BreakfastBurrito_007

We want to avoid one-trick pony. A civ should not be "ok" if it is op at one thing and bad at everything else.

Keep in mind, this was back when archers were very overpowered. In the current game, the biggest complaint there has been with ranged units is that they always shoot the closest target, and players are unable to choose targets. The resulting conundrum is that infantry fights are centered around whose melee is killed first, whoever loses their melee will lose the fight (in a realistic scenario). Archers would be more useful if they were effectively able to attack units of a players choosing. Overall the proposed changes (see it in "proposals for formations": look for "attack-ground") would add depth to the game and improve balancing to a few citizen soldier units.

Many people are upset by the loss of the briton/gaul economic structures losing their +2 population space. What if it returned, but it added 20 wood cost to the storehouse or farmstead? This gives them a bonus in population but will make it a little less simple and OP as it was in a23. It will be harder to get the resources for those storehouses if you are in a pinch.

In most 0ad games of multiplayer, women are the unit that is produced early when a player wants to boom. Players who switch to citizen soldiers or cavalry earlier will have slower population growth than those who stay on women longer. Keep in mind that women are only slightly slower on wood and most eco for the first 7-8 minutes of typical 0ad game is food and wood eco. To make a long story short, women are nearly equal economic units to CS in the early game, so the balance between economy and army is something players are careful with, especially in the beginning of a match.

It was very frustrating to watch. I do not remember this type of ddos behavior from the previous waves of attacks.

@Dizaka it seems they would be a fast civ then, I was not aware of the price reduction ideas.

As it stands right now, the small pyramid costs 300 stone 100 metal. It means someone will need to be mining stone if they want barracks and pyramid. This also makes the booming of the civ a little more variable and creates room for improvement there. I don't think it will make them as fast or faster than civs like ptol rome or iber.

I like this a lot, I could imagine it would help to do a building rush against another player.

It seems like I owe some clarification. The first post I read was very suspect to me, which I hope you guys understand in retrospect. A few alarm bells went off in my head before he replied. Obviously I understand that there is no way a ransom would be paid, but it is not out of the question that someone could try to set this up.

I think AoE 4 could be great. To be honest, just adding hill bonus and proper projectile mechanics like they exist in AoE2 would be wonderful. People complain that noobs don’t want to have to learn these skills, but in my opinion it’s ok if there is room to improve in the game. If there is no room to improve, it will become boring very quickly. Personally I liked the castle mechanics, as well as the battlefield siege construction. There is some balancing to be done of course, and also the “fighting on walls” seemed comedically broken during open beta.

@bad player I don't get your sense of humor. And to be honest, I had been thinking you could be a perpetrator seeking a ransom, since your profile name is "bad player" and you found the situation funny.

@bad player why is it funny?

I can't believe I just realized this, but apparently in AoE4, all projectiles are 100% accurate, even to the point where an arrow can exceed maximum range if the target was in range when the arrow was fired. I thought it was a fun gameplay mechanic from AoE 2, and I can't understand why they decided to remove it, or even strike a middle ground and have only moderate inaccuracy.

We should add back splash damage and reduce the amount of damage that ranged units do to catas. That way, it will still be possible to kill catapults from distance, but you would likely take lots of damage from splash. attack-ground would be great to have with catapults.

weirdjokes usually makes corrals, so that would explain the huge amount of food. it might make it easy to get a bunch of eco upgrades as they become available. If you have a bunch of resources into p3, then you can get a bunch of eco upgrades very quickly. I think this would also help with blacksmiths.

Yea, it is getting pretty consistent. It's like they know when we are having a good time.

Dude perhaps you could lure cavalry to a place where its too tight for them to turn at their faster speed, and surprise them with spearmen. The main reason I was in support of cav having regular unit movement (no wide turns) at speeds below 10 m/s was for fear of them getting stuck, and because they would behave weird in battles. Physically, wide turns are caused by having more speed, but for gameplay consistency it is better to have turns be either wide or “pinpoint” like in 0ad now. I feel some mild acceleration would be ok where it is just enough to make a difference in gameplay but not so much to be annoying.

To click and drag a radius from the center of a circle seems to be a good way to draw the area for attack-ground. This way, a player only needs to locate the center of enemy units, and then drag the radius to the approximate size of the group (direction of radius of course does not matter :D).

@maroder its funny right now people are mad at AoE 4 for having the same ship movement mechanics as AoE2 lol.

That would be awesome in some instances like cinematics, but I worry about how they would move around during a melee fight. I think a few mechanics to allude to the momentum and speed of cavalry would be nice, but we would need to keep in mind the balance and practicality of them in game. Perhaps add cavalry acceleration and once they are faster than 10 m/s they do wider turns like what we see with the boats here. I guess the best way to start would be to add some cavalry acceleration and see what is the next most practical/ logical step. I think cavalry acceleration would be a good way to nerf cavalry, especially champions that are able to disengage so easily and avoid losses. With cavalry acceleration, a player using spears to defend would have more opportunities to counter them. champions discussion here by @Dizaka

I would absolutely rather do less damage against skirms than 0 damage vs pikes if I were using archers, I would count on strong melee or skirms to beat pikes. the tradeoff is there in my opinion.

I can become gaia by being rushed and then resigning. Also a mean thing to do is move a bunch of cav into ur allies farms to then resign. It basically just ruins a TG and people will be upset with you.

@Freagarach This looks really good and could be a great tool to satisfy multiple parties in the "ranged units forced to shoot closest unit debate". People are concerned about melee units losing some of their "meat shield" role, and others are concerned about the "meat shield" role being too important and forced by the game mechanics. If attack-ground were to do a bit less overall damage, then this would make sense because it is "beyond visual range", and this could provide an important tradeoff between dealing full damage (shooting closest targets) and shooting particular units (attack-ground) at reduced damage output.

There is a good discussion going on about attack-ground in the "proposals for formations" discussion attack ground, as it exists in the video from that forum would seem to be able to re-instate my original idea as a contender: attack ground to shoot target area of enemies after scoring a kill during the attack-ground order, unit breaks the attack ground to automatically look for the next closest unit to target. less overkill than original idea Another option: perhaps attack-ground is already enough of a nerf to the ability of ranged units to shoot "beyond visual range" and would satisfy gameplay balance and the concerns about melee units raised by @Jofursloft

I like the visions for the civs, to give them all some unique mechanics. I am particularly interested in this in the shorter term however: I like this idea, and I feel these upgrades should be more expensive than regular blacksmith upgrades especially the one for elite rank (assuming its the same as "veteran" rank). Perhaps the "elite" upgrade would be more expensive, and add a 10 metal cost to the unit.