AIEND

I think that the reason why the spear cavalry should not restrain other cavalry is to solve the problem that some civilizations have champion spear cavalry, while other civilizations may not even have CS spear cavalry, so the champion spear cavalry can counterattack the sword cavalry or axe cavalry of these civilizations, making the battle more one-sided. So on the one hand, I think that the champion spear cavalry should be limited to production in the fortress, so that its number can be limited. At the same time, the champion spear cavalry cannot counterattack the CS spear cavalry or sword cavalry and axe cavalry, so that other players can use a large number of CS melee cavalry to stop the champion spear cavalry, instead of being unilaterally slaughtered by the champion spear cavalry. I don’t think the CS spear cavalry in A27 is too strong, because they have been weakened in previous versions of the game. But if you want to further weaken the spear cavalry (whether CS or champion), you should not continue to increase the counter multiplier of the spearmen against the spear cavalry, because the spear cavalry has a mobility advantage. As long as the spearmen can’t catch up with the spear cavalry, this counterattack ability is invalid, so my suggestion is to reduce the counter multiplier of the spear cavalry against the spearmen and swordmen (considering that they all have shields). The spear cavalry should only cause 75% damage to the spearmen and swordmen. In this way, no matter from which direction and when the spear cavalry chooses to attack the melee infantry, they cannot cause a large number of casualties to the melee infantry in a short period of time and then break away. The spear cavalry must spend more time fighting with the melee infantry to cause enough casualties, and a long battle means that the spear cavalry itself will be killed by the spearmen. Therefore, if the spear cavalry wants to reduce losses and choose to break away from the target in one blow, they can only attack those range infantry that lack cover, and the existing square formation that wraps the range infantry in the melee infantry will be more valuable.

However, in this case, you will find that you need a melee cavalry that is specifically suitable for fighting cavalry but not infantry. And a melee cavalry that is only suitable for fighting infantry and not cavalry - the problem is that there is no such cavalry in reality. You will find that the spear cavalry in the current game is suitable for fighting both infantry and cavalry. Those who produce a large number of spear cavalry first will not be defeated by those who try to produce a small number of spear cavalry later to counterattack. So I think there is nothing wrong with letting spear cavalry not counter spear cavalry.

You can send them the promotional video with Chinese subtitles that I posted on bilibili, as well as the video I made before that introduces the game mechanics and how to install the Chinese mod. 【【0 A·D】内测版27“烈火”宣传片。】 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1T5FeeaEJu/?share_source=copy_web&vd_source=08a8daec5707d1f7b5b38912e5ff5bd4 【【0 A·D】游戏如何设置汉文和其他模组】 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Vb411c7eM/?share_source=copy_web&vd_source=08a8daec5707d1f7b5b38912e5ff5bd4 【【0 A·D】从《帝国时代2》Mod到独立游戏，喜欢帝国时代就绝不要错过这款免费的《0·A·D》】 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1rW41127qu/?share_source=copy_web&vd_source=08a8daec5707d1f7b5b38912e5ff5bd4

I think cavalry shouldn't have a difference in counterattacks because they hold swords or spears, because cavalry is not infantry, and their methods of engagement are different from infantry. The difference between spears and swords is actually not that big, and spear cavalry shouldn't overwhelm sword cavalry in battle. For cavalry, the difference between spears and swords is generally that when targeting infantry, cavalry using spears can attack infantry farther away. In reality, cavalry with swords generally use spears first, and only switch to swords after the spears are broken or lost. In the game, this can be reflected in all melee cavalry holding spears and dealing more damage to ranged infantry without shields and spears. And cavalry don't need to have any counterattacks against each other. If people are tired of only having spear cavalry in the game, they can keep the status quo, but keep the same data for sword cavalry and spear cavalry.

Oh, are you using xiaohongshu too? What's the account name? Many foreigners are using it recently, but because of different usage habits, I, a Chinese, still don't have a xiaohongshu account. It's a good opportunity for me to register one. I forgot how to download videos from youtube using a browser plug-in, but I just solved it.

Do you mean going back to the A23 setup? To be honest I think that's not bad, it's better to let Fortress train champions while also training CS.

Can you send me the video file of the game trailer? I plan to add Chinese subtitles and put it on a Chinese video website.

I'm glad that the discussions we had over two years ago are now being able to move forward as part of the game.

I don't really agree with the idea of designing a unit that "counters a certain unit." We should think more about allowing a certain type of unit to gain different advantages under different conditions. For example, a swordsman is an infantryman who has both a sword and a shield. On one hand I don't agree that swordsmen can defeat spearmen in a head-to-head duel. On the other hand, the swordsman should be a fast infantry that does not rely on the square formation, so that the swordsman can more quickly outflank the enemy spearmen array and gain an advantage. In order to prevent the array from being outflanked by the enemy swordsmen, the player You should deploy your own swordsmen or melee cavalry on both sides of the spearmen array. At the same time, swordsmen who can attack in a loose formation are also better suited to chasing away shooters.

I think the military buildings themselves should be armed and not lose control due to the loss of CC. At the same time, whether they are towers or fortresses, their own firepower should be strong enough without relying on the soldiers stationed there. We should encourage players to use Infantry and cavalry were placed outside towers and fortresses, and under the cover of arrows, they engaged enemy soldiers directly. At the same time, barracks and stables should be able to fire arrows after garrisoning soldiers. Otherwise, garrisoning soldiers simply to prevent the enemy from occupying these buildings will result in fewer soldiers who can directly attack the enemy (especially siege weapons).

It is necessary to add resistance to fire to different types of buildings, and some buildings such as stone walls should not be ignited. I have edited these values myself and I feel that using fire as the main siege method for cavalry and infantry is feasible.

From my experience, you can add an aura to the war elephant that deals damage to surrounding cavalry and infantry, or make the war elephant's attack itself splash. According to your idea, we can have sputtering and auras at the same time.

Chinese Buddhism and Taoism only took their prototypes in the Han Dynasty. The popularity of these two religions was from the Northern and Southern Dynasties to the Tang Dynasty after the collapse of the Han Dynasty. According to Emperor Liu Xun, the early ideology of the Han Dynasty was "霸王道杂之", that is, the balance between power and morality. Later emperors abandoned the pragmatist attitude and turned to extremely respecting Confucianism, which actually led to the demise of the Han Dynasty. In addition, the statement about Confucianism here is very stereotyped, and it is a view of Confucianism a thousand years later. The characteristic of Confucianism in the Han Dynasty is actually respecting ancient times, believing that there was an ideal society in ancient times, and the way to establish such an ideal society is Retro. At the same time, Confucianism also began to become religious, linking the destiny of the country and society with various astronomical and geographical phenomena, which was called "天人感应". Chinese society during this period was actually much flatter than later, because the social system of the Han Dynasty retained many remnants of the ancient commune system, so its class and relationship between men and women were much more equal than later.

I suggest more use of Chinese proper nouns and simpler explanations, for example, the Chinese catapult is called "礮Pao", which is the most basic lever-type catapult, like a balance, and has the advantage of utilising the most basic leverage principle, resulting in a very high energy conversion efficiency.

Thank you brother, I completely understand your fatigue and thank you for your efforts in this cause. Although I have only known you for two years, you made me feel very friendly and helped me a lot. Despite all the chaos, you strive to make the community a place where friendly exchanges can occur. Otherwise, Chinese people like me might not stay here any longer or invest more energy. I hope you will feel more relaxed and healthy after offloading the burden of being in charge. I hope you can happily play games with us as a player again in the future. thanks again.

The problem is not whether it is "historical" or not, but that these sentences are not very fluent in the spoken pronunciation of modern Chinese and may sound awkward. In other words, I am considering the feelings of modern Chinese people, not as a A linguist goes to study ancient Chinese. My friend and I try to do the dubbing by ourselves. I will find a few more people to dub and compare. Although no one is a professional dubbing person, I believe it will be more suitable than software.

The Chinese pronunciation of the software is very general, and it is better to let native Chinese speakers dub.

Old Chinese focused on differences in class status, and people of lower status did not necessarily address each other's positions or titles when responding to requests from higher status, but would use self-effacing self-designation. Of course, this is not a problem for the dialogue we want to add, because according to modern Chinese, this dialogue is not necessarily between the person receiving the command and the person who gave the order, but can be a dialogue between the recipient of the command at the same time, and this dialogue does not need to mention the status level.

Words like "sir" or "madam" were translated from European languages more than a hundred years ago when China was Westernized, and before that they did not exist in Chinese. Old Chinese first, second, and third person pronouns do not distinguish between men and women.

Okay, then I'll finish recording as soon as possible.

@Stan` @狮子观禅

Half a year ago, I planned to record the dialogue voice of the Han Dynasty unit, but due to the rapid spread of the new coronavirus, this task was paralyzed, and I wanted to start this work again, after all, I don't want the Han Dynasty faction to exist in two versions of the game and still have no native language dubbing. But the problem is that, as I have reflected before, in this voice list, the three jobs of logging, mining, and quarrying seem to be expressed in the same sentence, and there is no appropriate sentence in spoken Chinese to express this. , three different voices must be recorded separately for logging, mining, and quarrying. I want to coordinate on this question, if I record three voices separately, will it work fine in the game? Action – English order_build – I will build. order_walk - I will walk. order_repair - I will repair. order_attack - I will attack! I will go out against them! I will march! I will retreat! Battle cry. order_gather - I will gather. I will fish. I will hunt. I will work land. I will herd. order_guard - I will guard. order_garrison - I will garrison. order_patrol - I will patrol. order_trade - I will trade. order_heal - I will heal. select – What is it? My lord?

It is better to change the city wall to a state that cannot be captured first, and not let the existing game content wait for those things that still exist in the imagination.

I don't have a screenshot, but for example, RA1 has five countries, the unit in the UK is HP+10%, the unit in France is +10% in the rate of fire, the unit in Germany is +10% in damage, the unit in Russia is -10% in cost, and the unit in Ukraine is +10% in Movement Speed. RA2 has a unique unit for each country. In fact, in the C&C series, this is mainly divided into 2~3 factions, but each camp has 3~4 branch factions with their own characteristics, which is a very common design.

This is obvious, players should not waste time making choices after entering the game, but should choose before entering the game. Generally speaking, we create different factions to allow players to choose different faction advantages to play the game. The differentiation between factions is originally for this purpose, and many old games are very typical in this respect. For example, in the first two works of the C&C: RA series, there are only two main camps, but 5~8 countries are separated. The differences between different countries in a camp are very small, just to reflect certain advantages. We can learn from this design idea, because 0 AD has designed many similar civilizations, such as Britons, Gaul, and Iberia, all of which have Celtic elements, while Sparta, Athens, and later Syracuse belonged to the Greek communal state, and Seleucid, Ptolemy, and Macedonia all belonged to the kingdom of Alexander's successor. These factions can all be regarded as a concrete manifestation of a certain aspect of a pan-civilization.