alre

Petra and Kiara are have the same structure? I mean the code.

I'm a big fan of EE fields spawning around farms. However, they mostly make sense if fields are only allowed one worker or very few anyway. If you only need one farm in your whole city, that is not going to look more natural or realistic.

3 visually different versions of CCs would be a greatly appreciated addition anyway.

I don't think maurya require more micro than other civs. Their economy is very simple too, as they need very little stone. Also, they are OP, so they are quite rewarding

@hyperion - micro is already important in 0ad - just because micro is generally important for rts, it doesn't mean that we must commit to make it more important than it already is. it's a non sequitur. - in fact, 0ad guide principles precisely say that sheer apm should not be the discriminant factor for victory, so, even if in other rts games it was possible for 5 archers to win against 20 (which I don't even believe it's the case) there is no reason for which 0ad should not aim to set itself apart in this regard - I, for one, was convinced about 0ad when I saw a video of a match between two top players and I noticed that micro was much less relevant than it is for other games like starcraft. And I'm convinced that most casual players dislike the excessive importance of micro in games like that - even if we made possible to nullify archers power trough micro, this kind of solution would only be valid for a handful of top players, while the rest of us would still have to deal with an unbalanced gameplay. I can't see how this is desirable.

Not necessarely. The more variation in attack strategies, the better.

I meant that people generally attacks either in age 1 or 3. I think the best scenario would be people attacking at any time, with any civ.

I can't possibly agree more. It doesn't make sense that a civ doesn't have any unit capable of shooting anything as far as an arrow... until they enter a tower. Slingers should have the same range as archers, and all civs should have access to at least one of these units. That would also be an improvement in realism. That's because in 0 ad age 2 is not very useful, and that's another problem still.

Maybe It's me, but I can't see how your proposed mod on unit-AI changes that anyhow. Maybe write it again in a more precise form.

I'm confused. Wasn't dancing done by shuffling some hero around, (or better, giving him a patrol order) always within the range of the opposing army? Because in that case I don't see any improvement in your proposal. What do you mean by "dancing"?

So you are asking that arrows are slower, so you can micromanage soldiers away from them, but you also want unit-AI to be robust to dancing. How exactly? I must say I'm skeptic.

Let's be clear, you want dancing back, that's what you call microing battles? Dancing is not the solution, and it's not dancing that made a23 more fun than a24. Quite the opposite. I think there microing already has its right role in the game, and should be particularly useful only in limited occasions, like with javelin cav and siege. This is not the issue and all the proposals you are talking about, at least in my mind, have noting to do with extending micro importance in battles. By the way, using micro and fortifications, battles can already be won by inferior forces. I'm quite a "military player", and I do it all the time.

while I can generally support this call for a wider vision, I don't think we need it now. We want back some things that were ok in a23, so it's clear that there's no need for a change of paradigm. A simple way to encourage hit and run, especially for javeliners, could be to skip turning time after a throw. We can also take all turning times away if we decide to let go on projectiles randomness. In that case, dancing would stop being an issue altogether.

and what would that change, other than making phasing a bigger priority?

instead of champions, could we take basic siege to age 2 instead? rams as they are in game are good for age 2 I think. Would it be so bad if we had anti-siege* in age 1 and rams in age 2 already? It would basically be like AoE age 2 to 4. *swords, if we really want to keep pikes dealing the same kind of damage arrows have

fortifications are already being nerfed significantly. archers too. I don't like the idea of slowing them down and I think their speed has been leveled with other ranged units for good reason.

what's the biggest change from a23 in this regard? is it training times? I think training women has become too convenient, and loosing some of them, even in early game, is not much of a trouble.

I often have this problem when joining and when hosting. When I cannot join a game, switching to another connection generally allows me to pass. I don't have any clue about what the problem may be.

For me, lopes version is the best so far.

Those rock textures are pretty awesome. What's the plan with random maps? There I could help a bit.

I don't think this would really affect gameplay, but it does look nice. I wouldn't make archers more limited in the near distance than slingers though, there is really no justification.

I wanted to say that both archers and slingers had side weapons and could fight close quarter, but if they weren't to, slingers needed more room than archers, not the opposite.

But, isn't it an unnecessary complication to have random spread of arrows too? no one uses loose formation, even if archers are extremely popular, and ranged units in general always were. If I remember correctly, archers in AoE shoot at the exact target.

So having a loose formation actually helps against archers? That's a surprise! For some reason I always assumed that only the target risked damage. What about friendly fire?

noone liked my proposal of having formations uniform soldiers speed, while they would have randomly different speeds? I thought it was a nice idea. For realism, mainly, but with some interesting gameplay implications.