AIEND

Team rewards should be an unintentional advantage that comes with choosing your preferred civilization, not a primary preference. There shouldn't be a situation where if no one on a team chooses a faction, you will be at a huge disadvantage. In fact, as the legacy that AoE2 brings to 0 AD, the team reward itself is not a new setting. AoE3 has canceled it, and now we do not need to make the team reward have an excessive effect.

Unfortunately, the reset AoM may contain the infamous "Tale of the Dragon" expansion, not just the titans, I hope Microsoft doesn't just simply hd the game, but the failed material Reboot the slice or simply delete it. To be honest, I would prefer Microsoft to join Persian mythology, it would be interesting to have Mithras, Anahita, Ahura Mazda as the main gods.

Yes, I think the team reward itself is not as important as civilization rewards and civilization-specific buildings and technologies. Players prefer a faction because of the faction's unique gameplay, not its influence on teammates - if only to cooperate with teammates And choose a faction, then the player becomes a tool person.

Because you didn't find out, I continued your previous conversation with others, and my thoughts have been spoken by others - I agree with the idea of WOW, the team reward in Athens should be naval, during the Peloponnesian War, The Athenian navy played an important role in the maintenance of the Delian League. It can even be said that without the navy, there is no meaning for the existence of the alliance. This is the most suitable from the perspective of reality and gameplay. I can't understand why you think that democracy is better than the navy. More suitable as a team reward. Democracy did make Athens different from other countries, but that difference never meant a team advantage.

You have to understand that military democracy has been experienced by many clans, tribes and early countries. It was not a novelty at the time. On the contrary, the fact that Athens retains this political form shows the lag of its social development. How can a backward military democracy Are there more institutional rewards than other more advanced monarchies?

Democracy in Athens only had influence over the Greek states that were also in the commune-state stage, because those states didn't even have a solid monarchy and chose between oligarchs, aristocracy and democracy, but for states that had entered the kingdom stage There will be no impact. The Macedonian, Seleucid, and Ptolemaic kingdoms, who are also Greeks, will only regard Athens' democracy as an immature and outdated system, so it is difficult for me to imagine what team rewards can be brought by Athens' democracy.

In other words, what we should be doing is a distinct, now-disappeared Northeast Asian civilization, not an "ancient Korea".

To be precise, it does not correspond to today's North Korea. The successor state of Goguryeo does not exist today. If it should be counted, it may be the Jin Kingdom and the Qing Dynasty.

It is suggested to modify the theme. To be precise, what we want to make is just "Goguryeo", because Goguryeo is a country established by a very clear Northeast Asian nation. The Zhaoxian (Gojoseon) that existed before Goguryeo was actually a part of ancient Chinese civilization, a remnant of the Shang Dynasty, and a feudal state of the Zhou Dynasty. It inherited the developed bronze culture and had long-term exchanges with countries such as the Yan State , which is also the reason why the Han Dynasty can easily conquer it and bring it into rule. Silla, which existed after that, although it had a direct relationship with today's Koreans, it was too late. It arose during the Sui and Tang dynasties.

This is also the first time I have seen this story, and I have to go back and check Chinese history books to confirm the authenticity, but the winch crossbow mounted on a wheelbarrow or a two-wheeled carriage appeared very early, which is certain.

In the battle of infantry against cavalry, shields are often more effective than spears, because the rider is on a horse and cannot fight close to the body like infantry, and it is more difficult to break through the defense of the shield to kill the infantry. Conversely, unless it is equipped with horse armor, The cavalry could not adequately protect themselves and their horses from the infantry with their shields. Both sides are also equipped with shields, but the infantry can form a tighter formation and cover the whole body, while the cavalry in the loose formation cannot do it. At this time, the confrontation is beneficial to the infantry.

I am inclined that it is not that the spearman and pikeman can kill the cavalry faster, but that the spearman and pikeman are not easily killed by the cavalry, so as long as the cavalry adopts the attack-disengagement tactic, and repeats this, it can effectively attack the infantry, Especially its side and rear, this time highlights the important role of ranged infantry (especially archers) against cavalry in reality, and in order to prevent enemy cavalry from directly attacking ranged infantry, you need to make melee infantry form a box, Protects ranged infantry.

In fact, people only pay attention to one aspect. They don't notice that the most advantageous point of the spearman and pikeman against the cavalry is not that they are easier to attack the cavalry, but the cavalry is not easy to attack them. Now I want to increase the base damage of the spearman and pikeman , adjust the damage multiplier of spearman and pikeman to cavalry to 1.25, but at the same time adjust the damage multiplier of cavalry to spearman and pikeman to 0.75.

The sun goddess of Japan, the main god in popular mythology in early Japan and after the Meiji Restoration (the dominant religion in medieval Japan was Buddhism, which covered the influence of native Japanese mythology to a certain extent).

No, this is completely wrong, the text below the relic states that this is a bronze ge, "中广形铜戈".

Yes

If we add fire, it means that soldiers can only use siege attacks (whether torches or incendiary arrows) to destroy buildings, not the spears, swords and arrows in general that they use against units, then buildings are Don't worry about encountering damage types other than crush and fire.

I don't understand the machine translated text, do you want to add a unit like this?

I mean, these armors and weapons are gorgeous props for sacrificial ceremonies, not necessarily common in battlefields, for example, there is an iron sword that looks like it was imported from the Han Dynasty, which may be very rare in Japan.

I think this is the same as Kush's soldiers have good combat effectiveness even with wooden sticks. We don't need to deliberately design a "weaker" soldier for Japan.

In fact, according to the explanatory text in this picture, these armors and weapons seem to be used for sacrifice, which may affect our design of advanced warriors for Japan.

Then we can replace it with a mace or a Ge with a similar technical content and a longer handle.

In fact, if we did, we could simply remove the building's hack and pierce armor, leaving only the crush and fire armor.

And the power of torches will not change due to any upgrades, so players still have to rely on siege weapons in the later stage, especially to deal with facilities such as stone walls that are immune to flames. Of course, I think his idea is that the addition of flames will make P1's quick attack Becomes more violent, structures like wooden walls can't stop the burning, especially cavalry attacks may be unstoppable, but this is an old problem, I used to think that cavalry or even infantry should not be in P1, I didn't hesitate Added flames to the mirror mod because these changes have been made.

There is no need for the capture mechanic to be removed, otherwise it will just turn us into a saboteur destroying all the city buildings in the game, instead I think the siege attack of the soldiers should be linked to the capture mechanic, as mentioned in a previous thread discussed.