BreakfastBurrito_007

Wow I did not know that! OP @real_tabasco_sauce

You don't always need to commit everything to a fight, if you start fighting and you realize you are losing you can retreat. An extremely common way to reinforce an army when playing infantry versus infantry is to retreat toward your production buildings as your units trickle forward from them. This way each step you take toward your base you are increasing your army size and you can eventually take a fight versus your enemy who is chasing you. I hope this helps! I definitely agree that briton chariots do far too much damage and skirmisher cavalry should have their damaged reduced from 18 to 16 as they usually wind up being the all-around best unit in every game.

Nope, micro, uprades, unit choices, heros, civ bonuses also matter. If your team works well together this shouldn't happen so this in particular is not a fault of game design.

I am not sure how I feel about battle tactic game mechanics that just rely on the player to choose "wedge" or some other tactic to execute. My worry is that some of these pre-made tactic options could take away from the player-controlled battle tactics that organically exist. I think there is a number of ways to design such mechanics, so it certainly doesn't have to detract from organic battle tactics.

we miss you @king reza the great!

My piece of advice: do not listen to DoctorOrgans about anything. He gathers chickens with women after all.

ranged units need to be able to miss, otherwise they are melee units. *edit: ok well there is also spread so they would still not be as bad as AoE 4. my bad for forgetting that. In the past 100 games I have watched and played I can not remember 1 instance of 'dancing'

I also think the spear throwing with a cooldown is something fundamentally different to simply switching between two weapons. That is also a champion ability so I think if the romans had something with the pilums--> sword, then it would need to be for a champion and use a different mechanic.

I enjoy the hills. We have feldmap in case we want 0 randomness, but I think the base version should have a lower standard deviation in resource amounts.

Infinite arrow speed makes ranged units into melee units with different armor and damage types and a long, long pike. I think we can do better.

Barracks, houses, and every other building also has its own territory influence, but not a territory root. I don't see how territories can remain circular when civic centers from different players are close together.

The non-circular shapes have a lot to do with capturing buildings. Perfect circles would stop working when buildings get captured.

Acceleration is an astonishingly simple calculation compared to the pathfinding and ranged combat. One major improvement acceleration has made for the game is making the movement advantage of cavalry less than total. In alpha 25 cavalry were so fast and agile that it was too easy to mitigate losses by selecting when and where to fight. In a26 if you make a mistake with cavalry you will lose many more units as you run away, and this is due to acceleration. This is why cavalry have slower acceleration than infantry. Other changes could be made to improve how infantry accelerate as well and perhaps considerations can be put in for ranged versus melee units.

Acceleration can be improved rather than removed. It also does not cause lag or alter pathfinding. Turn rates are fast enough already, with the exception of rams. About the chariots, you are right that they are not quite the same, but it is more of a unit design effort than quick fix.

I disagree with the proposition.

The game plays differently to starcraft and C and C in a variety of ways. One of these is that land can't be shared by allies.

It would be nice to have choices for team player positions, although I do disagree that having the better of two players on the border is an inherent advantage.

Seleucids have the best melee eles in the game due to the elephant hero giving additional attack and speed to elephants in an aura. I enjoy Seleucid elephants because you don't need many of them to cause a lot of damage. You can think of the hero himself as 2 eles due to his 2x damage and much greater hp, and with his bonus you can make hero+2 eles and it will be as effective as 5-6 elephants.

I remember Athenians had them earlier. I think it would be a good addition for them. Persians seem to have everything already and are really strong right now, perhaps if "Kardakes" skirms are added it would be to the same hero building that Persian immortals come from.

Because the elephant hero trains archer champions it is better to have it in low risk situations if you want to keep him alive. If the elephant bonus was added to the ele hero it would be impractical to make use of both bonuses at the same time. The healer hero usually stays with a mass of units due to his healing bonus, so that works very well with a global ele bonus.

small fragments of palisade walls take time from rams because they are usually ordered to go through rather than finishing off the other bits of palisades. The community in the community mod also voted against giving rams a more reasonable acceleration value, so each turn that palisades force rams to make prevents them from damaging valuable buildings.

Do they need to?

There is no need to outrun horses, but just to outrun other infantry.

Of course instead of cavalry we could have a couple types of "fast dudes" costing something more like 80 food 50 wood rather than 100 and 50, with adjusted stats of speed, hp, armor and perhaps interesting weapon choices.

I am thinking the prices will probably see changes based on how powerful each individual tech or what makes sense.