macemen

Each transaction you makes moves the price for everyone on the map. The only way the price will move in the opposite direction is if somebody on the map starts to sell metal for wood. Better to build two markets as far as possible from each other and send traders from one to the other. These traders will provide a constant income of resources. This income will be larger with larger distance between the two markets. You can also chose the resources they will provide, by default they will provide all four resources, which is probably not what you want as you said you have plenty of wood (and food I suppose). You should be able to build more town centers from phase 3 on. Maybe you didn't have the necessary resources? If your citizens can otherwise climb these hills then it is probably just a path-finding bug, of which there are plenty. In this case just send them to the hilltop manually and then make them work on the building. It is also possible to place foundations on genuinely inaccessible cliff-tops, if it has enough space. Of course you won't be able to actually build the building in this case.

So what is the reason Ptolemies are also almost this good, but the Seleucids who have a very similar unit selection are not even mentioned in the same "league"? What boost? Thanks, this was a good explanation.

I wanted to ask this for some time, and this looks like a good place to ask it. Why are the Celtic civilizations considered to be the best? It seems like (after watching some of the videos posted on this forum, I don't play MP myself) that in 90% of the matches one of the parties is either Briton or Gaul, but often both. Sometimes you also see Ptolemies but other Civs are truly rare to be seen. So why are the Celts considered superior for competitive play? Is it the spear + slinger + skirmisher combo that is so effective? (The Ptolemies also have this combo, maybe that is why they are also considered good). Are slingers really the key to victory? According to my limited historic knowledge, slingers are supposed to be cheap auxiliary troops, not a battle deciding factor. AFAIK the Successors have a much more diverse army, both the Seleucids and the Ptolemies have almost every unit kind available. But I have not seen even a single match with Seleucids played.

He must have noticed that he didn't have to pay to download the game... When you don't pay for something you have no basis for making demands.

If all melee units have a "melee" attack type that the catapults (and all siege equipment in general) have very little defense against then there is no need for the bonus. Melee cavalry and infantry, albeit to a slightly lesser extent, would be a natural choice against siege equipment.

It is at least as historically accurate as destroying fortifications with a spear or a sword.

@Rolf Dew I don't like extreme micro, I'm really bad at it. But I like to engage the enemy early and continuously on in MP matches. Playing relaxed is not suitable for MP IMO, it allows the enemy to gain control of the entire map.

What's wrong with rushing? Rushing is awesome! I love the early skirmishes in an RTS match, when there's only a few units and its all about maneuvering them just right so that you can inflict the maximum possible damage without suffering any.

Hack is the most effective as the ram has just 1 hack armor.

Which civilization are you playing? Seleucids have swordsmen from the Military Colony (Thracian Black Coats). Ptolemies also have swordsmen from their Military Colony (Galatian (?) Swordsman). The Kushites have the Napa (?) Clubman that has hack attack if I remember correctly. You can also use your elephants to destroy rams to great effects.

I was wandering how (2) works myself. Could never find out how to do that.

I think ladders could be added to the game without the controversial invisible garrison fight feature, as a mean to scale walls, much like the siege towers currently, without the elevated cost (and the added protection) of the latter. That's what they were used for after all.

In real sieges the speed of the ram was not something they optimized for, instead they went for as much protection as possible. Since rams are almost impregnable to missiles it does not matter how fast it gets to the target. As for melee attackers, they can just follow the ram, which has to stop when it reaches its target anyway, so I don't see why would speed be an advantage here. I can see speed being an advantage if the ram would be able to outrun any melee attackers, allowing for blitz like attacks on the enemy base. But that sounds absurd, a man pushing a ram can never be faster than a man running *without* pushing a ram. Nothing is too harsh to ask here, don't worry. I just found you suggestion funny when I imagined a ram charging in my head. But I'm just a freeloader here, people who actually contribute might have very different opinion than me.

This would mean that inside the tower, a slinger clad in cloth and armed with a knife is equivalent to a champion swordsmen, armed and armored to the teeth. Sounds very wrong to me.

This is an interesting idea, though, IMO, really hard to implement right. In general fights that take place *inside* a building (been suggested in other threads, as a mean to capture or raise buildings) are problematic. How do you decide which warrior wins? Do you simulate a fight? How do you communicate progress/success/failure to the user? What happens if one or both fighting parties are ranged units? Do they use their ranged attack inside the building? What if the garrisoned unit is cavalry, elephant or siege engine? I think the current system of units waiving their weapons outside the building, if slightly ridiculous, makes the most sense for an RTS. It gives good visibility of what is happening and opportunity to intervene for both parties.