AIEND

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.

I think if you want to enrich the gameplay, you should focus on refining spear cavalry and pike cavalry, or melee cavalry and shock cavalry, general cavalry and cataphract.

Generally speaking, I think that the ballista is a big one, a bolt shooter that can shoot rocks, and there is no difference between the two in terms of shooting javelins. I guess that's why the Ballista was eventually phased out as it was more complicated and less convenient for throwing large incendiaries, and the Onager or Trebuchat eventually took over its ability to fire rocks.

I also want to know the answer.

Is there any real-world evidence of such a coating? Also if it's just firing a javelin that burns at the front, the ballista probably won't be any more effective than a bolt shooter, can it fire a can of oil or a fireball made of hay?

My point is that if it's just for the richness of the elements, in fact, the axeman does not need to be any different from the swordsman in DPS, after all, the battle axe is still a slashing weapon in essence. I pay more attention to the detailed settings of maceman, such as they can stun enemies and make them into a state of sluggishness for a period of time. In addition, I think it is more important to unify them into spear cavalry and balance them instead of increasing the types of melee cavalry.

I have a question, how does the ballista fire the incendiary? Because its track is wooden, it will ignite.

You mean to add the effect of blocking the view to the building?

The first thing to do is to add flaming arrows to the archer.

Because setting the enemy's ship on fire was the most efficient means of attack, the Greek fire was also a very dangerous weapon for the operator, but the Romans loved it.

Onager or Trebuchat usually project a clay pot filled with oil, which is also relatively safe.

A catapult using an orbit must have a certain elevation angle to launch it at sea, otherwise the rocks will slide away as the hull shakes.

I don't think it's about balance, it's just people wanting to add interesting settings based on their historical imagination. But what I'm trying to say is that it's more fun to design based on reality rather than imagination, for example I suggested adding arson earlier.

In fact, there is a question, what kind of catapult is installed on the warship, I have the impression that this kind of catapult is smaller and is used more.

我的意思是抛石机是弯曲的弹道，不能直瞄射击。 I mean the trajectory of the catapult is curved and you can't aim straight.

In reality, however, neither the swordsman nor the axeman would attack the siege with their weapons, they would simply kill the operator or set it on fire.

Lowering the melee defense in exchange for higher DPS would work, because the battle axe is not as convenient for blocking as a sword, but the question is is the higher damage real? Like I said earlier, the tomahawk is more about being cheap than having any other advantages over the sword.

I understand this, but the tomahawk itself is lightweight, which makes it not very prominent in terms of stress concentration. In fact, most peoples use tomahawks because the sword is too expensive, not because of the outstanding features of the tomahawk.