BreakfastBurrito_007

People have been saying that javelins are op, but I think if they are it is only slightly. In a25 they feel op but this is because of the way infantry fights always go. Melee die first with almost no damage to ranged units even if you try to target them. Because of this the best ranged unit is the one that can kill melee the fastest: skirmishers. If ranged units were able to shoot at the back of a group of enemies, then pikes would seem less op and skirmishers would also be less op. Stat wise these units are quite balanced, but because of this mechanism, we see op skirms. there has been a good discussion and some great ideas posted on the “magnetic pikemen” page.

I am in support of removing international trade bonus and instead giving it to the “Gaia market” (or trade post as it is called in aoe4) In 1v1s and TGs the Gaia market would be in the middle of the map (or in some other fair location). This means a 1v1 player who trades to the Gaia market can have better trade than their enemy. I feel this solution removes the gameplay issues of international trade bonus and it also makes trade a more interesting and varied mechanic. Also the AoE3 trade routes were very gimmicky and forced in my opinion.

2 things would be super fun: observer flares observers see allied chat of teams Also, I wonder if it is possible to add in-game voice chat?

@wowgetoffyourcellphone@chrstgtr I also notice that in TGs I see good players who have a lot of fun rushing sometimes get carried away and do what I call "over-rush". What happens is the value of further rushes decreases and the overall effect is that you slow yourself down. Sometimes I see one super successful rush where the victim is then placed very far behind in boom, and the attacker can either use the population lead to have a faster boom and finish the victim later or the attacker can keep rushing. If a weaker player has a successful rush against a better player, they might want to keep rushing even if it slows themself down, because the weaker player was less critical to their own team. Sometimes a game can be lost by a good player slowing themselves down by continuing to rush a player who is already behind from the first rush.

I agree certainly that melee units being mainly a meat shield is not a good result for the use of melee infantry. Actually, in the "magnetic pikemen" discussion @Jofursloft and I were discussing the benefits of ranged units being able to effectively target other ranged units in the back of a battle. What this would do is allow for the targeting of other ranged units, rather than the melee always dying first, and because of this melee units could become more than meat-shields.

I can't say for the other players but it is my feeling that melee/ranged balance is quite good at the moment.

A "capture the wonder" or "king of the hill" gamemode could be quite fun. I feel like these are features that would be great to have as optional add-ons for games of 0ad rather than core features.

Usually it is better to leave behind enough units on the various resources needed so that you are able to train replacements to your army. I think it is more risky (to your team) to not attack. If you have 100 extra units in your base gathering res instead of fighting, you will accumulate lots of extra resources which you are unable to use since you are already at the pop cap (assuming you have all the upgrades you want). For this reason the units have more value if they are used to fight. Also, if you attack first, you can usually decide where to fight, since it is now your enemies' goal to limit the damage you do to them. Also, attacking does not necessarily mean moving directly to someones base, it can also mean flanking their army, gaining a position close to their base that they don't like, building offensive buildings, or causing an economically unfavorable reaction from your enemy.

And in 4v4, it is possible to come back, but it requires a good strategy and helpful teammates. In a24, I observed that comebacks were sort of enforced by the gameplay mechanics and balance, such as building garrisoned arrows being very powerful. In a 4v4, a player could be nearly finished, but then rebuild somewhere else quite easily because of how hard it was to move around the map. In one game, @Dizaka built his city faster than @chrstgtr could destroy it, he built something like 10-15 forts in a counter-clockwise direction around the edge of the map. I agree that we don't want to have as many player-independent snowballs, like loot. I think a great example of something good that can be called a snowball is healers like @Feldfeld said. Keep in mind that in a24 attacking was like building a snowball in 50 degree heat.

Be careful when doing this, because sometimes if you are losing the fight and your troops are still trickling in, then you run the risk of throwing away units.

@Yekaterina iber houses are a little large despite being 5 pop, and the walls make it a bit cluttered too so sometimes 10pop houses are easier

It is true that CS cavalry can be stopped fairly easily by spearmen, and if you expect a late-game cavalry raid, you can build well sealed walls and palisades to stop them, but this requires a lot of planning to do in advance and a lot of economic loss if doing it too late. It does take a lot more effort and skill to counter cavalry raiding than it does to do the raiding, so training 10-15 consular bodyguards is an easy way to gain an advantage over an otherwise better player. A defending player needs to either see it coming, or have 30+ spearmen fight your cav while building walls/palisades, which is more effort and economic loss than it takes to train 10-15 consular bodyguards and run around someones base. I will take your advice to use stone walls though.

many people, and myself included would put iber at the top 1-3 civs. But then, I like iber since a23. Iber, in addition to having very useful firecav champs, also have the cheapest and strongest infantry swords champion available in the game, once you train the hero Indibil.

I would say just cavalry .25x , as infantry rushes are much rarer and easier to prevent. Also we don't want to see them being spammed up too much. Although I do think that we can give ram counter to them, since I feel they should go down in 2 hits from an un-upgraded ram. I am not terribly concerned about wall spam, since palisades to prevent raiding are more about sealing off places, slowing down the cav so that local spear production can catch up with them. In a24 walls were sometimes spammed in haphazard ways just to mess with the pathfinding and allow towers and forts and archers to kill most armies stuck in the "maze". Because of unit movement improvements, I think having a sealed wall is necessary. I agree with @chrstgtr that we need to see a careful nerf of CS-swordcav, and perhaps a little buff of CS-spearcav. On champion side, I think armor nerfs for both, but a bigger one for consular bodyguards.

You can probably build a house out of palm "trees" so I think we can call them trees non-scientifically. idea: date palm food source changes into date palm wood source once all berries are eaten.

I agree that palisades should be useful in stopping eco raids. I also think that palisades should be less useful against large, infantry armies, so that the game does not get covered with palisades in the ways we saw in a24. Because of this I would be in favor of giving cavalry a 0.3x counter versus palisades. This would mean that a good way to counter cavalry raiding would be to build palisades to block routes to vulnerable parts of the base and allow your spearmen to catch up to the cavalry and deal damage. This already is the case, but as evident by the video it is very easy for CS swordcav to break through 1 layer, and even easier if it is 15-20 consular bodyguards.

Anyone remember the ptol ptol Rome iber matchup from a23? Back then civs did not give their own bonuses and Iber bonus made skirms cost 40w 40f. The two Ptolemies players could boom at an outrageous pace. And if the two best players on your team were ptol it was super op.

I think we would probably need to be careful with how much damage it does per unit. We could probably also adjust this per unit. For example we could assign the critical damage to be 5% for eles since you would not want to lose 600 hp from one lucky skirmisher. I think this could be a great way to adequately nerf champions, especially cavalry champions. However, I think before this is added we would need to be extremely careful deciding which values to use. It is frustrating to see 0 enemy champs killed while they raid. You did forget one class of ranged units in your percentage chart: crossbows. Crossbows have a low rate of fire, but do large damage and are very accurate. They would need a slower recharge time, like 5 shots. Important things: Critical damage should never be lower than the regular damage dealt by the unit. For example, if a crossbowman shoots a skirmisher and does 60% damage from critical hit, this could be less than the regular damage given to the skirmisher. Or, if any unit hits a woman. Or we could choose women lose 100% health for critical XD?. Also, the numbers need to be tweaked so that there is great uniformity in gameplay and we do not see erratic or rage-inducing RNG results. See monks from AoE2.

Well I suppose my writing was not very respectful, I give my apologies for that. What I meant to emphasize was that we don't need entirely new units to have unit diversification, we can also work with what is already there. This would be really cool.

I am in agreement about adding some other unit types. Although I have no new ideas on that front. I think another way that we can make the units feel more distinct would be to shake up the uniformity of the blacksmith that we currently see across almost all civs (with exception of the +20% for swords and the accuracy upgrade for archers). I think there are a number of ways to do this, but I would be in favor of adding some unique upgrades that give a more exciting twist to the unit, it might be a trade-off tech or might not be depending on the civ or unit. I think these upgrades would be unlocked after the 3rd tier of the most pertinent current blacksmith upgrades. My ideas of new blacksmith techs so far: For example, britons or gauls could get a heavy shot upgrade on their slingers that reduces range but adds 1.5 to crush damage, and this would be unlocked after researching the p3 ranged damage upgrade. Another idea could be for Macedonian pikes, they get an increase in pike length over other pikes in the game, researched after p3 melee damage increase. Another option for gaul slingers could be faster movement speed, but a bit less armor. Another for seleucid skirmishers, slower movement speed but greater armor. Perhaps a cool option for sword units called "broadsword" could be reduce pierce armor but increase hack attack. The point is to introduce some differences between the "same" units of different civs. Often, the thinking of what units to produce is hardly more complicated than "melee+ranged". I think we should try to work to a point where the blacksmiths upgrades series looks a bit different for all civs. Tell me what you think of the idea. At least this idea does not require new artwork

Lol did you win? oh right.

hmm, I think player selection allows for more skill here, assuming the different houses are properly balanced. I am assuming that these houses should probably be more expensive, like a merger of a barracks and house the size of the Carthaginian "apartment building". Perhaps Judeans could only train one unit from cc and unlock others by building houses. Perhaps even next phases could unlock new choices for houses. I think it is a great Idea and it is something refreshing and exciting. After a major period of time working on unit/siege balance, graphics, and gameplay mechanics, many people are in favor of adding civilization and unit differentiation to make the game more exciting and fun. I think there is already a thread somewhere about Judeans and there have been some wild ideas, like making a Jesus hero.

I think it should be, and now really is, a high-risk boom. It most certainly is faster than a men boom, and I have seen it employed a few times in a25 in TGs to great success.

This is quite smart actually, however, we would probably want to disable it for hunting for food. I would still like it if units did not have such a strong preference of what to attack in the first place, and at least have their next targets be close to their last target. Its one thing to be unable to kill the hero, but another to be unable to ignore the hero :I.

As most of you know I am not aware of what things are challenging to make features and what things are not. I notice that when I tell 20 archers to attack a unit, they first kill that unit (with a lot of overkill), but then pass on to a unit of their choosing. It seems that ranged units have a strong preference for melee units when they are choosing what to attack (maybe its just choosing the closer units). I have tried a few times but it seems to be impossible to keep archers focused at shooting skirmishers behind a wall of pikes. If this is happening as I have observed, then it usually leads to skirmishers killing the enemy melee faster than archers can do the same, which makes them better units in many battles. What if there was a way to make units prioritize the type of unit they were originally ordered to kill?. I feel that this would not only help with hero micro/dancing and archer/slinger frustrations, but it would also add a large amount of controllability to the units that would raise the skill ceiling of fights and make them more fun. Perhaps it could be added as *hold hotkey*-> *right click*