alre

I think it improved the game a lot. consequences are substantial: battles take more time, units are a bit more visible, I'm thinking skirmishers are less op than before, chokepoints are significant again. I'm also seeing more units getting stuck sometimes.

I like the idea of using the community mod for experimenting noticeable gameplay changes, but we are getting ahead of ourselves: - did the community adopt the mod yet? - before introducing big changes, we should give players a couple of months for testing a26.

that would be roads and tight schedules for building camp and resting, which no other army had at the time. roman army was highly organized and legions movements would be facilitated by scouts and officers in charge of choosing the stops, signing the positions of each camp quarter for soldiers to make, everyone knew what to do and when, and men could be demanded to walk many hours a day for many days in a row. none of this has to do with the shape of the walking lot. of course, when traveling on road you can't keep a fully fledged line formation, but on flat uniform terrain, that wouldn't have been slower. I believe "column formation" in rts games is more of a modern mistification than a real thing. this said, if one still wants to use the clunky in-game column formation (or any of the other ones) can select it at any time. I'd just rather not have it switch on by itself when I tell my men to leave a losing battlefield, or when giving them any order that doesn't require at all a formation rearrangement.

there is. I'm not proposing to take off anything from the game, just to deactivate the automatic switch. (by the way, the comments above are completely ofd topic)

there is currently a problem of adoption of the mod.

how to download 0.0.7 version? download in game is not avaiable to me currently.

I played the new alpha and had the occasion to observe the game with my formation mod integrated, and I must say I'm glad it was merged (credit to @maroder), formations do seem to move more naturally. But I regret that one of the changes in my mod wasn't merged: I had turned off the automatic switch that makes formations change shape when you give them a target far enough. Column formation is particularly akward and it shouldn't switch on by itself, most often the reshape is unexpected and surprising in a annoying way. I would post a video example, but I can't seem to capture one in this alpha. What do you think?

I saw a game with athens and I feared for iphicrates, but I couldn't obeserve the bug. maybe if you don't halt it works well?

Formations were quite broken before already, but are more so now, and they are just as useless. wait, are you sure you could garrison cav in barracks before?!? I always kept it in the stables!

those bonuses weren't there on a25 either.

it is legal at now, and I imagine it will stay legal. but things could change.

btw there is debate over which is the ownership of AI-generated art. some regulation is possibly to be expected, but use and distribution is free for now. for italian readers: https://www.ilpost.it/2022/09/22/copyright-immagini-intelligenza-artificiale/.

very promising. weirdly plastic, some weird details, but probably good for icons already.

I think the hard/soft counter debate is meaningless for rts design, they are both legit choices depending on how those units are designed. first of all, a game can have both soft and hard counters, look at 0ad: sword cav is a soft counter for skirmishers, but siege towers are hard counters for archers, rams are for siege towers, and swordsmen are for rams... I think that for some units it's good to only have soft counters. if it feels good for them, why not? take medium/heavy infantry in "realistic" rts games like total war: they are the bulk of most armies, and it's only right that, however you are going to face them, it will either take a lot of time or quite some losses to take them down. of course hard counters are also good if they are well designed, and can be very fun. soft counters do lean towards snowballing, but some hard counters are enough to offset that I believe.

I would argue that the stereotype is just in your head, since there are no children in that image, also, chances are the sign and the parking where next to a supermarket or a mall, hence the shopping cart.

fire damage is OP guys. anyway, bigger variety in gameplay is welcome, when tested. unit specific upgrades are one of many possible ways to achieve that. I have another: Warbands: skirmishers get +2 conquer per second

the kushites are adorable only because of the starting priest, that makes early rides something more entirely; then there's all the rest of the stuff. I mean, they can mace buildings! it doesn't make sense, but is fun.

exactly. if randomness required equal chances, we couldn't say, for instance, that arrows land at random, because you don't have equal chances of different outcomes. looking further into the subject, there is a common concept of things being more or less random based on how predictable they are. techinically, this is uncorrect because randomness is a on/off property, and there are better, more mathematically sound concepts for expressing diversity in expected outcomes. but of course this is where technical jargon and common speech really diverge. I hope @Gurken Khan will forgive me for the OT, I promise I'm over it.

still needs the queries. potentially optimizable by keeping a table of all palisade segments and neighbours, updated by build ruitines, but that would need further work. actual performance fall has to be tested to be known.

those are technical words with precise meanings, and the following are facts: - random does not require even chances - RNG are algorithms that were always used behind random picking civs. I am an expert in the field.

potentially quite heavy because it could need a range query for every hit dealt to the palisade, maybe two (one for each end of the palisade segment).

that's still technically random, and of course it always relied on RNG.

well but turrets and towers are two different things. lazy solutions are better than no solutions anyway, and lazy fixes are still fixes.

I wasn't suggesting to just add arrows to walls, but to make garrisoned walls functionally similar, if not equivalent to garrisoned towers and forts. how? make the guys on walls not shootable at, and raise their attack time. Just a suggestion, but one that works for sure (similar to what we already have) while your solution may as well not.

I am a supporter of palisades having a bonus against cav, as it would differentiate it more from stone walls. I think another another buff for walls, would be to change the effect on garrisoned troops. if it was equal or similar to that of soldiers garrisoning towers, they would be more viable and interesting IMO.