alre

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.

I'm serious about red sea! its resources are nicely balanced, and random spawning makes for the most varied games.

also ircanian shores and kerala. they deserve a -1 at wood but are not as bad as other maps on this regard (uknown, frontier, stronghold - see one of the latest Jim videos)

I didn't mean that I'm not going to play anymore, ever. that doesn't depend just on me either, my friends may be sticking to the game and I would keep playing with them, but to be honest I've been growing disillusioned with the game development for months now and I'd probalbly rather switch to another game, if I gave it a try some time.

red sea uber alles

don't make one civ OP, like A24 maurya. people hate that. don't waste the occasion of making crossbows unique. I proposed some time ago some stats for the automatic crossbows. they were legit melee killers.

can't see why it shouldn't be possible to just access desktop version from the smartphone. I'm not blaming anyone, but to me, this is a blocker - to be fair, I'm not playing 0AD anymore, so whatever.

- resources spent are indeed more important than resources gathered - it's a known issue that rushes lower the total score of both rushed and rushing players, this is inevitable and could only be mitigated including a lot more factors in the score, which would make it more complicate and finally less understandable

bonus against higher tier units? cool

you spend 200 more wood in fields, but you also spend 200 less food in women (21 against 25), that's more time efficient and also more population efficient. I'm not convinced by your argument @Yekaterina