LetswaveaBook

That is a question about faction identity. Currently, Persians have 220 population and each unit has as much power the average population of any faction. So the solution would be simple: make Persian units to be in the end less valuable per unit than those of other factions. But honestly, I feel that feels off topic to me. I hope the community can support creative ideas to give each faction its own style and then fix balance afterwards.

What is ignored: You build an Ice house and it generates 30 food in the first minute after completion. If you build an corral, it needs 60 seconds time to train the cow before it generates the food. So that is an ¨extra cost¨ of 30 food. Also your corral calculation assumes 8 cows per corral, whereas in the start of the game, you cannot afford 8 cows and you will have at the early phase only one or two. So the calculation assumes that initial investment is not a burden. So it is more like For the first minute after construction: 100 wood invested+build time, 150 food invested (for cow recruitment), no tickle After 1 minute: 100 wood invested+build time, 300 food invested, 1 food/s tickle. So after 2 minutes you need to consider: I have thrown 300 food and gained 60 in return, do I need to put another 150 food in it? I ran a spreadsheet and only when you get your 6th cow, you have recovered the food you invested. If you start your game with corrals+cows, you will see that the investment is not that good. A woman on a field does return her costs within 3 minutes. To be fair to the corral: goats give a better return on investment. What I would suggest is added functionality for the Ice house: namely being a drop-off site for food in addition to the tickle.

Does anyone know of other video´s that show the new A28 changes? I am curious.

From you, I expected more dedication to 0ad.

The concept of a champion cavalry (with 1 population) is somewhat problematic. (1) If it can't hold up for its value in a fight (in the sense of beat a unit that is 30% of its cost), it is just a mobility gimmick. (2) However if it is fairly competent at dealing with 30% cost units, then the game is decided by getting enough recources to build a more expensive army. This seems an unfixable design to me.

Maybe it would be an idea to catagorize random maps and employ that to avoid a messy menu.

In the Dutch, the emperors of the HRE are referred to as "Duitse keizer" meaning German emperor/Deutsche Kaiser. However the Dutch education system skips right over the middle ages into the Dutch war for independence and the following glory period

I think Age of empires 2 so popular because it encourages players to opt for a combination of economic growth and military aggression.

Maybe I don't fully understand. But in order to fix the "restricted classes", I assign an "attack" element to the unit template while some units shouldn't get any attack element. Am I wrong on this? The unit template is not suitable: It seems to mess with units that don't have a ranged attack (healers, fishing ships&trades escpecially)

I dont fancy updating every template, especially since I would also consider not allowing ranged units to attack rams or siege towers. Doing it template by template means that with every change of mind, I need to change all the templates again. The templates would be inf_skirm_sling_crossbow_archer Jav archer and javelin champion archer, cav archer and crossbow, the hero templates for archers, cav archers javelineer and mounted javelineer and of course the bolt shooter.

@Stan` Any suggestion on modding the Attack.js script? I tried the code below, but it did not work. I suppose the code does not return the "Field" string/token/whatever correctly Attack.prototype.GetRestrictedClasses = function(type) { if (this.template[type] && this.template[type].RestrictedClasses && this.template[type].RestrictedClasses._string) { let max = +this.template[type].MaxRange; if ( max > 55 ) { return ["Field"];} else {return this.template[type].RestrictedClasses._string.split(/\s+/);}} return []; };

I was wondering if there could be a statement like "if the attack type is ranged, then add "Field" to restricted attack classes" https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/components/Attack.js

The unit template is not suitable: It seems to mess with units that don't have a ranged attack (healers, fishing ships&trades escpecially) I could edit many parent templates, but that is not what I was looking for.

Does anyone know a quick way to restrict ranged units from attacking fields? The template_unit_dog shows that such things can be done, but I wouldn't want to update every single template. Also, I would like to ban Archers/Javelineers from attacking completed structures with their ranged attack. Attacking uncompleted structures is something I would consider a gamplay mechanic. But banning Archers/Javelineers from attacking completed only structures with their ranged attack, would seem tedious. Any suggestions if that can be done in an efficient way?

It is not only about honour, but it is also an issue of self respect : If you have a genius mind, don't waste it by being like everyone else!