chrstgtr

I agree 100%. But low wood is probably the #2 reason why some maps/biomes are unpopular (#2 after only the fact that some maps require the use of a navy). All I mean to say is that a reduction is radius size should be done carefully because its easy to overdo it and the potential for blowback.

That is unrelated. It doesn't change the fact that there is "too much" of certain resources on certain maps. Economies will be slowed but players still may end up with thousands in extra res on many maps. The problem is there is often no resource scarcity, which encourages unit spam and obviates any need to build additional CCs .

Agree. On some maps this is a huge problem. The ability to build over shrubbery has partially mitigated this somewhat for some biomes. Unfortunately, it's a tough problem to fix because you can easily tip into a scenario where there is not enough wood, which is often a frustrating player experience. Indeed, I think the player base prefers maps where wood is overwhelmingly plentiful. There is a happy medium in-between where we presently are and "not enough" wood but I think a slight decrease in wood could quickly go from "this is an improvement" to "this ruined the game." I don't know what you mean by "worker density."

Or just decrease the radius increase size with each phase. We did that some in the community mod but I think we could do it even more. It's pretty easy to run of of minerals, esp if you build a lot of slingers, mercs, etc. It's usually wood that there is "too much" of.

One of the lessons is: if you want to actually develop a game with new features do it as part of the main development team. Everyone would like to see new/more team members. the reception for rogue development is chillier.

You’re missing the entire point. Your opinion doesn’t matter if the people you’re playing with think that’s it’s cheating.

There have been so many posts in this thread (and that thread) saying that it is cheating. Just because it is public knowledge doesn't mean that it isn't cheating. There is no agreement on any of these items. If there was agreement it would be part of the vanilla game (and thereby not a "cheat"). The only reason why these cheats exist is because someone made the mod and no one can do anything to stop you from using it. Being transparent about cheating doesn't make you any less of a cheat. A cheat is anything that gives an advantage this is not universally agreed to. This mod gives an advantage to the user and is not publicly agreed to. This is a game with no referees to enforce the rules. The game relies on cooperation around the basic rules of the game. If we were to play a soccer match and I picked up the ball with my hands and ran it into the goal it would be cheating. It wouldn't matter that everyone could see me do it (public/transparent). And, it wouldn't matter if there was or wasn't referees to enforce the rules against against. No matter how public. No matter how transparent. A cheat is a cheat. And, players continued use of a mod in games where others call it a cheat loses any good will and benefit of the doubt those players ever had.

yeah, i'm not worried about nomads--those should be pretty unique by virtue of being nomadic.

Agree. There are already units like this. But I'd really like to get away from the "introduce a new unique unit" for each civ as a means of differentiating. Playing the same with every civ until you spam one, unique unit for that civ at min 15 is a pretty boring meta. Now, if the unique unit creates a unique build order, like free champs, siege, or something then that's a different story. I would just like to see civs play more differently than each other.

I think we should really focus on changes that will actually change gameplay/create different build orders. Right now most civs play basically the same (i.e., most civs are boom to p3 then spam the strongest units for that civ). Also, the most interesting bonuses right now are ones that actually cause you to play a civ differently (Sparta spear bonus makes players make more melee, Iber skirm bonus causes players to make more skirm instead of other units, Athens phasing bonus causes players to phase at different times, etc.). Doing something like introducing p2 siege or creating free siege, will actually cause players to change when they phase and what they do in those phases (i.e., staying in p2 longer and doing push with bolts or phasing to p3 faster to do quick siege push). Giving something like a metal trickle won't really change how someone decides to play a civ--it just makes using that civ slightly easier. The army choice option is fine, but I don't think it will change much in terms of play because it's just pre-determining what type of units will be made (and, at least right now, no one will choose an all melee inf army).

I would be fine with that if bolts were available--otherwise it doesn't change their build at all except it is a worse version than Roman camps. It might be hard to balance--imagine walking into a turtled mace base with 10 bolts at min 13. It's not that hard to balance with either longer train times or limiting the number of siege factories. It would just require testing. I just want to create different build orders for the different civs. Right now it's all the civs play the same--boom, get siege around min 13, push with siege. This did not use to be the case for Mace, and I think we should revive that quick siege push for them

Mace used to play different because you would rush to p3 to get quick siege from siege factory. Now Mace plays the same as other civs because everyone gets siege factory. Make siege free? Nerf with siege factory limits or slower train times. Giving them free siege would introduce new strategies like rushing to p3 to free siege but that would make them very vulnerable to early pushes.

I would do melee rebalance, ele changes, and cata. That is one really big change and two more isolated changes. I wouldn't do maurya hero auras (can't remmeber them exactly) because they may stack with any of the other changes and because that would be two changes for Maurya (ele and heroes). I wouldn't do building AI because that is another really big change, which will make the impact of melee rebalance more difficult to understand. If we knew that we had like 6 months to test then I would want all of them in. But with an undetermined amount of time, I don't want to get squeezed and not understand enough of the impact for anything. With three changes we should at least have a pretty good idea about each of them. We can revisit in another month or so to see if we should have another community mod update.

Seems like option 2 is potentially less work if we have to adjust anything/un-commit anything. Option 1 doesn't seem like it really saves any time

Thanks. It seems like we should at least do melee mod rebalance, elephant changes, and cata changes. Those are all straight forward balancing items that shouldn't cause bugs but need to be tested. Best case all get implemented before a27. Problem with testing in RC is that there is lack of players, which means less testing

Do we have a timeline on when a27 comes out? Thoughts on doing another community mod update for a26?

It's just superfluous, and I can see why it would be annoying to do when already engaged in other tasks--it's already a bit annoying to have to send resources when busy with other stuff. But I get why others would want it, esp for the scenario that Feld raised above.

The second one looks good to me. (I also don’t have a problem with the current one). I’d want to be able to see some of the actual gameplay screen, which the second one does well Personal opinion, but I think clicking on confirm every time you want to send res would get annoying fast. This’ll probably vary from person to person. (Also probably east to turn confirmation requirement off)

It creates a trade off decision to force players to have a better balanced economy (or make the decision to concentrate on a few resources more strategic) before all food was for pop and you only needed to mine wood/metal to tech upgrade, which meant a near mindless allocation of gathers to the same three res for most civs. For most games, was no reason not to spend all your food or to invest heavily in stone/metal Also, it was to free up some metal for mercs/champs.

Yeah. I mean more down the line. I just have zero interest in having another Hellenistic civ because of how they’re already repetitive. It’s not per se bad. But I just really, really don’t care. And would much rather integrate new ideas into what civs we already have to get what we do have more differentiated/interesting

Anything but another Hellenistic faction.

Needs and wants a different. The game is fine now. But I don't have anything against including more (if the additions are reasonably balanced). I have no desire to add civ that would be nearly duplicative of civs that already exist (i.e., Syracuse repeating elements of other Hellenic civs).

I can't commit to any specific time this weekend, but I will generally be around. Pls ping me if you see me in lobby

What are your stat settings? These look interesting/unexpected in a few different ways