BreakfastBurrito_007

@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.

@LetswaveaBookWell the point of the discussion was to explore the civ diversification/strategy diversification benefits of having mercenaries in p1. Right now (with the mod) they are only in p1 in an un-usable state because they are simply more expensive, non-economic citizen soldiers. I feel the enabling tech does not limit merc usage later in the game either, as one's ability to foot the bill for the metal cost only increases with time/phase/population (until availability runs out). What is your main reason not to allow mercenaries in p1? Does anyone agree with me that mercs should be rank 3 and cost similar to skiritai but shifted to metal somewhat, and also available at all ages after a 300 metal upgrade from barracks? This is a much simpler setup than previous proposals. 300 metal upgrade because in p1 you should still have to mine some metal to get your first mercs. I feel that this would bring a true turtle/boom/rush balance spectrum to 0ad. In a 23 we had boom and a little bit of rush. In a24 we have just boom. In a25 we could have rush or boom or turtle and everything in between. Having this diversity is much better than enabling one merc strategy (the p2 rush with mercs).

I think it is better to avoid designing mercenaries in p1 and p2 to lend themselves to one type of merc rush strategy. If we can give a versatile, powerful, but that goes against the booming (wood/food) instinct, then it can be used in a great number of strategies during p1, p2, and beyond.

@LetswaveaBook The main reason for the upgrade to enable mercs was to prevent the metal spam. If you want mercs you should have to put some people on metal. I feel this is a better solution than the super long training time, because the time goes from the time to wait for training to the time waiting to get enough metal. If the upgrade costs 200 metal, then you must divert some wood/food eco to get mercs. Another thing: for this p1 merc option to be viable, mercenaries should be rank 2 by default. I feel this is the only way to justify getting them in p1, since without it they are just too expensive and no better than standard CS. "expertise in war" could make them train faster available in p2, train time goes from 1xCS to .5xCS. A merc rush should be able to defeat someone who just has a mix of women and CS in their base. I think women sniping is a bit shallow as the only way to rush, and it would be nice if a well planned merc rush could also threaten larger groups of CS unless they have gone to the expense to build plenty of defenses. I would say that it would be cool if mercs were rank 3 by default and priced similarly to skiritai, except with a cost shifted to metal a bit: -10 wood +5 metal -10 food +5 metal. Cavalry add 30 food and 10 metal to this. If this is available in p1, then players will need to be make protections while booming on CS.

I have taken a quick look at the mod and there are some issues I noticed. mercs are still too weak for their metal cost. I think they should start at rank 2. If they come out at rank 1 after such a long time to train them and being expensive, then they are still underpowered. No upgrade to enable mercs. I know that you did not say it would be in the mod, but if you add it I think it should be 250 food, 100 wood, 100 metal. Mercs' utility in p1 hinges on them being able to beat CS. So I think it is important to be able to train them quickly even from the beginning, rather, the time delay could be found from the research time for the "enable mercs" upgrade. If the mercenaries train fast, then the time the barracks isn't making eco units is reduced, I think that 48s for inf and 64s for cav is too much, I think training the same speed as CS is preferable in p1 and then the "expertise in war" should reduce train time from there.

WOW this looks like a great mod! @Dizaka@LetswaveaBook I think we ought to make a TG later today and try it out!

elephant archers are already quite overpowered especially if you consider that archers as a class are OP. Just use them like any other archer, try to get like 20-30 or more of them before fighting and you will see how OP they are. They have more damage, more hp than all archers and these increase as they rank up, they are large targets, so their only downside is people recognising how powerful they are and focusing them down before you are able to mass them. I would be a proponent of making archer eles have a metal cost again.

Wait, so the -35% metal cost does exist? If this is in the game there is no way we can balance mercenaries. because either they are too expensive or dirt cheap (with that hero)

often, when using cavalry you use the spearcav as hitpoint boosters for your whole group, they are effective and serve to extend the lifetime of your sword cav. I am not sure, but I think they have more armor. The difference in melee cav roles is important because it depends on what you want your cav to be doing, also it provides some choice and strategy and allows the game to be both economic and strategic. When fighting with cavalry, it does matter what units you have and how you use them. TLDR: the same reason we have different ranged inf.

@LetswaveaBook I think they eliminated that hero bonus (if you are talking about "-35% metal cost for mercenaries"). Otherwise people would actually be getting mercs with Carthage lol. Mercs are pretty bad in a24, and I think the best way to balance mercs would be to give them the same cost/power setup as skiritai, except they can't gather res. Either that or metal mines could be doubled in value, 5000 to 10000. Iber---> Indibil (all units 15% cheaper) is one of the best heroes because you can just keep him in a fort, and is very easy to keep him from dying and in the fort he can still give his bonus. This (along with 90 food 45 wood skim cav if ur double iber on one team) is what makes iber cav so good, it is also very easy to keep the iber champions alive and with indibil they only cost 85 metal. If the skirmisher discount civ bonus applied to champ skirm cav like it already does for CS skirm cav, this would be mad OP.

Hmm, I downloaded the original version of this mod a while ago, and installed it successfully. I tried to install the newest version, but now I seem to be unable to uninstall any mods or install any new ones. I tried what worked earlier, just re-compressing just the .json file for the new mod and installing it by "opening with 0ad". Earlier I had heard that you need to delete old versions before installing new ones, so I deleted all the mod related files I could find. To my dismay, I was unable to alter the mod situation in my 0ad. I went to the 0ad contents folder and found data>mods>mod.zip and there was nothing else there. I admit that I have been basically guessing at what to do at this point. Is there a specific procedure to install this mod on Mac OS? Also has the mod affected archers being OP in 4v4s, or has this mod been found to have no effects on that? Solution: ok, so my brother "RKTROB" tried using the terminal to manually delete the old mod versions which finally cleared the mod downloads. Then he used the terminal again to import the whole uncompressed folder into the mod directory and this worked.

I wish seleucids had a melee CS (sword, spear, or axe) cavalry, it is so awkward to use their cavalry unless you mindlessly spam archer cav. If seles had this, they would probably be my favorite civ. I am one to hope they get one in a25 :D.

I have my worries about this too, I think it is essential to increase the amount of metal available to players on average. I think replacing the little stone mines with metal mines would be fine. Another option would be to increase the capacity of large metal mines from 5000 to 10000. I feel 60 metal is too high for mercenaries especially if they only come out as advanced rather than veteran, but that also trade could be used to abuse the low total cost. I would be in favor of making mercenaries be 40 metal for inf and 50 metal for cav, and then the other resources adding up to 60 for inf or 60+50 food for cav. Mercs would also starting in advanced rank. I think having a still metal intensive, but more distributed cost, makes them both less spammable from starting metal in p1 and more attainable throughout the game. Overall, I think this cost is best to put them in the suitable role. Unfortunately, it seems the momentum is with doubling down on mercs costing only metal. If more people read this and are in agreement, then perhaps we could eventually test this cost setup combined with the p1 upgrade for the barracks in a mod.

I think one of the changes of https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3699 (as I understand) is the new training times for mercs are .5 the training times for their corresponding CS type, which I think comes out close to the value you suggested. Do you think making the tech cost 200 food 100 wood 100 metal is a good way to prevent merc spam with starting res from being a default strategy? The extra feature of the tech you mentioned are potentially nice, but would probably complicate the discussion about this feature a bit too much. If someone makes a mod with these features, then we could try a 4v4 and determine if the p1 mercs need further adjusting. If they do, we could include one of the smaller extra bonuses you mentioned for this. If someone is interested enough to make a mod, it should definitely include https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3699 in it, since this seems likely to be implemented in a25, and is the cost/power balance considered in this topic.

From the (a24) games I have seen/played people usually linger in p1 until they are between 8:30 and 11 minutes. About a minute longer than it was in a23. P2 usually comes when food/wood production is fast enough to shrug off the 500 food 500 wood cost of p2. My thinking is that earlier (3-6 minute) merc rushes could be done using 5-10 mercs (changing back to eco after this rush would be a bit like a dark age rush to eco transition from AoE2). Later rushes (like 6-9 minutes) would be on a range between harassment and full attack and on a range of merc investments (are you full mercs or only 20% mercs?).