alre

I think the problem is that, if one wanted to follow history strictly, gastraphetes should probably not even exist as independent units, they should just be actors that shoot bolts from walls and siegeworks, because they were never ever employed in the field.

they weren't questions. anyway, in certain real play situations, experienced armies are already very strong as is.

taking good fights and avoiding losses is already rewarded, you don't need to over-reward, that's called snowballing. you'd better just give the victory to whoever takes the edge first at that point. besides, you didn't answer to borg concern at all.

very nice. elephants are not countered by swords though, quite the contrary: ranged damage is best against them.

that would be easy, if you only count ranked. the discord bot records all the lobby chat, which includes all the rating bot messages, which in turn includes all the nicknames that play a ranked game. second accountd ofc would be recorded as separate players.

I wpuld drop the script, too much work. I don't know if it's currently possible to have gameplay information written in the units' info, but I think it should be. at that point it's only a matter of writing them and maintaining them. with fabricator patches I guess.

my ideal would be: - rams are cheaper - rams can be built on the battlefield - rams are much slower - rams are fairly easy to counter with any melee/short range assault this could or could not be integrated with @Darkcity's proposals. I think rethinking the pierce/hack differentiation would help with that, but I guess it's not necessary if they are convertible like Darkcity proposes.

every now and then someone cames up with this concern. it's funny because currently rams are quite out of the meta actually. the problem, I think, resides in the unintuitive counter system based on the pierce/hack differentiation. noone seems interested in rediscussing it though, because of the "small incremental changes" line of action.

can't you see they move at the same speed, and also they don't actually drop the res, they just "hide" them, and take them out again when they stop. ranged infantry units always move faster than melee, irrespective of resources carried. edit: by the way that hotkey works for everyone (I hope) as it's very important for high level play. it's called attack-move.

yeah that's not true

I remember my SP days. I downloaded the game, installed it, tried it one time, uninstalled it shortly after.

yes. and by game settings I mean the one for starting a new game, like the map etc.

also the the game settings reset every time is a bit tedious.

most of the work, for what I get now, is on the engine. modding support is pros-and-cons, but where the game is really lacking for me is spectacularity, among the three points that first video elists. by the way, those were good points, I also liked the videos on game design by the general gentlemen, that were posted by @Lion.Kanzen some time ago.

I agree with the principle that, when trying to make something unique, we should rather risk making it weak than OP.

what about roman siege walls?

what me and my friends did to balance team games back in the time, was to use fgod to access game replays list without exiting the pregame page, and then search for the names of the players we didn't know, if we had any previous encounter with them, and look at games summaries for clues about how they played. that was the best!

it shouldn't be hard. i remember @edoput and friends (ping @Mentula) tried that already maybe a year ago, I could definitely edit the ranking algorithm to include team games (multiplayer is not the correct word btw). we have mainly two problems: - this could multiply the cases of ranking offence claims - everytime a change to the ranking system is discussed, it never gets out the bog of discussions. I'm not sure how or if the lobby code is maintained.

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.

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.