AIEND

If the ancient Mesoamerican factions didn't have a mature model, this was also an opportunity to perfect them. It turns out that we Chinese are more worried about the influence of Great Turkism when dealing with such historical issues, but rarely consider religion, because we treat Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Manichaeism equally.

Is there anything special about the Khazars?

There are already Zapotecs factions in the precolonial mod. I think we can focus on some factions that have not been fully constructed. For example, it takes a lot of energy to design Scythia and Xiongnu. If you can borrow this The opportunity to build a mature mode for the nomadic gameplay is also beneficial to the subsequent mods to design other nomadic factions, such as Avars, Khazars, Mazars, Turks, and Mongolia.

I basically read the post, and I think what I want to solve at the moment is the problem of trading between markets.

Considering that this battering ram is essentially a log with a handle, it can be made by soldiers on the spot, it only needs 100 wood, and does not need any population, and then four soldiers must be stationed before it can be used. Discard directly. Discarded logs can also be picked up and used by enemies.

The problem now is that the soldier's default attack mode is to capture, If I hold down the ctrl key and then click the ground with the mouse, the soldier will capture all the buildings along the way. I can only press ctrl and then click the building alone to let the soldier destroy it. I want to change the default attack method of the soldier on the building, and destroy it first. instead of capture.

I think this is hardly an option, if there is no roof, then the battering ram is hard to resist arrows, so that it can't destroy those buildings that are self-defense, and if you are going to attack those unarmed buildings, you No need for a battering ram. Another design in Age of Empires 3 is more reasonable, with two soldiers carrying a huge shield close to shooting arrows, positioned similar to a lightweight siege tower.

If I press the ctrl key here, the soldiers will capture the building instead of destroying it by default.

PRC generally uses an English keyboard. The main problem is that I have not seen this usage of the Alt key in the shortcut key description in the game.

ctrl+q？

I don't have a MAC. Is this to be added to the soldier's template to take effect?

After adding arson to the soldiers, the soldiers are still occupying some buildings in vain that could have been easily destroyed by fire, I want to change this and let the soldiers destroy the buildings first.

which one?

If it didn't have a roof and wheels, then we wouldn't need it, it would be better for soldiers to set fire to buildings.

I don't think it's necessary to make three very different battering ram models, because these weapons all have a basic size specification, and if the size gets bigger with each upgrade, it's easy to get stuck in various terrains. Although it can be solved by reducing the size of the most basic battering ram, such as no roof and only a few people carrying a log, I do not recommend that. The battering ram only needs two levels, one is the basic type and the other is the enhanced type. The difference in the shape of the latter can be that the roof is covered with more rawhide/copper skin, and a stronger ram.

which one?

This is what I did, first weaken the battering ram, and then strengthen it with technical upgrades in P3. At the same time, I also enhanced the city walls (which can be built on neutral land), towers and forts, and in P3, I also have technical upgrades to strengthen the forts to offset the strengthening of the battering rams.

Current tech tree

This is a good idea, the city wall should not just passively withstand attacks, it should increase its firepower, I am in favor of the higher resistance of the city wall garrison. Also, I think ranged units like archers should have flaming arrows for buildings and sieges. For other non-archer units (including melee infantry and civilians), they should also have the ability to throw large stones from the city wall at a relatively close distance to attack the battering ram.

How do you think the ram should be upgraded? Research technology like the Age of Empires, or gain combat experience like a citizen soldier?

The game has now added battering rams to all factions, and it is not difficult to make rams and war elephants appear in P2 and have a good division of labor.

The champion should be a soldier who is stronger than the citizen soldier. The types of soldiers can be overlapped. I still remember that in A23, Persia had a citizen soldier chariot. So far, Magadha also has an elephant archer as a citizen soldier. The problem is, but these factions cannot have both citizen soldier war elephants/chariots and champion war elephants/chariots, they can only choose one of the two. This is different from the fact that most factions have citizen infantry/cavalry, but also champion infantry/cavalry. A25 restricts chariots/chariots to P3 as champions, which will only be a weakening for those countries that are historically famous for these arms, because war elephants/chariots will be included in their tactical system from the beginning and cannot be used in P2's use of war elephants/chariots is just disguised to strengthen those countries that have an advantage in infantry/cavalry (usually these countries also don't have war elephants/chariots), which is unfair. Therefore, war elephants/chariots should be "disenchanted" conceptually. Maybe some of us think that chariots/war elephants are "powerful and special decisive weapons", but in fact for many civilizations, this is only the most common troops. Elephants/chariots existed in the same era as infantry/cavalry, and not only in decisive battles, but also in skirmishes. Because of this, the South Asian/Southeast Asian countries in Age of Empires 2 can generally train war elephants in the stables in T2, and we should do the same, put war elephants/chariots in P2 as citizen soldiers. War elephants/chariots exist as both citizen soldiers and champions at the same time only if the faction has stronger war elephants/chariots, for example Magadha has normal war elephants and armored war elephants, Persia has normal war chariots and heavy ones Scythe Chariot. At this time, the relationship between ordinary war elephants/chariots and champion war elephants/chariots is the same as the relationship between ordinary cavalry and cataphract. And when we put the war elephant/chariot to P2, we can also put the hero to P2 incidentally, without worrying about the hero war elephant/chariot appearing earlier than the champion war elephant/chariot, making the hero earlier of functioning. Further, the battlefield positioning of war elephants/chariots should also be adjusted. For example, war elephants should not have crush attacks, but are good at attacking melee infantry/cavalry, and are easily counterattacked by ranged infantry/cavalry. Chariots can shoot arrows or throw javelins while running, and can use scythes to kill infantry and cavalry, etc.

I think there needs to be a dynamic mutual superiority relationship rather than unilateral superiority, for example, the archer counters slow units and units without shields, so it counters both melee infantry and melee cavalry, but if both If you can get close to an archer, that archer will also be defeated. So whether the archer has an advantage over the melee infantry and the melee cavalry depends on preventing the infantry and cavalry from approaching the archer, that is, making them "run slower", if this is achieved, then the cavalry is more vulnerable because it The defense against arrows is even worse. But we know that to stop the advance of the infantry, we only need to use the infantry to block, but to block the cavalry mainly rely on fortifications such as walls, so the cavalry can generally restrain the archers, but if the archers get the cover of the wall or their own cavalry in the confrontation, That can also form restraint on the enemy's cavalry. In general, certain conditions are required for one type of soldier to gain an advantage over another type of soldier. If the conditions are lost, the relationship will be reversed.

No, I don't think a distinction is needed, but that's why we can't refer to Age of Empires in this regard.

0AD's spearmen and swordsmen, archers and javelinmen do not have very different positioning differences. In fact, there are only melee infantry, long-range infantry, and cavalry.