alre

I would say 2-3 months could be a good time for trying a set of changes. by that time the meta should settle. it would be nice if there was more testing before deployement, I'm to it if someone wants to, personally I had no responce yet. I guess one can just comment here, so three options are mostly fine to me. it would be better yet if one could change their vote in some time from "no opinion" to another one, I don't think that's possible though.

the third option is good, no need to remove it. you can say no, if you don't say no, then it's not a no.

right. cavalry rushes are not quite op I believe. many players never ever do them.

this was already discussed in the past, I also suggested that the tower upgrade was deniable. we need a working patch. I like that actually. maybe if CCs didn't create such large patches of empty territory around, one could build one next to a border and start conquering from there (I'm thinking about the territory mod).

btw, this tourney was organized with the intent of advertising the community mod, we could make the next edition start when the next version of the mod is out.

I can play too.

maybe not super on topic, but here is what I think I have learned by studying ancient naval warfare (for personal curiosity) in the last months: in war, battle ships and transport ship were the same, with some little modification so to make the former faster, and the latter more capacious. battle formation was almost always one line deep, mode of engagement was usually boarding, with some ramming also involved. for those battles of which we actually know how many ships were rammed and how many boarded, even in ideal conditions for ramming, 9 ships out of 10 were boarded. So I believe emphasis on ramming is often exaggerated. boarding would generally start with the crew of one or more ships throwing hooks at enemy ships and pulling them together, then the facing crews would confront using any weapon they were more comfortable with, and the losing ship would be either captured or put on fire. this was prior to the first use of flamethrowers in 7th century AD (you can imagine how effective they were). romans' invention of corvus is also often over-emphasized, considering how romans themselves stopped using them quite soon; it is suggested that corvi made roman ships less stable and solid, and played a role in two large roman shipwrecks of that time. naval battle tactics were heavily dependent on the expertise of the crews: those who knew they were more experts would try confront the other in open sea, and manoeuvre more, because ships manned with more expert crews were faster and quicker at manoeuvring, while less expert crews would more easily make mistakes as being isolated from the rest of the fleet, or insted staying too close, as to impede one another and cross oars with other ships. all in all I believe that most battle manoeuvres were tended to single out enemy ships and board them from more than one side. this was possible when the less expert sailors made some mistake. until then the more expert crews would sometimes try inconclusive manoevres just to push the enemies into making a mistake. alternatively, they would just charge at each other and board in pairs. expertise of the crews was particularly important when sea conditions changed during the battle: more then once a battle was lost when sudden strong winds threw into confusion one of the sides, pushing one ship against the other, and taking them out of the control of their crews; more expert crews could avoid that. the size of the ship was also relevant, but somehow less than some would expect. smaller ships were expected to manoeuvre better in smaller spaces, and were usually deployed in the center of the battle line, so that if the wings would put pressure on them from the sides, they would still be relatively free to move. smaller ships weren't faster probably. bigger ships were in fact almost always preferred, because they could carry a larger boarding team. artillery didn't play a large role in naval battles (hardly ever cited) until Agrippa started wide adoption of the harpax during roman civil wars: a harpoon thrown using a cataput, which could be used for facilitating both boarding and ramming. we have detailed numbers for his battles and once again boarding is much preferred to ramming: I'm convinced effectiveness of ramming is too often exaggerated.

.

fair enough. it still makes more sense to me how it is now.

does han cav need to stay in p1? it doesn't, does it? sword cav is indeed op and has been for a long time, but I wouldn't like spear cav to just become the same as sword cav. also if you are taking acceleration away from rams, which are the one single unit on which acceleration looks best, just cancel acceleration completely and that will be a nice buff for spear cav alone.

you can also make a search on github for 0ad repository.

it can be included in a mod, the AI can't use it, not sure how it works or where to find it.

@Lion.Kanzen stan is on vacation

I did and it didn't work. but i've never been a good boomer. han food eco is better than other civ's. this was expected.

I'm in for doing some testing. I especially like the territory mod inclusion. by the way, I must warn those here who don't frequent the lobby, that the comnunity mod has actually split the community. as a rule of thumb, those above 1400 use the mod, those below don't.

when you are in it, if it's rated you can see a red line in the bottom right saying it's rated. also you can check in the "game" option in the right. games with more than two players are never rated.

you can host or play unrated games, or team games, which are also unrated.

like it is with fire cav? I suppose that could do, but it's not very good looking.

I believe the biggest obstacle to addiction of arson to 0 AD is fire effects. it should be reduced in power already, a lot.

the AI is very bad at battles, you do not want to learn how to play from the AI, that's mostly a dummy for casual players to have fun playing against. if you want to know what works best when giving battles in 0 AD, you must watch to competitive multiplayer. btw, what makes you think that the AI is random at all? not when engaging enemies I don't think.

this was close, good game. you move your army way too much, when you see advantage always engage, don't disengage until you go under. why moving back all your army to join an incoming hero? if you have already engaged, just keep fighting while your hero comes, if you want to wait the hero, do so before you attack. if you had more barracks you could have built back your army faster, and win. get the baskets technology, especially if you build that few dropsites. when you start a big attack, call in all your men, all of them, including those on mines ecc, more is always going to be better.

while you add this mechanic to 0 ad, please take away conquer.

the difficult AI doesn't know any better moves than the easy one. the only difference is that at higher difficulty, the economy of the AI is faster, simply thanks to hacky multipliers. it's written in the popup description of the AIs.

or from this site.

some changes must be reversed, not every change proves good in the end.