alre

I don't believe to much that has ben said here in the last posts. - I have read in history sources, that polearms were often weapons of choice of footed soldiers against knights, on 1v1 just as much as in mass, and even if massed soldiers can more easily stop a cavalry charge, I don't really see what difference does the weapon make in that - positioning your soldiers is a big factor in every RTS, and formation can help in this, regardless of boni or such. Also open formation can help limiting ranged sources of damage - consider that in 0AD soldiers don't fight in formation (ranged units may do, but not melee) so it doesn't make much sense to me to grant them any bonus. It is true that formations had a role, historically, in combat too, but for that you'd need formations much more flexible than those we have, so that soldiers can stay in formation while fighting

I support Ceres' idea of the phasing icon on buildings thumbnails, as long as it disappears when phasing up becomes possible. It is useful for many reasons: - it clearly, graphically, shows which are the buildings that allow phasing up. Not the tower, just the real ones. - Because the icon doesn't disappear when you have already built one building of that sort, it subtly suggests that one more still counts. This cannot replace a clear reading of the rules, of course, but not everyone likes reading rules. If people can learn by playing, that's better - Disappearing when all the requirements are met, it can help players realize how the count works. I'd have appreciated this feature last time I played carth, because I'd forgotten 20 pop houses counted.

aI made a mod that implements my proposals on formations. I think the improvement is stark, here's a preview: Some detail: Assignment of units to formation places This is already very similar to the current algorithm, the only difference is point 3.2. I tried hard to introduce it, but, for simple that it sounds, I can't seem to make it work. Sorting the array doesn't seem to have any effect, I noticed it's always the same units that take the farther positions, those left out by the others. I'm attaching the js file with attemted edits. Also point 2 has seen an improvememt, similar to the one dealt in the next section. Rotation movement This had the greatest impact, in particular the second point. Makes formations a lot more usable I think. First point is dealt as in my last post of June 30. Column formation This was easiest. Not much to add about it. Further considerations and questions - I did quite some code refactoring, as much as I thought it would be acceptable. External use of some function may break, although it seems unlikely to me. - I'm not sure I respected coding conventions either. - Formations now don't get formed anymore in the mean direction of their members. - Browsing Formation.js history, I was startled noticing that actually my proposals are nothing new and already where in the engine some time ago (rP14292, rP14300). I'm not sure what to do with this information. - How is LoadFormation supposed to be used? - The only way to make formation turns more natural than this, is to change how entities turn around obstacles, so that they do not do it on position, but rather sliding around the corner as they turn. The improvement would be evident for formations, but would also be noticeable for rams and cavalry. I'm not sure where's the code for that. - I can keep making improvements if you like, my goal is to make formations good looking, and also reasonable even for competitive games, and I'd like my edits to go in the main game. (edit/clarification/license: I renounce to all rights on my work on the mod and agree to the legal disclaimer) Formation formation-mod-proposal.pyromod

linothorax makes sense for elite citizen soldiers, same as other factions.

I guess because temples are nice features and you want some use to them.

not necessarely. when placing the walls it's easy to guess if there will be gaps or if the segments will rather touch. try.

in (very) short: when you place walls, destroy turrets before building them, they take building time, way to much stone, and are useless.

healers are UP. I suppose @ChronA meant any type of resource gathering. Doesn't seem like a bad idea to me, but it could turn them from UP to OP. However, I'm not sure healers need a correction (a less steep improvement from promotions would be nice though), because it makes sense to me if they are only used in tiny numbers.

but if the forest is half-cut, doesn't it look strange to have all the bushes on the outside only? is this actually for performance reasons?

The side with extra javelineers almost always won. Although I too must admit I didn't sign down all the results, so I'm going by memory. Also when priests work well, it's just few of them (they support champions wonderfully). I agree that maybe archers would be a better comparison for priests. I chose javelineers because are. more comparable to them in range. Also healers are costier so it didn't feel they deserved an easy benchmark. Anyway I'd say that any other ranged unit other than skirmishers are quite UP in this alpha (or rather they are OP, but you would also use spears otherwise).

Not really. I made tests, a support javelineer makes your melee survive better than a priest. I tried 100% spearmen battles, and also 50% pikemen + 50% javelines. I don't know why but not even level 3 healers could save those pikemen from an army with extra skirmishers (the opposing army had skirmishers instead of healers, 1 to 1). I also tried spearmen champions, and they work better with healers instead. Metal? No please! At least now you can train priests without problems when you have extra food. Stone maybe? As in temples? By the way, it's not like they are totally useless in this alpha either. If you have a level 3 priest somewhere, it arguably means that he had repaid his cost. It's just that only a smaller part of their job is during battles.

whatever is your army composition, healers have a very weak effect on battles, a single javelineer deals more damage a priest can heal. The value of priests is given by the fact that they can keep healing your troops after they stop fighting. If your army is fighting without rest, it makes much more use of a javelineer than a priest. However, note that, while ranged soldiers get almost no benefit from veterancy, veteran healers are extremely more effective than base healers, also note that healers have their dedicated set of techs in addition to blacksmith techs for soldiers, so it is possible to have healers make a decisive impact to battles (especially in support of melee infantry champions), but it requires a lot of preparation, and I honestly don't see how can it be worth it.

Biden's reputation was indeed spoiled a little by this retreat going so bad, at least here in Italy. But I myself can't see it this way. Would it be so much better if the Afghan republic lasted one more year? The only true disaster was the occupation of that country, not the retreat. Everything that went bad during the retreat itself, did it so because of how the occupation was managed. Obama may have had a much better perceived image, but he should better have listened to Biden at his time, his commitments in Afghanistan were truly a total disaster.

I know

don't think that's necessary. red color could rather give a negative impression, like the bush was an obstacle, which is the opposite of what's happening.

yes it does. it is a well established convention to comunicate the position on the clock by just typing the number at the beginning of the match. it's very fast and simple and just good enough for most maps.

box formation does exactly that.

you want a loot level so high that if you manage to do a succesfull rush (and it doesn't even have to be extraordinarily succesful, you said) then you have an economy that can compare with that of other players that have been booming instead? now imagine this in a 1v1 setting, could be a school example of what snowballing is: you have been raided and you managed to reduce damage a little, so you may think you are fine, or at least that you can catch on, but no, the other player is so much forward (as if he was booming) that he can keep rushing without fear of being reset, because just a small margin snowballs more and more again.

you can use ctrl+selection to take out units from the ones you have already selected. about towers, I usually send them all to the tower, and queue another command that gets passed only to those units that are left out the tower.

if we consider the initial example by @Ceres, we see that communication is not the issue, we may even be telepathic, but if I send troops to help in a battle my ally is leading, while I'm also busy elsewhere, there is no way I'm gonna be as effective in managing those troops, as he/she could be with shared command. Also it's not like the option to share troops excludes the need for good communication anyway. However, this could escalate quickly and it's up to developers to decide how far to allow sharing control between allies: worse players could take the habit to give control of their troops to better players, and also couples of players could specialise so that one always works on the eco of both of them, and the other follows the military expansion, for the benefit of both (this is actually an example of how sharing units could foster communication, rather than avoid it).

I realised what's the problem with Ngorongoro map: heightmap gets modified by player placement, after cliffs are painted. SlopeConstraint may be working after all.

You can't use the same rushing tactics in 1v1 and team games. With or without loot.

Related: note that Ngorongoro map uses SlopeConstraint to paint cliffs, and unfortunately they don't quite fit to unpassable areas: I tried to change the value of TILE_CENTERED_HEIGTH_MAP for that map, but it seems it actually doesn't make any difference. I gave up on making my map.

they don't exit randomly, they follow the current rally point of that building, so you have to ask to your ally to set it appropriately.

I have an idea: let attacks still be this dangerous for your eco (to be fair, that's only logic) but balance this by making guerrilla tactics a lot easier in your territory. concrete proposal: allow teleporting units from any building to any other inside the same continuous territory patch. from bug to feature! whenever you send men into buildings, you can send them back on your enemy from anywhere! ok this would be too much, but maybe it could work if entering/exiting from buildings was slower, and if conquering buildings wasn't a thing (and I wouldn't really mind if it wasn't). Anyway, I'm just tossing ideas.