alre

I don't unserstand.

and honestly, even if I had an onager on a war ship, I wouldn't put its projectiles on fire. that would mean to risk putting on fire my own ship, and I can't see why someone would want to take such a big risk.

a catabult (ballista) is basically a big bow that uses torsion instead of flection, you can aim it the same way as a normal sized bow. in its size I mean. the picture you posted depicts an onager, also called catapult, but not of the tipe you would use on a ship. a bolt shooter would be more useful than that.

how comes it can't shoot directly? the projectiles don't need to pass the deck.

what about the fact that a catapult can sink a ship, while arrows can be of little effect on a ship covered by a canopy? siege weapons weren't very common on warships for what I know, so you can bet they weren't that important, but there is still a conception among historians, that catapults were a relevant tactical element in mediterranean ancient warfare.

the problem was the distance between the balancing discussions and the game development. big changes are introduced to the game without previous notice, apparently being part of personal plans by each dev, not disclosed to the larger community. on the other hand, there is not enough effort on the balancing part for testing game changes, which in turn depends on technical difficulties, small user base, low engagement with the game development and its management. these are my two cents, from the perspective of a "balancing advisor".

tributes received could be taken out someone's eco score. it would make sense I think, and it wouldn't be that big of a change, but I guess it's also ok to not count tributes, scores can't be perfect anyway.

quite the opposite: if someone is efficient at gathering, he will spend everything, redundancy and efficiency are contrary. also wasteful players will have low returns from their eco investements and will have lower eco scores in the end. tributes should better count as spent though.

champion pikemen are outstanding meatshields and champion infantry in general is pretty good to have mixed to your army, the problem is that it costs too much. champion cavalry is also expensive, but it adds up stats-wise to CS cavalry, which is already a unit whith little economic value: while CS infantry is very iseful for the economy, more than a very few cavalrymen are a pure military investement, and thus champ infantry represent a limited value gain compared to CS inf, whereas champ cav is a strict improvement compared to CS cav, and are worth the extra cost. the solution? reduce the price of unused infantry champs and reduce the stats of OP champ cav.

p2 rush is good only for some civs. you could try spartan skiri

cousin claimed one or two months ago, that melee+slingers is more effective than melee+javs, but of course there's the fact that slingers are more expensive. then there is trash archers.

is this guy jerking off?

yeah, clearly they are more interested in game accessibility than in botanics. in reality there is a whole lot of trees that give edible fruits and can also be cut down for wood, figs for instance give a high quality wood, but in 0AD can only be exploited for food. at AoE they decided to have food and wood gathering separated in order to simplify game mechanics, and they had food gathering limited to berry bushes because they are easier to render in a clearly different way. this is mindful designing. something 0AD never bothered about.

there is a reason AoE only has fruits on bushes.

the game is limited by the fact that all military units only use one weapon to fight. that's the logic used until now.

friendly fire needs a different unitAI

shouldn't that be a flat line. in my mind, that would be the ideal result. I don't understand why there is a decrease sometimes and the reason of its size (seems pretty small, and not completely correlated with losses, although there is an association).

I find it unfortunate that you have to make a patch before any decision is made about it. currently you can already envision the proposed score in at the address resources>total>spent, so one can already post and compare charts. I'm not doing that now because I'd have some trouble right now, but these are some observations I can do from having observed the charts in my last game: - resources spent draw a line that is more segmented and somehow jittery, resources gathered make a smoother, more elegant line. also compare to total units trained which is more segmented still, and also a good index of economic progression. - players who do not spend resources efficiently do stand out a lot more in the resources spent graph, clearly. you can see precisely when they start falling behind, as well as in the total units trained plot too. with the current scoring system you can only see the late effects instead. - resources spent show sometimes a decrease and I have some doubts about what is that for, I think that's worth looking into - there is often one player that has everything going right for them, so they end up having gathered a lot of res without spending it all. in that case the resourches gathered plot may be more compressed in height, and therefore less readable all in all I like the resources spent system better, and I like that is somehow more alike the widely used GDP index. I think the concept is more sound and that the final ranking is more fair. I'd like the decreasing value issue fixed though.

I know that, but a footman hooking the shield of a swordsman is basically exposing himself. once the swordsman gets past the axemen's guard, he has the upper hand. in cavalry combat, it makes a lot of sense to use polearms and that was also the case in medioeval europe, but for bigger, dismounted armies, it's weird to me.

yeah that kind of equipment wpuld definitely make more sense for foot soldiers. anyway, I still can't figure why swing polearms were employed so early in china. the more I think about it, the less it makes sense to me.

I don't suppose javelins would trigger different considerations than arrows about shin guards.

it doesn't pierce, it hurts bones more than arteries. i didn't know han soldiers had this kind of armor though.

also, this i've been wondering about a lot lately: why did chinese employ the halberd so early? why didn't they all use shields like around the mediterranean sea?

for what i've heard of, the reason is sling shots.

the novelty of the war in ukraine is the reason the name was proposed. there is little reason to take stance in older conflicts.