alre

yes, and the shorter turns.

I think that an option for making charging a balanced mechanic would be having people move with randomly different speeds (by a limited degree, not too variable). I've been pushing this idea for some time. This would allow some kills when melee pursues fleeing units, but not all of them. Btw I still think the game would be better without running.

Cavalry is much more nimble than before, thanks to the new pathfinder. It stacks in worm-like fast moving columns and reacts faster to orders, also camel archers can more easily evade spear cav, ignoring any chokepoint. They are still quite effective. Will meta still shift towards melee? Something to try next time: archer rushes.

If you want to see it, you have to download release candidate 3 of A25 (already outdated). so you see how "charging" was.

lol. no. charging was the fancy name of a bug. It was introduced in the development version of the game a couple of months ago, and it came out some weeks ago. It just got fixed. The replay attached cannot be played with a release version of the game.

mods usually get updates after the new alpha is released.

batches of men during booming, single men spam from barracks during battles. In this second case I sometimes use autoqueue (from autociv), but you need to deactivate it as soon as the battle ends, to return training in batches.

I think what is often overlooked here is the scale of naval battles. Quinquiremes now have a line of sight that is approximately two times the whole lenght of the ship itself, then, there is the dimension of the maps and the seas in the maps, that can only host this many ships before being strategically saturated. So, if we want to differentiate vessels so that there is a satisfactory new balance involving rock-paper-scissors mechanics and such, I don't think that ships this big will do. This is the reason why most RTS have disproportionately little ships. The games I know that do have ships proportional to men, only have one class of warships doing both the fighting and the ferrying.

if turrets (people on the deck) is implemented for ships, they won't need to turn for attacking with arrows from the marines.

lol. that's a bireme, isn't it? on a quinquireme it should look a lot nicer.

Pikemen are not that OP with charging, spears, swords and skirmishers benefit more than them. in the game above my army was mostly skirms, and they were like a vacuum cleaner for enemy troups.

I don't know, it shifts the balance of the game towards attack, like crazy. A25 will have a very aggressive balance already. If only there was some more strategical limitation to movement of some sort, archers wouldn't be so penalised... (I actually dream of movement penalties given by terrain)

what?

that's it. very nice. of course a limit is necessary, like 5 spots for a trireme, 10-15 for a quinquireme. if a siege engine is to be considered too, that would make it a lot more interesting, but I don't know if it's currently doable.

this proposition poses one big problem, which is that many civs don't have ramming vessels. Also, I don't know how satisfactory could be a combat system for 0AD ships that revolves completely around ramming. Not to mention the problem of implementing it.

I changed my mind, charging is super lulz and should be kept! that was an hilarious game indeed, weirdest I ever played.

It works good to me, charging doesn't happen anymore. I tried on Altlas everything I could think about moving and formations.

I support this idea very much. However, how should ships fight other ships?

the bug came out somewhere between version 25698 and 25717. I don't remember how to build from source so I can't find a more specific pointer right now.

As long as I can notice from up to date SVN, the charging bug hasn't been fixed. This completely trows out of balance the game for those players skilled enough to exploit it, or maybe those who aren't used to attack-move I guess. An arbitrary subset of players that understand the working of the game or just get how to exploit this faulted part of it. from a MP point of view, this is definitely a release breaker. In the lobby, @Angen said it may be hard to fix, so what's the plan? release the game with a knowingly broken balance?

that reconstruction of quinquiremes is discredited. they had five lines of rowers but multiple rowers handled the same oar, so that in fact there were 2-3 lines of oars and no more.

Off-topic now, but anyway I just wanted to say that any use of the resume I can think of, to tweak the rating adjustment, would fail in mamy possible cases. The only goal of a team game is to make your team win, so that's the only thing that should be considered to possibly compute team games rating adjustments IMHO. If you want, open another thread making a different proposal. Father is a well known smurf. Also many other players have created smurf accounts called 'Sister', 'Mother', etc. ~~~~ Going back on topic, it seems to me that there are two main possibilities for "rating fading": 1) periodical reset/step reset/decrease of rating for all players [aboove a certain rating]. This option encourages continuous competitiveness, players who don't keep gaining significant 1v1 victories lose positions to more active players. 2) only players that are inactive for some time are hidden from the current leaderboard. They may lose points or just be marked as inactive, but in any case they are only affected if they don't play at all, and they could avoid the change by playing unrated, team games, or at most a safe rated game against a weaker player. We can assume most players if not all won't do any of this, so the leaderboard will be effectively refreshed anyway. One may also think about keeping two different rating systems, one with some kind of reset/fading and one without, but I think that for simplicity only one main rating value should be shown for each player, the other better being visible in their personal statistics.

I don't think using the summary can possibly be fair.

durability increase = (damage necessary to kill a unit with improved armor / damage necessary to kill that unit with base armor) - 1 armory techs level 1 and 2 -> durability increase of 11% armory techs level 3 -> durability increase of 23%

Obviously, the proportion of damage dealt is obtained by taking out the "1 -" and is e^( ln(0.9) * armour value of the target ). If one tries to compute the proportion of damage dealt to two different units whith two different armor values, it comes out that a unit whith 1 more armor than another, take 90% (0.9) of the damage that the less armored unit takes. Computing the inverse of the proportion of damage that a unit takes from enemy blows gives us a measure of 'durability' of that unit. That's the proportion of damage one have to deal to that unit to overcome its armor. One additional level of armor increases the durability of some unit by 1/90% ~= 11%. Two additional levels of armor increase durability by 1/(90%)^2 ~= 23%.