alre

why? because they are not contemporary? it is said that part of the beauty of the game is that it allows factions who never met to encounter in fight, wouldn't be nice too to have two great kings of Sparta fight alongside? attention must be paid to balance though.

that's nice. also the complex of Naqsh-e Rustam is worth considering if you ask me. maybe it would seem weird to "build a mountain",but it would be appreciated in the end.

we have the model for the alicarnassus mausoleum somewhere in the forum, but that's not really persian, neither it is the current wonder, which depicts the hanging gardens of babylon. by the way, how was persian architecture excellent actually?

I have been thinking exactly about this and I have a lot of ideas. If your concern is that spartan champions may be too strong in p1, but relatively weak in p3, we could just have a series of technologies for pumping them trough the ages. Greek historians give us a lot of clues for interesting technology names. About the next ideas I'm going to share: many require coding, but I'm just brainstorming ideas, consider them as such. Helots Spartan women are costlier than other women (they are decent fighters) and maybe limited in number (if spartiates are also), but you can trade male helot workers, they can't defend, and are limited in a number that depends on spartiates. For instance, every new spartiate could raise the max number of helots by 2. Spartiates would be important for economy as well as for war, forcing them to be more than meatshield strategically. It would be even more fun if helots rebelled everytime the max number of them would go under the current number allowed by spartiates. Bonuses Civ bonus - Two kings: Spartan can have two heroes at the same time Spartan enduring system of law established the coexistence of two kings at any time. Team bonus - Leaders in war: all spartan heroes have effect on allies too Spartans were regarded as war specialists in Greece and all over the world. When called to fight by allies, they were given the command. Leonidas rework Spearmen hero 300 Spartans: all allied melee infantry gets +20% speed, 2 pierce resistance, +2 hack resistance, +20% damage. 30m radius. This ability only works when Leonidas is engaging an enemy. Last stand: when Leonidas is engaging an enemy, he cannot be ordered to disengage.

my suggestions for thematic flares: - enemy menace here: symbol is either an exclamation point or an interrogation point, automatically selected depending if the signaling player has current visibility on the signaled point. - please engage here: symbol is a sword/banner planted on the ground. - pay attention here: ideally, this uses a more relaxed sound clue than the above, and the symbol is a dot with rays around it. I think any flare used currently can fall in one of the three categories above. ideally, the sound clues would be differentiated.

what's wrong with people repairing ships?

I think strong features should have strong motivations. asymmetry in civs should be designed so that players are not confused by features that feel out of place. For instance, I think it would be immersive and fun to play spartans unlike any other civ, with champs in p1 maybe, and women who can fight, why not, they were actually tought to - not just the men, all the women from spartan family as well. For Persia instead, the role of women is not associated with war at all. There are exceptions, but it would just play weird to me if they were the only civ where women use bows, that just clashes with the reality of an essentially patriarcal civilization and empire.

apart from historical justification, what is the gameplay reason? I can understand "more varied is better", which is true in between bounds by the way, but why in particular would you give persians eco extra defense? I can't see it. the same claim about some women fighting and even leading armies could be made for many other civs, like celts and numibians.

they don't, really.

ptole have horse archers in p1, that's not the point. and none of those counters is more common in p2 than in p1. if they are op in p1, they are op in p2 and 3 as well.

after some thought, I ended thinking that it's unnecessary and complicated. I'm not arguing about diminishing returns in general, just about farms. they are unnecessary because in the end we never see good players building more farms to distribute workers and increase efficiency. also, because farmers don't automatically spread among fields, it's an eccess of lame micro to avoid diminishing returns. by the way, I support the aoe model "one worker per farm", indipendently on the diminishing returns issue. also en passant, I find it unnecessary and unexpected that fields can grow themselves. is it like this in a26?

balanced marshland

By the way, is there any plan on the off chance that a check is implemented, that pops up an advise to download the latest version of the mod, anytime you join the MP lobby without the mod or with an old version?

very good news. I hope the mod gets to be really used by the community. if this is the case, obvious unbalances (like carth merc cav or iber fire cav) can be fixed promptly, and also gameplay can evolve more rapidly - provided that the adoption of the mod is wide enough. how the "balancing team" will decide to organize itself will also be fundamental to the success of the experiment. I hope everyone gets very practical now. these discussions still belong to the forum I think. hopefully they can lead to a new updated design document.

you can garrison a forge.

unnecessary. slingers and archers were also used with success against cavalry.

is there any reason to believe persian ice houses were used outside settlements, for hunt? just add hunter huts buildable directly by cavalry, in neutral territory.

consider that persians are already strong in late game. saving pop space and boosting corrals are both late game bonuses (additional to pop bonus).

yeah, @wraitii corrected this in A26. I had the impression that it's not enough, but I never bothered to test a new set of parameters. If you want to, check this discussion:

that's not how it works unfortunately. by slowing the pace of the game the mechanics don't change, micro-management only becomes more important because you can give your units finer instructions with the added time.

the game doesn't do anything to make you believe that persian sparabara (translated in game as shield bearer - spearman is only listed in little among their many classes) is the same unit as athenian hoplites. I believe it makes no sense to assume that random players understand that all CS units with a spear (but not a pike) have the same stats. whatever notion you have about history and fighting, you wouldn't think that persian shield bearers have the same stats than all other spearmen, and the only way the game tells you that is by showing you the units stats. change those and the problem is solved. they will just be used for walling like houses. I wouldn't assume that a mostly agricultural, patriarchal society like the ancient persian one, had many women learning to use the bow. just saying.

I was referring to the same concept that you described as avoiding "Fastest click wins". Namely, I had in mind those players that discuss and propose new features trying to preserve or even raise the level of "skill" required to win fights, where "skill" is basically APM.

the thing with simmetry is not that it's boring (variation is still possible), but that, by exploring a part of the map, you get to know another one, which is kinda weird.

just give to all ranged units the same stats already, if you want them all to play the same way. that won't be much different than increasing their speed, just less engaging I guess. don't need it, they do fine already against cav.

@#$%ing no. rushing woodlines with archers is very frustrating, next to masochist, because skirms "dodge the trees" easily and come kill the archers like it's nothing. even sniping over spearmen doesn't help that much.