AIEND

With regards to marksmen, we don't really need to have a big gap in the damage of various marksmen. We only need to determine that the range of the shooter is the maximum distance at which the weapon can cause the same killing effect. If the archer can cause 8/second damage to the enemy at 100m, then the sling is 80 meters, and the javelin soldier is 40 meters. That is to say, we can make the average damage of archers, slingers and javelins exactly the same, but the range is different. At the same time, we only need to make soldiers pay more for longer ranges. This cost may not be The resource can instead be training time.

The internal refinement of range units is not the most important thing. The very important point is that the positioning of melee units is still unclear. I think we should make sure that spearmen and spear cavalry are the most basic and most backbone units and are irreplaceable. Yes, we can't make swordsmen or axemen better units than spearmen, only units that assist spearmen. For example swordsmen and axemen shouldn't do more damage than spearmen, shouldn't outperform spearmen in frontal combat, but should be faster than spearmen, especially when marching in groups. And there should be a loose formation specially provided for swordsmen/axemen. In battle, swordsmen and axemen should not be mixed with spearmen, but form a separate team to facilitate their pursuit or outflanking. This way, for civs with swordsmen/axemen, they get a cheap cavalry replacement unit that can better counter enemy range infantry. Spearmen/Pikemen are responsible for dealing with frontal battles. All civilized spearmen should be given a tight horizontal formation, and buff the spearmen through the formation, which allows the spearmen to last longer in battle , but also reduces mobility. Spearmen in formation will always defeat the same number of swordsman/axemen, but once out of formation, they become weaker and more vulnerable to projectiles. Spearmen/Pikemen don't need to have too high a counterattack against cavalry, but should make the attacks of cavalry weak against spearmen/pikemen in the formation, whether it is melee attack or range attack. Counter cavalry should mainly use various projectiles fired by range units, while spearmen/pikemen are responsible for protecting range infantry. There are already such formations in the game, but unfortunately they have not yet functioned. As for the cavalry, I think the current axe and sword cavalry are largely out of history, and the sword and ax are too close to attack on horseback and are not suitable as main weapons. As I said above, swordsman/axemen should not be stronger than spearmen, the same is true for cavalry. Therefore, I think that the axe/sword cavalry is actually only rich in artistic elements, that is, the data of the sword/axe cavalry should be exactly the same as that of the spear cavalry. A civilization does not need to have both spear cavalry and sword/axe cavalry. In fact, we only need one A melee cavalry used for chasing enemy range cavalry or raiding range infantry.

This is the character 星野爱 of the Japanese animation "推しの子". When I saw this character for the first time, I thought to myself: "This is a woman with Macedonia in her pupils."

All I can agree with is your first point. It is true that cavalry could be quartered in infantry barracks and infantry in cavalry barracks as there was plenty of room for both.

There should be a clear distinction between the attack types of melee units and the attack types of range units. Then reduce the damage of range units, especially the damage of javelins and slings by at least 2/3, which is roughly the same as the damage of melee units.

It is not recommended that the corrals of nomads directly produce food trickles, but that the corrals automatically train livestock for free, and herders slaughter livestock. The yurthouse did not provide a population, but served as a resource recycling point and a barracks for training herders and cavalry.

I'm not blaming anything, in fact, I'm worried that due to our lack of enough archaeological research on Xiongnu, we may end up being forced to fill in later Mongolian cultural elements. If that's the case, I think it's better to let Xiongnu's art in the game It's better to keep "blank" in , at least it shows that although we don't know, we didn't make it up.

It seems that the only difference between Xiongnu's yurts and Scythian yurts is that they are more plain without any decorative patterns due to the lack of artistic reference.

If it is based on reality, we only need to weaken the damage of javelins. A lot of people don't support this change because there are a lot of factions in the game that don't have bows, and they worry that nerfing the javelin will turn those factions into garbage. But I would say that we should weaken the role of range units as a whole, and put more emphasis on melee combat, especially the impact of various formations on melee combat, rather than treating them as decorations.

In the Han Dynasty, there were crossbows with a range similar to that of bows, and crossbows with a range far beyond that of bows, so it cannot be generalized. I don’t think it’s necessary to think too complicated, because wheat fields and millet fields also need to be irrigated with water, but agricultural irrigation cannot be represented in the game, so I don’t think we need to be too entangled in the water supply of rice fields.

There is no need to have two types of farmland in the Han Dynasty. The biggest problem at present is that compared to China, which grows wheat, rice and millet at the same time, India was almost entirely rice-based at that time, but India did not have rice fields. We should first It is right to give the rice fields to India.

Hero units don't need to be more powerful than champion units of the same kind, because the role of hero units should be to provide some buffs as leaders, not to exert individual prowess.

I don't think it is necessary to abandon the soldiers of so many ethnic groups under the Persian rule and choose Greeks. There are already too many Greeks in this game, and it will appear monotonous.

Trying to add a Champion Javelin to the game again is not a good idea, the design that existed in the A23 was eliminated two years ago and it was the right thing to do. To strengthen Persian infantry, you can add axemen and immortal archers.

I don't recommend continuing to strengthen the javelin soldiers, the 0AD javelin soldiers have greatly affected the game experience. I now really hope that these range soldiers are nerfed to the same level as in other ancient warfare RTS. We all know that the Persians ruled many peoples, they have a very complete infantry, there are different nationalities of axemen, macemen, swordsmen, slingers, archers, spearmen (the Assyrians are especially professional). We can arbitrarily choose infantry from one or two ethnic groups to join the game to strengthen the Persians. Currently, the Persians have fewer infantry types than cavalry types, which is too abnormal.

Based on what reality principle? Milk from cows and sheep?

I think it needs to prevent battering rams and siege towers from attacking things other than buildings, so that there will be no situation where the battering rams of both sides attack each other and get into a melee.

You can basically think that the combination of the two is China's battering ram.

I totally agree with this point of view.

Under the current attack method, if soldiers attack rather than capture buildings by default, they will only stab with spears, chop with swords, or throw arrows, javelins and stones on the walls in vain. And I don't want that, I plan to use mods to add specialized siege damage to soldiers, such as throwing torches.

I think that since Yamatai can be accepted, the backwardness of American civilization in military technology is not so prominent. Well, we might as well give it a try. I don’t know any other outstanding representatives of American civilization in this time period two thousand years ago besides the Maya, but if we decide to do it, we might as well take the representative American powers of this period All show up.

That's not enough for them to replace the cavalry's mission. The important thing is that they don't have bronze weapons, and it's difficult to gain an advantage even if they get close to the enemy.

I think agriculture can only appear in P2, because the planting industry in nomadic countries is often not the individual behavior of herdsmen, but the requirements of tribal chiefs, Shanyu, and Khan, and the start of agricultural construction in nomadic countries generally requires nomadic cavalry Farmers are captured from villages in other countries, and these people who have mastered agricultural skills are allowed to reclaim the land, instead of training herdsmen who know nothing about farming from scratch.

There is no doubt about it, I am also looking forward to it. But we still have to consider balance. If possible, it is best to make a pre-colonial American civilization mod (such as one without water resources) that can be used in game mechanics with the 0AD main body, so that we don’t have to worry about things that are not in the main game The balance between American civilizations and Eurasian and African civilizations. At the same time, it also means that we are not limited to only one or two American civilizations.

If those civilizations have at least entered the Bronze Age, then I have nothing to complain about. Aren't we already planning to join Yamatai, which doesn't even have cavalry and doesn't have many iron weapons?