alre

I'm curious to know why is that. Personally I didn't experience A26 much, but it seemed to me it was an enhancement compared to A25. Also I loved A24, but it seems I'm in strict minority. At least they just won an Oscar, lol.

I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of ancient warfare. It is true that with heavy infantry javelins were often used in the way you say, in particular I know it is attested for cavalry javeliners. But skirmishers would often fight other skirmishers, either on - you know - skirmishes, or at the side of heavy infantry formation, and foot skirmishers would try to preserve their ammunition, while faking throws and trying not expose theirselves too much. Also they would stop to pick up javelins thrown at them, and have bags of spare javelins to get back to, and in general the battle would be a lot less intense than a bunch of 0AD skirms throwing a stream of volleys. There is no way to create a perfect ancient battles simulator, but raising javeliners repeat time seems a good start to me, and it would make battles look better. Also it would be an interesting differentiator, changing the role of micro between different ranged units.

I believe this can be handled by just increasing repeat time.

wow. the game could already use these for a lot of things, like loot, promktion, and also gather and trade. btw loot is such a needless part of the game, we should remove it.

also you would need to double the number of arrows for each unit garrisoned, or something like that. by the way, you should try the turbo mode by freagarach.

just double health instead of resistance. that should work.

this is actually already quite agreed on, there is a poll somewhere in this forum.

well at least I tried to defuse flame.

they are adding a new feature to the game, not announced, not explained. typical wildfire games, those rascals!

make the AI dependent on stances and take the best of the two options. personally, I like how bildingAI works now in terms of its effects on gameplay, and I don't even think rushing next to the cc needs nerfing, but I don't play the game anymore. If anything, I think units should act more like buildings, not the opposite.

I have to say, if this kind of mod gets out, it will be hard to put back in the bottle. nice to know we have that python library, it could be very handy for setting up gameplay test also. this is a task so trivial it is better programmed than machine learned.

with this mod, they do. is it cheating @borg-? But honestly, isn't it boring to have the starting sequence play out by itself?

guys do you remember your own test in which you gave buildingAI to units? single pointing is a nerf for buildings, even without the additional spread nerf.

it is believed that chess engines (which can do what you describe against even the strongest players) have pushed upwards the quality of the games played between humans, and even popularized the game.

Agree on everthing, although overlapping forts/cc are a bit OP me thinks. interesting, stances for building-AI would make it more transparent and user-friendly.

when units receive a single point movement order, the destination of each units should be computed to be different and spaced enough from each other. this would go a long way towards avoiding unit overlap. also I could try a rewrite of unit pushing so that it is more configurable and effective, but there will be weird effects if many units are ordered to move towards the same points.

love the philogic research running here. "cojone" is just a regional variant of "coglione". it is not pronounced very differently.

the main thing that made A23 and A24 big battles take longer, was that without unit pushing, units would stop at maximum range to shoot at enemies, and the soldiers that were behind were "bumped" back and had no other way to get into the fight than slowly getting around the first line. the usual way to avoid this was to put your units into a formation and moving it forward under enemy fire, this is not generally necessary anymore. small fights weren't slower than they are now in past alphas.

coordinating with your teammates is a key skill. I agree that large battles are unsatisfactory in 0AD: very high risk and very fast, if you like to fight more than eco you should rush more.

Did @Helicity ask for earth-sezed maps or any of those other things? What has that to do with "the tactics that historical Generals had used"? Also, did you consider that you can have games with longer battles but with shorter duration overall? A23 was like that. Your comments are completely off-focus.

I think we keep taking the wrong lessons from A24 bad reception. A24 wasn't fun because it was too turtle-y and because just a few civs were played, I actually miss quite a lot A24 slower battles. They also had the effect of giving tactical relevance to logistics, and line of reinforcements, which is totally gone now. By this line of reasoning, development of real-looking tennis/table-tennis videogame is wasted money, because Pong is a perfectly fine game already.

I don't see what's bad in damage overflow. On this I agree.

lol. this mechanic is needed to partially circumvent the bug introduced by acceleration itself, which is that units slow down to hit targets, while those targets don't have to, and take distance. without acceleration you don't even need the extra mechanic and the somehow hidden diversification that most people can't even realise it's there.

I agree we should allow more rows on right mouse drag, with missiles on the back. I'm very convinced about this. Doesn't need to be hadled by formations code at all.

right. I was referring to this comment by @real_tabasco_sauce: