Jump to content

faction02

Community Members
  • Content Count

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

135 Excellent

1 Follower

About faction02

  • Rank
    Sesquiplicarius

Recent Profile Visitors

796 profile views
  1. The 300/300/300/300 starting resources used to be quite useful to differentiate gameplay: - It allowed Britons to go for an early slingers rush. It was also enjoyed by beginners since they could get their first 10 soldiers faster for a safe start; - Ptolemies could go for faster boom thanks to stones available for the barrack which needed 200 stones and mercenary costing metal. During the a22 -"No cav" period, that was often used as a substitute for rush, you could send your woodcutters away for a relatively long time without slowing much your economy since Ptolemies could keep growi
  2. I remember reading this arguments here too and I am no expert in history nor elephants but this morning I came across that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxlmmtragFU I noticed that they choose to put archers on bigger elephants and "melee" elephants are smaller one for Seleucids. 0ad does the opposite for Maurya. Don't know if something there could make sense to insert some changes... On the topic of "elephant racism", I was wondering about the balance of the two types of elephants. Indian elephants feels pretty good compared to the other one especially because both take
  3. I tried to search for the original motivations behind the introduction of this, but it is probably too old to be easily found. I was guessing that it was introduced as a indirect way to force players to gather stones even if it is not realistic to think that you might need these resources to make these upgrades. I did like this feature of a23, although I wouldn't say that it shouldn't be touched. I also liked that a player might not be able to afford all upgrades in the game and he would be forced to choose which one are important depending on the situation. But this might be a personal p
  4. This makes sense but then come the question associated with slingers. It makes the question more complicated since Athens or Ptolemies often run out of stones if the game last too long. Maybe going in the direction suggested by chrstgtr, it could be possible to use civilization differentiation and some specific buildings to make some adjustments. D3680 in the list if I copied it correctly this time... I do like the question of the role of the fortress too but I don't have any interesting idea on this specific topic.
  5. Thanks for reading it all. nani did a great job at summarizing the key idea. I have only describe what I see as a problem because it is a complex problem with many possible solutions and no easy way to say which one is better. Roughly, stone is the main resource for defense (towers/forts...), metal the main resource needed for attack (military upgrades, elephants, rams...) Many balance changes have increase this separation between stone and metal. Too much stones => Lack of metal
  6. I agree there too, I mentioned that I am not sure I wanted to see them used more simply because I am not sure they fit this thread. Wonders aren't really used frequently simply because if you can win with it, you might have won without it in most cases. This part refers more to the thread mentioned by maroder. I don't think changing the function of the wonders should make it more used by itself. I also agree that currently they are useful as tiebreaker. I would add there that they should make sense as an instrument to punish turtling. If you notice that the enemy invest a lot of resources
  7. A number of changes in a24 have contributed to alter significantly the status of stone within the game. While in a23 it was an important resources for all civilizations, in a24, some civilizations might simply buy their way out of stone collection. The role of stone is a complex question since it relates to many balance changes. Starting with some extreme example to illustrate the question: Mauryas can go to P3 and get all military upgrades except will-to-fight for only 750 stones. The player might decide then to add some optional 200 for a palace, 300 for a temple or 200 for an elep
  8. Roman siege walls were more useful when the army camp could make sieges and catapults wouldn't die to archers. I am not sure I would like to see wonders being frequently used in general. Once a player manage to get his wonder, the game is often over if he has time to use it. But I would agree that changing the repartition of the cost between how much is spent on the building and how much is spent on the tech makes sense. Civilization that have advantage on technology cost or research time might benefits a bit too much of their bonus there.
  9. I love the idea but I (and I think a few other players, chrstgtr in the topic below) dislike the flee mechanics in general. I think the part we dislike about it might be a problem here too. Having units running when they flee and other chasing them instead of fighting is problematic in battles. It is common to have a player setting his hero in passive to trigger the chasing mechanic in the enemy army. It can put you at a strong disadvantage. To abuse this feature, I would send my melee cavalry to attack your elephants and therefore force your ranged infantry to chase my melee caval
  10. The higher gathering rate of cavalry is one of the reasons that cavalry rushes are interesting in early game. It allows to increase food faster and to pay for the more important food cost of these units. Removing/reducing the differences would remove the incentive to make any cavalry units in early game since as it was mentioned, hunt is a finite resource and once hunt is over, cavalry have no economic role. Assuming that all players have the same amount of hunt, if my enemy see me making cavalry and produce citizen soldiers, I would be behind by a large amount since I would have made uni
  11. Notice that no palisades were (ab)used by this player !!!!!!!! This is clearly an invitation for the enemy to come and try to take the civic center down. To me this demonstrate a high sense of morality and ethic by this player who wanted to assess the strengh of the combination fort/civic center with the only aim to try to comment on balancing posts in the forum!
  12. I made a quick test of your mod, thanks for taking time to think about the issue. A few remarks: - there is still the upgrade to increase the default number of arrows, so abusing tower concentration could be an issue. - I tried to think about early placement of fields, I have to admit that they would be tricky to defend effectively. I placed them around the initial farmstead that I used for berries in order to save early wood. I might have set them between my first woodline (ideally on the side of the map border so there is one less side to watch out for enemy) and the civic cent
  13. You might also deduce from the reaction of the unit in which direction is the attacker. Since most units with low line of sight (women, traders, fishing ship, priest) will flee in the opposite direction from the attacker by default. It might help for navigating dogs in the enemy territory. I wonder if this should be enabled for buildings, especially palisades/fields, which don't really have vision in the first place. I see most comments about units but not so many about structures...
  14. Unfortunately, I would say RIP catapults, you will not be needed in a24. Mass archers are doing a good job at countering you (especially if they are not supported by archers). Yes, I was mostly talking about late game turtling indeed, I have nothing against early game turtling as you define it. I should have been more clear about the definition of the problem. I am currently watching a nice game illustrating the problem (I missed the money shoot, the red rams just destroyed a cc next to the fort at the front that was built next to it and lot of fpre palisades art was already
  15. I won't disagree with you on this particular point. However, computer performances are telling you that you have to limit the maximum population in a game!! If you first reach the maximum population and start investing resources into turtling, then turtling doesn't really have an economic cost. Waiting for resources exhaustion is far from fun for me, I could make tea the first 2 minutes but then what should I do??? Turtling is a bit too effective in 0ad: you can repair buildings for free, with trade, resources might be infinite and there is only a fixed cost to defensive
×
×
  • Create New...