chrstgtr

I think a simple aura bonus (something like the old woman eco bonus but for fighting) would be simple (easy to understand so the game doest become overly compacted) and nice (creates new strategies and features). It also wouldn’t require code changes or anything like that. ton of its options here for sure.

Fine. But stats are adjustable. My point is, it is something g that was lost and it would be nice to bring back

Competitive team games too. Basically if you keep melee units around for that long it’s because the other side isn’t doing a very good job of killing units. It’s rare to see level 3 units in the game now and when you do it’s probably because the game is already over. sparta also used to have champ swords. Would like more than just the champ spears there. Yeah, I meant more cost etc. so that it isn’t just a backdoor to make champs also strong agree re officers. I think also suggested that somewhere back in the forums, though, and no one seemed interest. I think of something like that being a cool semi-hero bonus.

This was discussed before. It would be virtually impossible to do in competitive games for most melee units. The exception would be games where skill isn't close (i.e., not competitive) or with skirati (units that get a 2 rank head start). As a result, I would prefer @wowgetoffyourcellphone's suggestion in the abstract. I would be curious on how to do it so that cost makes sense and isn't just a work around for training champs to beginwith

That’s what I was thinking. I’m sure there are more (options and interesting) ways it can be done, but I def prefer something like that to an alternative where everyone just gets the same roster

Maybe, sure. My point is that if all civs have all the same units or have all the same “unique” features then nothing is unique. Realistically, all civs that existed around the same time period could basically all look the same: some spears, some swords, some cav, some archers, etc. But just because everyone had everything, doesn’t mean the game should look that way too because that would create a boring game. At some point, the game needs to be a game. That is why something like the Roman sword and Greek hoplite should be emphasized whereas some other units should just be left out to some degree

The old siege differences weren’t easily noticeable. I would to bring back full capabilities to the camp, though, which was very noticeable. I tend to agree that if all the civs all have the same units then things get boring fast. It might make sense to have some civs have primary and auxiliary units. Something like rome gets the base of swords and skirms and has the option of choosing one of archers or slings. This only works once the choices are more or less equal, though, which currently isn’t the case with archers being the worst unit.

One of, if not the biggest, factor on how fast units can kill enemy units is dmg values. The point stands: if a shift is to occur, it will be a delicate balancing act to keep range relevant.

You keep repeating how slingers weren't balanced in a23. Everyone knows this. That didn't mean you had to get rid of anything I listed above. Unit balance ≠ diversification even if that results in more civs being played. See how everyone wanted to play Maurya in a24 even though it had all the features you now mention. No one said the current alphas didn't bring some good changes. But most everyone agrees that it also brought some bad changes. This is the part that you don't seem to want to accept.

As for your metal reference, there was a change made to address that. That is how the process is supposed to work (Thanks, @wratii) We were discussing whether a23 was more diverse than a25. I didn't opine on how I thought those things should be except for one place where I said it was a good change. I was directly responding to someone who made false assertions to support a narrative that is clearly untrue (and notably the current narrative is now different than the narrative that they told a year ago to defend a24). If someone repeatedly misquotes you in a way that negatively reflects on you then that person is either doing it on purpose or not very smart. I do not believe the former is true. 100% agree. But sometimes moving forward means recognizing mistakes and correcting them--this is the only reason why a23 is a benchmark.

This isn’t true. When siege factories were unique to Mace you could push siege much earlier than with other civs. Now all the civs are the same with that respect

Stop purposely misquoting me. I already said I couldn't care less about stables. And stop claiming responsibly for more civs being used now when those are just balancing changes (many of which you had nothing to do with)-- for proof see how a24 had people ONLY wanting to play Maurya because balance issues. Want a list on how a23 was more diverse? See below for a list off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more because I know I can't even remember all the civs off the top of my head in the time that I am willing to spend to write this post. Sele a cav health tech that actually mattered Persia a cav health tech that actually mattered unique stables, which are a handicap and much more than something that just "'looks' different" Brits building pop bonus Gauls building pop bonus Ptol free houses/storehouses/farmhouses/corrals Mace a unique siege building that allowed for unique strats Rome Camps could do more Sparta More champs options Less pop (I wasn't sad to see this go) Athens More champs options p2 champs Yeah, there are few things that are present in a24 and a25 that didn't exist in a23. That's a good thing. But almost none of those changes (I can't think of any besides mers, which have caused huge balancing problems) have anywhere near the impact that 1-7 above had.

Unit balancing is totally different. Asking for balanced slingers isn't the same as asking for barracks to make cav or for Persia to be a unique cav civ. And nothing you mentioned that was an improvement occurred because of feature/design changes. People use more units because they're better balanced now. Also, a23 was a more diverse and differentiated version of the game than what we have now. Was it perfect? Obviously not--units should be balanced. But there are long lists out there about how all the civs are basically the same now, which wasn't always the case and stables and the lack of a special Perisa cav tech are on those lists. Just like how we shouldn't be afraid to implement new features that will improve the game, we shouldn't be beholden to keep bad changes that were implemented just because they exist now.

That's fine. I don't really care, though. Skirm and spear cav would only be a differentiator in so far as a player rushes p1 cav. So whatever impact this has will be pretty limited. The true differentiator civ differentiator in a23 (and before) was that Persia got +10% health, which was globalized to all civs in a24. In my opinion, that and stables were much better of civ differentiators than what we have now or what is proposed. Honestly, I would be fine reverting to what it was before and rebalancing cav so all the other civs have viable cav strats

You missed the point: you can’t play MP in old alphas because the lobbies are dead (even if all the old players are in the new lobby complaining how the old alpha was better)

Yeah, because it's actually called SP

Requiring stables is more expensive than having a barrack that can produce inf+cav. Stables make rushing less viable for p1 because it means a failed rush strategy can't be easily converted to boom strat. I don't think this is good thing. After p1, I don't think stables changes the game a ton. But I also don't see any real benefits of having stables and I haven't seen anyone put forth an argument on why they should exist where the reason why didn't already exist (i.e., scouting is always beneficial--I always want to know if my enemy made early military buildings). I'm personally not a fan because of this p1 issue and how it took away civ differentiation, but I am not losing a ton of sleep over it. Lastly, it isn't helpful to tell people to buzz off when they describe how they want the game to become. Sometimes people want the game to revert to have features it used to have. If you don't like that then you never should've downloaded a25 and should go back to a24 (see how unhelpful that line of reasoning is?).

As in stone towers? I don't think so.

Related, it might be nice if there was a civ bonus that let players build their players build in allied territory. This could be in the form where one civ can build in any allied territory or where one civ lets any ally build in their own territory. This could make for some interesting strategies where a team can push really hard on the enemy because of decreased spam walk distance.

Thanks. I see it now. I didn't see it before because I was trading 100 back and forth. That results in net 0 res creation. trading 200 back and forth also creates net 0 res creation. (Note, that while the total amount of res stays flat, the amount of individual res can increase or decrease--effectively allowing mace to trade any res for any other res. Maybe that needs to be revised, but that isn't what's at discussion) The problem begins to develop occur when you trade 300 res back and forth (and it seems to get worse as you trade higher amounts back and forth, at least for a little while). I don't think this is a problem with Mace as much as it is a problem with general trading functions. I suspect this means that players should always trade larger amounts of res because the "value" is greater with the larger amount that you trade. That doesn't seem right and seems to say "you'll get better value if you flood the market with unwanted res." This should be visited, and I suspect such a revisiting will fix the "Mace" problem.

I still don't see the problem with the Mace bonus. I just checked in a single player game and without any prior trading the baseline trade value is 100:98. So the mace player actually loses 2 res by trading. Sure, other players can cause the value of res to result in above 100:>100 trades, but that can happen for any civ and when that does happen the opportunity to arbitrage will quickly disappear.

Thanks. I’ll have to look, but I thought that arbitrage disappears pretty quickly

What's the issue? Is it just that you can "create" res by trading with yourself? Doesn't that quickly disappear as rates get adjusted after you trade a few times?

Tell me what their third hero is without looking? I can’t. That’s a problem. Even still, that is just like 1/3 of the civs

Better: make other civs have useful heroes. The problem with ptol is that they are basically the only civ that could be considered “done.” I’d much rather just change the house/storehouse bonus from being a discount to being something that is more similar to a23, which was free but slower to build. Right now, ptol is just easier to play. There is zero additional thought or trade off that goes into their play because it is just cheaper. Before there was a real trade off with how many workers it took to build all those houses and players would frequently get pop capped if they weren’t careful. I would propose changing ptol houses/storehouses/farmhouses to be the way they were in a24 except take 2 seconds longer to build