LetswaveaBook

So that is why some cultures used war dogs.

If you look into the template for the CC, there is also something for territory called "weight". By adjusting weight (for the CC or barracks), I suppose the captured territory after capturing a barracks also adjusts.

I do not antogonize a fast hoplite in the game. Though we had a fast spearman in A24 (the Gual fanatic), it wasn't used by players. The game does often not make fast infantry worthwhile. If the unit would be introduced, give it statistics to make sure that it is viable.

Can you tell what happens if you press shift+z? That should normally work

I agree 100%. But low wood is probably the #2 reason why some maps/biomes are unpopular (#2 after only the fact that some maps require the use of a navy). All I mean to say is that a reduction is radius size should be done carefully because its easy to overdo it and the potential for blowback If you give the players less wood, then they complain (Mediterranean/Aegean biome or like in A24). Then the wood quantity is increased again by changing the settings. The average player gets exactly the amount of wood he wants (which is plenty). The current wood availability is not the problem: It is what players want.

I think DE has a cooler version of skiritai

Actually I don't know anything about chat GPT. But it is a text bot that is incredibly good at what is does. However if you ask chat GTP about the most popular 0ad mods, it will give 10 answers and none is a 0ad mod. So how do you expect chat GPT to write code for an engine that is only used by 0ad?

I think it makes sense. There aren't Mauryan or Seleucid people, but those where dynasties with an empire. Adding empire to their name, clearly indicate what those factions represent. Also for Romans, I think it is good to denote that it is about republican times, not imperial times.

Theatres are another exection.

I disagree. In my opinion gameplay would be more interesting if advancing to p3 is more of a finishing move, while the game could/should be decided in p2.

The 'p3 or bust' gameplay is really bad. +50% gather rate in p3 therefore seems bad. While the current setup is better than a +50% gather rate in p3, it does not mean that the current setup is the best we can get.

Can you explain why you consider it well balanced? Maybe it is a falacy. You are used to how the game plays right now and thus it is easy to think that things are well balanced. Remember: Originally, the game didn't need tier forge 2 techs in p2, and the argument was at that point: The game is allready well balanced.

In the City phase Carthagians can build a special dock in which ships can hide.

I can't deny that the poll was extremely one-sided against my view. But the question also seems misleading to me. It is like asking: "Do you want more cookies?" Then most people will answer "yes". But with have all-ready 14 flavours of cookies and that feels pretty much the same as all-you-can-eat. What we need is better cookies instead of drowning in an ocean of mediocrity. Have you ever imagined to drown in an ocean of cookies??? I do very much appreciate some of the new feature that Delenda est introduces. Anyway: This is a free and open-source project. So nobody can claim that someone shouldn't invest their time in creating new factions, as everyone is free to do what (s)he pleases.

This topic is not the continuation. You removed the option for me to say 0ad does not need more factions... I feel outplayed

The first one is a typo. For me, the main issue is that 0AD encourages players to boom (with skirmishers) instead of fighting. After spending your time booming, the fights aren't that epic either as you send all your infantry against all opponents infantry.

Most youtube videos about age of empires 2 games are 1v1s and most streams are dedicated to 1v1s. So there is a third option to play the game apart from single player and team games. Unfortunately, the game is not the best it could be for competitive 1v1s. Team games have lag and matchmaking issues. 1v1s lack a campaign or interesting AI for skirmishing mode. In this light, these two game modes shouldn't be a serious contender for 1v1 online matches. The developers need to ask what is it about the game that makes 1v1 online matches not much more popular/common than the currently are? Anyway, this is an unpopular opinion.

I haven't tested A27. Does this change mean that if I put archers on stand ground near a building without enemy units around, they will shoot at the building and not target enemy units if they approach later? Bolt shooters and elephant archers also do this and that is very annoying. Also for elephant archers it is difficult to see if the are shooting a building or an enemy unit.

That is indeed the elements I was referring to. Currently the main benefit of champions is that they give over twice the strength per population cost. I don't like that. This offers little incentive to use the Champions if you have extra population space. On the other extreme, it leads to strategies in team games where you build 40 champions and get a major advantage. I don't consider that a balanced system. Anyway: This is getting off topic and lets agree to disagree (or ask @Norse_Haroldto split the topic).

I was thinking about a generic change: Champions cost -25% resources, but take 2 population. That would turn champions into affordable elite fighters to break the current system where CS soldiers are dominant. Sparta then could have a differentiation of -10% population, but Spartiates only require 1 population. They also get other benefits for their champions, like a team bonus that also affects champion spear infantry.

That is true technically, but wouldn't there be a workaround: Give a unit two classes A and B. The initial limit for classes A and B are 5 and respectively 10. Since limit for class A is 5, initially only 5 units can be produced. Tech 1 raises the limit for class A to 20. Then after researching tech 1, B is the lowest limit and only 10 units can be produced. Tech 2 raises the limit for class B to 20. Since now both limits are 20, 20 units can be produced. @wowgetoffyourcellphone Wouldn't this work?

There is no need to close your account because of the posts. The problem is entirely yours: it is up to you to decide what to read. That means you only need some self-awareness without being offended all the time. I already posted my opinion on smurfing and don't need to repeat extensively. I still think we shoud respect our lobby moderators as volunteers and abide to their no-smurfing rules. This is an argument about decency and I haven't seen a valid counter argument for that. Also when it comes to decency, can we agree to only post one more inappropriate comment before minding our language? (Only a certain C***** deserves inappropriateness for his arrogance). If people want to, you can count this post as the final inappropriate comment for me. Or maybe: it would be best to close this toxic tread( after@Stan` gives everyone a good chance to insult each other)

I oppose the idea of giving an archer bonus for Carthaginians. In the wikipedia page about the military of Carthage, archers aren't mentioned once. Carthage should have other qualities than buffed archers. Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Carthage

No, that does not work with him. He won't come with the berhudar account. The entire idea of having ratings and accounts is undermined by endless smurf accounts. I don't know if going anonymous would be bad. But if the lobby moderators set the rule of no double accounts, then repeatedly breaking the rule is respect-less. Especially since those moderators are volunteers as well.

This is getting spooky.... Now I suspect Yekaterina is actually a smurf account by @Stan` and he is fooling all of us.