BreakfastBurrito_007

Sorry @Yekaterina, while you may be no artist, I am neither an artist or programmer. I am simple gamer. What I can say is that I dislike mercenary cost reduction as a tech or hero bonus that is available for only a few civs. This means that no one will use the mercs that can't use those bonuses. Also, we should not need a tech/hero bonus just to make mercs affordable for a subset of factions, they should be affordable for all civs that have mercs. Perhaps a mercenary armor buff like +3 hack +3 pierce would be nice with a range of 60 m. After all, mercenaries are in a tough position, and I don't expect them to be usable in a25 either.

Is it ok for a civ to have fewer heros? I mean sparta at the moment only has 2, one being pretty much useless. If Jesus were to be a great and versatile hero, I don't think people would complain if he was the only one from the civ.

Can't this already be done? If you garrison Caros (iber arrow hero) in a siege tower, the arrows go from 10 to 17, +75%. This is almost equal to 3 defense towers. unless the +75% arrows does not work for siege towers.

Formations were exclusively used to position units and dance. Since formations do not change unit stats, like the effect of "phalanx", it is not a loss to the game. It is still possible to use that one formation that puts healers in the middle which is obviously still useful. Also, players can still use a more manual approach to get effects in their fights. One time @Dizaka's ele spam was overcome by my border ally, and I think he ran out of metal ---> archie spam. I (with many metal mines) simply take 2 halves of my cav army and split early and converge on his archer ball and he is trapped. I think smooth movement in general will be much more welcome as a replacement for the formations which were necessitated by the bad pathing of units in a24.

Well I don't know if we want to have bolt shooters be that mobile.

I think a great way to nerf siege towers would be to make their arrow output equal to a fully garrisoned tower. Unless I am forgetting, siege towers have 10 arrows when fully garrisoned. 6 arrows instead of 10 would be nice. Also, improved pathfinding may make it easier for melee units to properly damage the siege towers as they retreat, which, in a24 is usually when melee units get stuck around each other w/rotation.

It indeed can be hard to position these siege pieces, as eles are quite fast. The payoff is big if you can position them nicely and force your enemy to fight under them, usually you need to estimate the level of ele threat and make sure you are ready for them when they come; 20-40 skirms can make eles die in 1-4 volleys, but they can die so fast that its hard to keep them in the army.

I should have elaborated about my advice about Mace. I don't know squat about 1v1s :D, I had been assuming TG. It is possible that mercs are actually usable in 1v1s because from what I see of the map generations, there is usually 2-3 times as much metal available. @LetswaveaBook in a balanced 1v1 have you had success using merc archers vs standard archers? I'm just curious, since this would be unheard of in a 4v4. I also wonder if mercs are more common in general in 1v1s?

Ay @chrstgtr do you think some degree of individuality should be added back into blacksmith?

As #1 A game consumer As #2 someone who has played many games with paired techs and without As #3 a guy who advocated for blacksmith to be generalized for a24 I feel like I can answer @Gurken Khan, just remember I am not a developer, rather an enthusiast. Paired techs are intended to introduce strategy to upgrade selection. I feel the a24 system is ok for armor, but perhaps it could be a bit more specific for the attack bonuses. For a player, the big charm is being able to tailor the upgrades for the army I am sending to my enemies, without spending a large excess of metal (that is needed to get all upgrades like people do in a24) and other resources that delay my attack and cause me to lack rams/champs/heros/mercs. I think adding unit specific upgrades available after the unit is fully upgraded could be an awesome addition to further distinguish the roles of different units and make the battle strategy more important as people get these upgrades, earlier I called them "unit-perks". Choosing a particular group of upgrades for my army means that I can have a military advantage I can choose as a player, which is an awesome dimension of strategy.

I would never count on having enough metal for champs, usually I make room to train champs if they become possible in a game, since it only requires a 600 food upgrade. Sometimes there is not enough to even get all the basic military upgrades and eco upgrades a hero and 1 ram. Not only is it hard with only 5000 max metal, it is also hard being limited to 24 miners, meaning you have to simply wait to get all of these things that another player could do simultaneously.

The shortest story is that Mace is bad in a24 and you will be at a disadvantage no matter what you do.

Indeed, also they are the same range as archers I think, so archers can focus them down quickly. The best strategy is probably to have at least 2 siege towers and force an enemy to fight under them, you can use rams and pikes to threaten core buildings and force an enemy to come die to your towers.

I have played it once or twice, and so far it seems the best thing to do, especially if there are archers is to do pikes+skirms +rams+siege towers. Some people are trolls and go for up to 10 siege towers and this is frustrating, but usually 2 siege towers can be incredibly useful to go with your army if you know how to position them. Macedonians also have a hero who buffs rams and (I think) siege towers. I think it is best to have mostly pikes, but have skirms available to kill elephants, because these will threaten your siege. The truth is that macedonians have always been good at siege, and now that roman range siege is very bad, I would argue that mace have the best siege. Don't get mercs, they are not good, especially merc archers, as a maur enemy will have way more and they will only cost 50 food 50 wood. I have not tried champions, I have seen some people get crossbowmen, but I heard mixed feelings about them. I suspect they are worse than champ archers.

@LetswaveaBook@wowgetoffyourcellphone I had thought of this debate before and I feel a middle ground is nice. This is why I think the armor upgrades should be more general because it gives you some general confidence in your units not dying quickly to towers, also it is a good option for people who want uprgades, but are unsure what their composition will be. For attack, I feel there should be more strategy than just getting as many upgrades as possible before the first fight. I think it should be prohibitively expensive to get all the blacksmith upgrades at once (I do this in 4v4s it usually takes me 2-3 minutes and is very boring), it should be more practical to get the ones that give you the most benefit first, and then if someone comes up with a counter to your composition you should think about getting upgrades on other units. If some of your units are more benefitted than others by the choices of upgrades you made, then it makes sense to not leave them behind to collect resources when you go to fight. I think we can make the upgrades cheaper if there are more of them, this way, if you have a good strategy you can reach a powerful, upgraded unit composition sooner than someone who blindly wants to get all upgrades for all units. Also, if the upgrades are fairly cheap, then it should not be terribly hard to upgrade those units/unit categories that you want to include in your army. Beyond the somewhat boring +percentage attack damage method of blacksmith attack upgrades, what do you guys think about the "unit perks" I talked about? I feel these have the potential to make units perform a little more distinctly. @LetswaveaBook I do agree with @wowgetoffyourcellphone on the p2 blanket damage increase upgrade, it would be a must-get upgrade that would simplify the game too much. I think it should take some thought to get the right blacksmith upgrades.

Mercenaries are unusable at the moment, and I foresee them also being bad in a25. From what I have seen of the merc changes, they will still cost 60 metal and not be rank 3, which is not worth it unless a player has 4-5 metal mines available. Since seles effectively only have skirmisher cavalry and archer cavalry. It makes it extremely awkward to play their cavalry, and if archers along with archer cavalry are nerfed in a25 seles will no longer be a cav civ.

@LetswaveaBook you mentioned seleucid companion cavalry, are seles getting a melee cav in a25?

@Lion.Kanzen Yes these are indeed great inaccuracies, and I think it is reasonable to have asymmetry in the capabilities of different factions. I think after there has been considerable effort in standardization of civs and units and mercs and champions, which has produced some nice effects like champion viability, strategy diversity, and melee versus range balance, it has led to little civ differentiation. I think A26 should have a lot of effort put into civ differentiation. I think this is a problem that can be reduced with the addition blacksmith upgrades like the "unit perks" I mentioned above, or civ specific upgrades like archery tradition, or "hoplite tradition" or "sword tradition" that people have suggested. Another civ differentiation method to consider is to give different units from the same template different stats, that can help account for the differences between civilisation units. For example the difference between iber swords and roman swords (I remember them being different, I thought iber swords are slower and less armored). In a24 all of the CS or merc spearcav in the game are the same (provided no upgrades are chosen). I think the best way to do this is to change units from the same templates, one template at a time and test them against other units from the same template and other units. A way example you could give each variation of unit within the template some little extra of some stat: like speed, damage, or health.

For a24, if I have an extra metal (if I don't I give up), I tend to get those p2 available upgrades from blacksmith on the way to p3 so that my allies don't ask for metal XD. I think if aggressive fighting is seen in p2 and earlier in p3, people will want to get those upgrades earlier. Some people have praised and some criticized the more broad categories of units the a24 blacksmith upgrades effect. Perhaps armor should remain how it is, but I am worried about how unimportant the hack armor upgrade is. Attack upgrades could be more specific, with attack increases for long melee (spear/lances/pike), short melee(swords/maces/axes), and bows, skirmishers, and slingers. Maybe also there could be weapon specific upgrades. Generalized armor makes it less frustrating to have some of your units that might not have those upgrades get vaporized by towers/forts which are a passive mechanic, whereas for attack you can strategize more and have the specialized (up-damaged) units be the focus of your micro and healer efforts which is an active/skill based mechanic. I think a good end result of blacksmith changes should be that all upgrades are potentially useful and it becomes necessary to remember which upgrades you have, and that the default strategy is not to simply get all of them (it should be too costly/ not worth it to get all upgrade types) Summary of attack upgrades from blacksmith: P2+20% attack a big increase from p1 might make planned p2 attacks more fruitful, If we combine this with cost reduction for more specific attack upgrades, it will be risky to not get any of these upgrades during p2, especially if there are p2 champs around. skirmishers bows slingers short melee long melee P3 +30% attack skirmishers bows slingers short melee long melee P3-unit perks: designed to give a more specialized bonus to heighten the separate roles those units play (I am less sure about the melee ones- suggest pls) I know some of these could be more OP than others, maybe price could vary or effect values could change or maybe these could be available to different civs. slingers + some crush dmg (appropriate amount) archers + some accuracy skirmishers + some speed pike/lance + 1 range (longer pike) maybe also something else swords +1 speed mace +1 pierce armor + 1 m/s speed spear +1 to cavalry bonus multiplier (maybe also applies to spearcav?) axe (maybe repeat rate? idk) Please tell me what you think. I think these changes, especially the attack distinctions unit-perks could be a nice diversity bonus and strategy bonus to the game

Cavalry is the only thing faster than archers. Thats it, archers are the fastest. There is no historical reason for archers to be slower than skirmishers or slingers, it only makes it less frustrating to fight them.

I like the video made by Tom 0ad. However there is one major buff for the archers that went unaccounted in his video, that being their speed increase with respect to the other ranged units. The main thing is, if you are going to take out archers, it won't be the slings or skirms that do it, because in most situations they will never get close enough to do damage. In a25, as I understand, skirmishers will move a total of 1.2 m/s faster than archers. Spears and Pikes are great for pushing archers but are only effective in killing them when the archers can not afford/are unable to retreat and overcome the spears/pikes. There is a good discussion about making sword infantry faster than spears, if this is implemented, there would be a some more effective ways to outmaneuver archers rather than succumbing to the predictable behavior of zerging slow melees after them, only to retreat once the archers move back to a fort. Faster infantry options like skirms+swords would make it harder for archers to race to cover flanks of their base like they can so easily do in a24. Based upon the changelog thing, I think ranged units will be nicely balanced in a25, I look forward to trying it out.

hmm I might be understanding the diff things wrong, but I thought I saw one that increases spread by .5 and makes them a bit slower than slingers and even slower than skirms. I think it was -.6/0/+.6. I hope the archer changes are enough to counterbalance the ele changes, because right now if eles were any more op, I think we would ban mauryans in 4v4s.

@Lion.Kanzen well, in general, non-archer civs lose to archer civs for a24. I hope that this is not a strong trend for a25. If a25 is more exciting and balanced in play, I think it is a great position to make progress with civ differentiation.

Interestingly enough, iber are one of the most capable cav civs in a24, among pers seles and gauls. Skirm cav champs are powerful vs everything and can take out buildings. If you bulk the army with plenty of spearcav and skirmcav it is a deadly combo, since it is much easier to keep the fire-cav champs alive. Indibil hero makes all units cheaper and you can reliably keep him alive all game, every game. However Ibers lack a mega-good cavalry hero like pers or seles Ibers lack a few small upgrades for stable (not a big deal) Ibers have a limited selection of CS cavs: just skirm and spear Ibers don't have extra 20 pop like pers do and they don't have archer cavs like sele or pers. Conclusion: Seles are only a good cav civ because of archer cavs+hero I think seleucids should definitely get a spearcav :I. I would like to see seles get a less spammy option for cav.

It is true. There are not really that many civs that have mercenaries, and this could create more problems than it solves. I suppose, in the meantime rushing is going to be between cavalry and women like always. At least we have some ideas for some changes, we will see how mercenaries are in a25 but my expectation is that they will still be bad. At the moment, mercenaries are awkward primarily because of the high cost that is not justified by their power. I would look to the skiritai commandos for a basis for the cost of mercs, they are positively regarded by most 0ad players and I think they are the only good example of a unit that accurately falls between champion and CS.