AIEND

The question is why the cavalry has the positioning of meat gatherers. Essentially, prey is not much different from a berry bush, because even if you kill all the prey, their carcasses won't rot. The difference is just that most of the prey is far away from the CC, you don't want to spend time driving them, if you can set up a resource recycling point near the prey (like there are working elephants in India), then the gatherers don't need to run fast , and actually does not need a collection efficiency as high as 5, because the purpose of this high efficiency is to make up for the time-consuming and cavalry cost of long-distance round trips.

What do you think when the game adds arson (in fact, the siege damage of cavalry and infantry), how should the structure capture be positioned? I've nerfed capture in the mirror mod, and I hope players can only take undefended buildings with peace of mind after completely smashing enemy resistance.

These ideas aren't really new, because it's 2022 and we can take inspiration from a lot of games.

I could have given this higher efficiency to infantry and women as well. The essence of the problem is that the cavalry is designed to be "fast and efficient meat collectors" because it takes too much time to drive the prey or go back and forth from the prey to the resource recovery point. Why won't AoE3 have this design? Because AoE3's resource recycling point is the civilian itself, wherever it kills its prey, it can be recycled on the spot.

Attack speed,single damage, hit rate, block (can be expressed as melee defense).

I am different from wow in some ideas. He wants to cancel some unique settings of 0AD in the mod, and I want to adjust them. For example, I find it interesting that a unit becomes an elite through combat. What I want to do is to make the combat experience obtained by a unit no longer related to its armor and weapons, and combat experience should be more important than armor and weapons.

假如骑兵不能很快的从领土内的粮仓和领土外的猎物之间快速来回，那么根本就不会有人想到给它5倍于步兵的肉类收集速度。 如果你能在猎物旁边建造一座粮仓，让后就近回收肉类，你为什么还需要骑兵去打猎？ If the cavalry can't quickly go back and forth between the granary in the territory and the prey outside the territory, then no one would think of giving it 5 times the meat collection speed of the infantry. Why do you need cavalry to hunt if you can build a granary next to the prey to recycle the meat nearby?

Of course I know this. The main issue that affects hunting efficiency is whether you can build a granary in a neutral area. The reason why the cavalry has such a high meat collection efficiency is because he runs fast and can quickly travel back and forth between the prey and the granary.

Can come up with more abundant hunting tools, such as boomerangs.

It is also common to pick up branches and use them as sticks, civilians generally do not use specialized weapons when fighting.

I have an idea that civilians should be given bows and javelins specifically for hunting, in other words giving them a way to attack beasts so they can hunt as efficiently as soldiers. And still use daggers (in fact, sticks are better) when attacking people, because labor tools and combat weapons are separate, otherwise civilians have more reason to fight with logging axes, hoes, sickles and pickaxes.

Most of the settings that I think need to be changed, I have implemented in the mod, and there is a list in the update mod post. In addition, there are some topics that have been discussed recently, such as adding arson, and having a standard full tech tree as a template. I think 0AD is limited by some settings like Citizens-Soldiers, Territories, Capture, not that these settings are not needed, but these mechanics make the game too rigid at the moment.

你指哪方面？

The price is that players who are not used to the A23 will gradually abandon the game. I started recommending 0AD to Chinese RTS players 4 years ago, and it was during this process that I began to absorb their opinions to make the Mirror mod. If the alpha cannot be changed in the future, then I will implement it in the module. This at least has another option for some players.

I'm wondering why they're unhappy, isn't that how Age of Mythology and Age of Empires 3 are set up?

This requires changing the current citizen-soldier system, adding citizens of both genders, and allowing them to complete the collection of various resources. Player P1 cannot train any soldiers. In this stage, there should be no fighting between players, all they have to do is to accumulate enough buildings and populations to prepare for the next stage to fight. This is not to say that the setting of citizens-soldiers is completely abolished, but I think at least soldiers should no longer be able to collect metals and stones. Fighting should be the main work of soldiers, and collecting materials should only be a sideline.

Then it seems we should call it "wilderness mode".

It won't make any difference, as you still need to build a CC to train more civilians. In fact, nomadic mode is quite an interesting design for Age of Empires 3 where the map will generate random terrain, because you have to explore unknown terrain to find a good place to settle down, but for the terrain is fixed 0AD, just Lack of fun. To a certain extent, if this mode is to be interesting, the design of citizens-soldier and territory needs to be removed.

The game is now trying to force all factions to start massive battles in P3. But in fact, each faction has different levels of civilization according to the historical background. If some factions do not have some powerful units in the late stage, such as cataphract, chariot, war elephant, ballista, then their dominant period should be placed in P2 and attack earlier than other factions. And those factions with powerful units in the later stage should try their best to survive the opponent's offensive in P2 until they reach P3 and reach the dominant period.

Unlike the Age of Empires series, 0AD needs to have CC to provide territory to build resource recovery buildings, you can't wander and hunt in the wild, trying to collect more resources than your enemies. What you can do is very limited - pick a place with gold mines, berry bushes and stone quarries to build your first CC.

You should read what I said completely. I am talking about a general civilization structure. A standard civilization technology tree should be complete, not incomplete. On this basis, all factions tend to be "imperfect", so that it can be balanced. Factions with only javelinmen and no archers are flawed, and factions with only archers and no javelinmen are flawed, but flawed doesn't mean weak.

This looks like nomadic mode in Age of Empires 3, which I don't think makes much sense technically. The main problem now is that some of the content of P1 (such as cavalry) and P3 (such as siege) should be moved to P2, and the battle should start from P2.

It should be said that taking the Balkan Greeks as a basic template does not work, because the Balkan Greeks are relatively primitive in weapons and tactics, and they lack many necessary units that should be counted into the basic system. Just like we look at the technology tree of AoE2, most factions will have a choice in this complete technology tree. They usually only have some of these technologies and units. The more complete the technology tree, the stronger the faction. The more incomplete a faction's tech tree is, the more it needs various civilization rewards or team rewards to make up for the "deficiencies". The problem with using the Balkan Greeks as a reference to a generic civilization is that you're trying to make their mutilated tech tree itself "complete", i.e. make the parts they lack irrelevant. You have to make archers weaker than javelinmen, make war elephants a replacement for battering rams, and make those important techs and units dispensable so that the Balkan Greeks don't look weak. A basic universal civilization should have most types of units, should have archers, horse archers, chariots, war elephants, ballistas, Seleucus is a good example (real Syracuse is also very good example). I'm not against "starting with the Greeks", but I am against starting with the Balkan Greeks.

Those cavalrymen who hold pike with both hands.

It is generally believed that the traction trebuchet originated in China. We call it "礮Pao". This is the simplest but most effective weapon that uses the principle of leverage. We used it to drop bombs from the 12th to the 15th century.