more effective. But there was a pretty massive backlash the last time the game went in a turtle-ly direction (a24) and one of the reasons for that backlash was people didn't like turtling. Since this potentially involves a meta change that could significantly change the length of games, I would make in community mod. Just my opinion. In general, I also think there's a lack of imagination with the way people build walls. Walls don't need to be an outermost defense that only separate armies. They can be built other places, like immediately around your forts, CCs, and, towers, which would make those defensive buildings much stronger.

Yeah, my point is more the later. Walls should actually do something besides delay an attacker by a few seconds to power through or path around. Until then, walls are just annoying

Kind of. The better the player the more optimized the eco, the less time to build. If you get countered then there should also be a teammate that can help cover your base while you continue to push, etc. But I hear your point. Walls largely don’t work now because they’re nothing but an obstacle—a larger army can kill a smaller army that’s hiding behind a wall. The wall just gives the defender a chance to coalescence units. This is why I’ve said elsewhere that I think walls should largely function like towers

If no top player's do build walls, walls should be made stronger (or siege and ellephants weaker). Walls are a part of the game. This isn’t quite true. It happens in some circumstances. Also, top players usually have the responsibility of dealing damage and do not need to build walls because they are a top player against inferior competition

The difference has been around for a little bit now (a25?). Having extra res always gives benefits. Extra metal mining slots also opens up potential for mercs to be abused, which not all civs can do (really a problem with mercs). Same with military techs and champs. I’m fine with it metal being capped. Extra stone slots means slinger civs aren’t disadvantaged vs civs that only need wood, which isn’t capped and generally available on all maps. I’m fine with some stone having extra slots. It adds some nuance that I’m fine with. But I think most people would adjust to whatever number of slots are permitted so long as stone gets at least like 20 on the initial stone.

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