alre

I tested it, but I didn't look at the code. I was under the impression that smaller turns the unit would also slow down, but less. I must have been confused by the actual turning time, that was already there. Maybe the best result could be achieved if for all turns that are sharper than <InstantTurnAngle> rotation time could be taken down near 0 (seeing a horse spinning around itself is not the best one can ask), but after the turn then acceleration applies? I wouldn't think acceleration looks quite good on infantry though. Still, other units like ships and chariots seem like they may very good use of acceleration. I would love to see this feature used to the best, but yet again I must insist that it doesn't break this hardly achieved balance (I agree with @a 0ad player here). Once again, I think that single/multiplayer is largely a false dichotomy.

well I did test Valihrant turn rates mod at the time, and I liked most of it. I'm not sure what do you mean when you say I didn't bother.

yet they messed up the game balance and meta. we already decided to revert that change for a reason.

yeah, this patch slows down movement, because introduces acceleration time, without increasing max speed. on the other hand, unit pushing sped up movement, because it avoided "stop bumps" and made it possible to have units that actually push other units in the back making them run forward, which was previously absolutely impossible. "Balancing team" wasn't really aware of how deep the consequences this would have had. In general, I wouldn't mind the game to be more slow. I'd like booming to stay this fast more or less, but battles are currently quite a bit too fast in my opinion. This however, is a complicate matter, and acceleration per se is a simpler one: for how it is implemented, it just means that turning is slower, and since A24, we know what that means. If it was implemented just for cavalry, it would still be problematic. The main complaint about slower turning rates in A24 was precisely about cavalry. To make cav more strategic and realistic, acceleration is not enough.

because of slower turn times, cavalry was harder to use in A24, and noone liked that. Noone would cav rush, noone would use cavalry except for cav archers. what's that?

I thought it would be easier, but I see the problems now. Maybe if audio chat was added to 0AD one day, something like this could be made easier, already avaible for the observers of a commented game.

In SVN version of the game, units don't move at full speed right after they are told to, but take a brief acceleration time to get to full speed. If told to turn, they start moving after the turn with a speed that is slower when the turn is sharper. Effectively, this is the same thing as having slower unit turn rates. I think it looks better though, and I'm not sure about how this may have a better effect on how ranged units correct throwing direction (but it looks promising). What puzzles me, is that A24 turn times were unpopular and have been corrected in A25 for that reason. However, they are coming back now with another name, also I'm not sure, but they feel even slower than in A24 to me. The motive for the change, apparently, is to avoid dancing, but I never saw anyone complaining about dancing lately. Maybe, now that unit acceleration has been introduced in the engine, turn rate and acceleration stats can be tweaked as to make turns overall not slower than they are now, which is what the community has been asking before.

that works for me! 0AD has a lot of flaws (it's an alpha after all), but seeing how many opportunities for a change are always open makes me appreciate the game a lot more. yes but also no. don't underestimate little stat adjustments. they make the difference between A24 meta dominated by archers, and A25 meta where archers are crap, mercs are OP, and thus MP matches last a lot less and employed strategies are completely different. Ideally, for the game to be varied and thus enjoyable for a longer time, a wide variety of strategies should all be viable at the same time. Remember that MP has the potential to enlarge engagement time indefinitely.

thanks! actually, I think I explained myself poorly: I only meant the audio commentary. You could broadcast them live and we could listen to it while in the game watching the match. To me it sounds like a real step up for the experience of spectating a game, and I would enjoy it a lot. You can make the video for youtube after the editing. I don't know if this is good for you, but I hope you like the idea.

problem is there are no skirmish maps good for bigger team games.

about the Sunday live commentaries, could you maybe stream them live someway? It would be super cool to watch the game on 0AD with the added commentary on the background.

I don't think ranged units are always more valuable than melee. If you are losing melee units, you usually want to replace it, then an extra melee is more valuable than an extra ranged in that case. Also melee units have steeper ranking benefits, so increasing the value of melee units may actually result in heavier snowballing probably (kind of what we have seen with melee cav in this alpha: when it starts rolling it just gets stronger).

turtling is not a bad thing, many players like that strategy and should be given the opportunity to enjoy it. hence, there is no need to just penalise turtling in every change to the game. actually, turtling is pretty weak in this alpha and I don't think that buffing it would be bad at all.

and it's very much into Russia's mainland.

nice!

the whole point of mainland map is that there is no sea. that's why it's called mainland.

you still have access to the lobby? are you sure you have been kicked?

already now? why is that?

why? wouldn't it also be weird to have two champios that are both hoplites?

you are describing a more advanced concept than "literal attack ground", which is what that "piece of content" shows well enough, I think. I also called for a more advanced implementation, sensible to the position of the enemy units.

Let's say 1/4 is a good estimate of how much damage is worth shoveling at skirms rather than at pikes. Attack ground would still be better than nothing only if the targets are very concentrated in the target location, which is very possible, but the requirement in term of micromanagament make it probably unworthy. You can already now target individual skirms that are in an area where overkill isn't problematic because of the concentration of enemy units: compare this to attack ground, with which you need to stop your archers when the target units are dead, with just as much need of micro.

I think literal attcak ground wpuld be always inferior to normal attack. Attack group instead is more interesting, but maybe a third option is even better: attack group on that ground. doesn't consider the targets that exit the initial area, doesn't include other units that later enter the area. Or maybe just drops the units that exit the line of sight of the shooters.

for what I know it places 8 CCs in a totally random fashion, and then, if you selected the "random group" option, it assignes them to players so that allies are not mixed with enemies. Red Sea also works like this. I've played various matches in A25 in Frontier map with various bioms, and people are always complaining there is not enough wood, and it's true, there is much less wood in the new bioms than before. Even though Frontier is a cool map, I'm not playing it anymore for this reason.

I think it is. Currently the back player has no territory gain in p2/3, and may easily have no access to any woodlines. The center player may have little territory too, but at least is having more fun. Polygon placement (as in Kerala) may be a good alternative. Or maybe polygon placement, but with CCs closer, as you would suppose a stronghold is.

Isn't he the christian troll?