AIEND

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.

Another point, the stone beasts outside the door are a kind of decoration that appeared very late, and the Han Dynasty did not have them.

I want to make "hunting" and "arson" similar to "slaughter" attacks, which are not affected by the main attack method of the unit, what should I do?

At present, the special buildings of the Han Dynasty are also against historical facts. What I mean is that the Han Dynasty may not need special buildings at all. The training of officials and related technologies can be placed in CC, and the champion soldiers can be placed in stables and barracks.

I think it is normal for an elephant to not be able to enter the CC. It would be better to directly modify the settings so that the elephant cannot enter the building outside the elephant stable.

In this case, the Romans should also have chariots that can throw incendiary javelins. In the war between Rome and Epirus, the Romans used chariots to fight the war elephant of Pyrrhus

How do I add a second ranged attack to ranged units? I added the code for the torch to the shooter, but it doesn't work. @ Freagarach

<Attack> <Ranged> <AttackName>Torch</AttackName> <Damage> <Fire>5</Fire> </Damage> <MaxRange>10</MaxRange> <MinRange>2</MinRange> <PrepareTime>1000</PrepareTime> <RepeatTime>1250</RepeatTime> <Projectile> <Speed>40</Speed> <Spread>6</Spread> <Gravity>20</Gravity> <FriendlyFire>false</FriendlyFire> <LaunchPoint y="3"/> </Projectile> <ApplyStatus> <Burning> <Interval>1250</Interval> <Damage> <Fire>2</Fire> </Damage> <Stackability>Stack</Stackability> <Duration>5000</Duration> </Burning> </ApplyStatus> <RestrictedClasses datatype="tokens">Organic Siege</RestrictedClasses> <PreferredClasses datatype="tokens">Structure</PreferredClasses> </Ranged> </Attack>

You have to remove the crush damage of the slinger and maceman together, otherwise just lowering the soldier's defense against crush damage will affect the balance.

I suggest that all "armed" buildings need certain conditions to resist occupation, including barracks, stables, and CCs, because once these buildings are captured, they will be used by the enemy immediately, causing great danger to the original owner, so it must be guaranteed These structures cannot be "complete" when they fall into enemy hands. I suggest that buildings can only be captured when their HP is lower than 25%. At the same time, buildings with HP lower than 25% cannot be garrisoned, so that if the player who captures a building is defeated later, he will also quickly lose the building he just acquired.

The metals mentioned in the game are actually copper, gold, silver and other metals that are commonly used as currency raw materials. I don't think we need to add iron ore. Otherwise, we need to add monetary resources, let copper, gold, silver mine provide currency, and let iron ore provide metal instead of them.

I think the remaining HP can't be higher than 50%, and the occupied tower should be easier to destroy by the counter if it is not repaired or protected by the army.

Command & Conquer: Red Alert has a setting where you have to reduce the HP of a building to 25% in order to capture it.

I can get someone to record it if needed.

I want towers to be uncapable or hard to capture, so at least the enemy has to carry a battering ram to destroy these obstacles.

The problem with stone walls is that they need to be built in territory, which means you need to wrap your town in a full circle to be safe, but it's stupid, because on the one hand it limits the development of the town, and at the same time there is a lot of narrow terrain on the map , only a narrow section of wall is needed to block the road.

If we need better defense, we need to strengthen the tower.

It would be more interesting if we added arson, the stone walls are basically not afraid of fire, but the city gate is another matter.