LetswaveaBook

I am not an expert either but the <ProductionQueue/> element seems strange to me. Shouldn't there be an opening and a closing statement like <VisualActor> </VisualActor> ?

I would like to know where the in what the name of the files is where hotkeys are stored (preferable both where vanill hotkeys and autociv hotkeus). I have found a map ad/public/gui/session/hotkeys and wonder if all and which hotkeys are stored there. Backstory: Several weeks ago I decided that I wanted to give Linux fedora a go. You will never really get to know the sweet things Linux offers if you always stick to the same settings. Linux mint runs a lot of things just simple and easy out of the box and for a Linux rookie that is really a big plus. It also allows a lot of good third party software and fedora feels restrictive in that aspect. One thing I did enjoy about fedora is the Gnome desktop interface and I intend to use Linux mint with the gnome destop interface. As I am moving back to Mint, I would like to know how to copy the hotkey file and not enter them manually. I have a habit of installing new versions of linux a few times a year, so not having to insert my private list of hotkeys every time would be nice. Also it might be nice to be able to share hotkey files. Ps: Once the answer about the hotkeys is given, we can move to a conversation to discuss which linux versions are most cool.

I think Briton chariots should be different from archer chariots. Maybe Mauryan chariots should function different than scythed chariots. What I would like to see is to make the Briton chariot a unit that can carry infantry (or priests) without further benefits than speed. This gives the player the ability to quickly do guerrilla strikes with infantry. Every chariot would have fighting capabilities similar to an elite rank CS jav cav, but when produced it also comes with a free infantry champion garrisoned in it, so you don't need to tediously load the chariots. It would have the major advantage that the infantry are now a mobile force that unlike cavalry do not take a bonus damage from spearmen.

For a rock-paper scissors system, you need only to give a multiplier to a single unit, illustrated by the following example: -Unit A has a raw power of 8 and a 2x multiplier against unit C -Unit B has a raw power of 10 -Unit C has a raw power of 12. Out of the melee citizen cavalry, I would consider sword cavalry a good counter against slingers and infantry skirmishers. Only Athens, Britons, Gauls and Mauryas have access to them (Though melee merc cav is also good against ranged infantry). This means many faction don't get the unit that seems supposed to defeat the slinger and infantry javelineer. Also I think the number should be tweaked such that melee infantry is the dominant force.

It is a 1v1 with Macedonians vs. Seleucids: Which faction do you think has the advantage? Casted by @mysticjim If we want to understand balancing, I think we should also discuss fair matches (instead of 60 firecav agains 80 CS infantry).

If you are bothered by the way fruit plants look, then you should go to settings and ideally there would be an option "Yeka Fruit". That option would change to visuals of fruit plants to the equivalent of yekaterina's chickens. I think that is a fair solution to the problem.

I am a big fan of the arena clowns of age of empires 2. 18: Monk, Monk, I need a monk 30: wololo I would almost consider it an honary title (in the Age of Empires 2 community). Jonslow is the most popular among them on youtube.

Creating a different class for cataphracts might sound all cool and such, but I wonder what the champion spear cavalry of the Gauls, Carthaginians, Kushites. Macedonians and Ptolemies are supposed to excel at. I see suggestions of durability, which might be not needed as there is a nisean war horse technology. I am not sure what to think about scythed chariots in the timeframe of 0ad. In most stories that I know about them, they weren't overly effective.

The engine of 0ad wouldn't be my first choice for creating such a game. If you want to create a game, you actually need to do a lot of art design and (possibly) coding. It is not as easy as having a nice idea and someone is able to pull it of. My advice for creating a game would be one of these options: 1. Look for a game and try to make mod it. Examples are the Enderall mod for skyrim or the Lord of the rings mod for age of empires. Pros: You can use assets of the original game and it requires less work or programming skills. Cons: Often the game is proprietary. The original game engine can not easily be adapted and you might not be able to do what you envisioned in the engine. Also it is not easy to determine which game is suitable for your needs. 2. Use a game engine that is designed to allow new game developers to create a new project. Examples of these engines are Gamemaker studio or the Unity engine. The unity engine also comes with a lot of tutorials. Pros: These engines can be downloaded for free, they often have tutorials and can allow for a lot of game mechanics. Cons: This approach requires a lot more skill than the previous one and work. I would recommend looking for some tutorials on youtube. Links https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1272363891 https://unity.com/

I think seleucids and kushites also are close to being "done". For kushites, I would say the go to 95% to 99% if they were able to build an affordable pyramid in p1. With a few tweaks to persians (2 types of CS cav in p1,better armor for axe cav, cheaper and weaker skirmishers, useful Persian architecture tech and make p2 useful in general), I also think they could move to 95%. When gauls get a more interesting p2, I also would say they reach 95%. Mauryas are also diverse, but they feel to me more like a random bunch of unrelated assets. Britons also have some unique things, but I think they lack something. Maybe they could get the kennel back, but after starting a topic about that I think it might be a flawed proposal. Carthage might also have good design for a mercenary faction, but I think they should be a mercenary and trade faction. Currently I get the impression people only want Carthage to be a mercenary faction and forget about trade (and the colonization technology). Iberians are also pretty good as a faction with big towers and a starting wall, but I don't know what else Iberians are meant to be apart from a faction with walls. I think Athenians, Macedonians, Romans and Spartans lack identity. They get bonusses and other assets, but I consider those gimmicks instead of bonuses. With all the good hero auras I think we are a bit like spoiled kids. Even without any auras the hero is worth it. They are a lot stronger than regular champions. Philip of Macedon and Ashoka the great easily take out 12 skirmishers on their own.

My idea was that if you could use stables to train both dogs and cavalry, but if you want to specialize in dogs then you can build the kennel. I am leaning to think you are referring to a situation where food has very little value. If food has very little value then, dogs are a good deal. When food has very little value then saving little food cost is not impactful, so I don't consider that a strong argument against lower food cost for dogs. Also if food has little value to you, then I think you (or those who dump food at the market) have an inbalanced eco. I wouldn't consider it a natural state of the game that food has a low value later in the game. However it is certainly true that a good number of play the game as if it has a low value in p3. I think it is best to agree that for both sides have good reasons to view things differently. I am not trying to convince you, but I hope that can view my reasoning as equally valid. I also view your reasoning as equally valid. I assumed that we had good art for the kennel, but @Carltonus encouraged me to check it out. We have an older post on the forum that also shows the limitiations of the kennel Personally, I would like the Britons to get something that makes them a little more unique. After this conversation I have doubts on whether adding kennels is a proper solution.

I agree on this. Though maybe it is just because I want to terrorize my opponents base instead of being on the defensive side. Whenever I have the 600 stone required to build a fortress, I regret having the stone and wish that I had collected metal instead of stone. I like siege workshops. It feels restrictive and counter intuitive to allow siege only to be trained at the fortress

I don't see the connection with the redundancy theory. Could you elaborate on the theory? Adding kennels will only diversify the Britons compared to their current state.

That's completely fine. There has been calls to create some civ differentiation, so I hope we can find people that can accept the patch.

First of all, magically the most problematic OP units(There are 4 factions that have them) are identified and we shouldn't be pedantic because that is the main reason why nothing gets done in terms of balancing. So this might be a better idea for A27. I was thinking about the Return of the Kennel. War dogs are something what is among the most unique special units in the game and there is no units that even is close to it. Yet the unit slowly gets obsolete as players boost their military with upgrades. I would abstain from making increasing their fighting capabilities as I think it would sound weird if p3 war dogs would easily take out p1 units. What I would suggest is allowing dogs to be trained at the stable. In addition, the kennel is a building which trains dogs faster than the stable, is available to Britons in p2, has a initial limit of 1 and makes the war dogs cheaper by 10% per kennel. In p3 the limit of kennels is raised to 3. So that would give Britons an extra unique building and (I suppose) we all ready have the art for it. Lets not put good art to waste.

I would rephrase it as "What I am envisioning is a Team Bonus concept where to benefit from the Team Bonus, you actually have to do some change in strategy. " I would be in favor of this change, but that is something to discuss in https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/66538-tribute-fees-and-related-ptol-team-bonus-nerf-and-persian-civ-buff/ I don't know if the engine easily allows for your suggestion. What would be very possible is to allow the gallic player to create a wagon unit at the forge which can garrison in forges and function a bit like the Mauryan healer hero, with adjusted stats. In delenda est, there is a possibilty to let carts unpack into buidings. Maybe another idea would be that gauls can produce a cart and unpack it in allied territory and donate a "special" forge with lower upgrade costs to their allies. The cart and the special forge would be capturable by your opponents. If my history is correct, the Romans stationed some citizens in allied towns. I don't know if it is workable, but a Roman team bonus could allow team members to put a garrison buiding(with a limit of 1) in allied towns if the owner of the building is "in some sense" the dominant player. So if an ally has an garrison building in your territory, he is the dominant player and the "weaker player" can't build a garrison building in territory of the dominant player. I would also be in favour of it being an unfair relations, where the weaker player needs to accepts the domminance for protection but in return the "weaker" player get a disavantage. Like having his own military troops train slower (+20% training time might seem fine), less grain gathering rate(The garrison eats the food) or a lower population limit (the lost population capacity could be added to that of the "dominant" player). This would be a slightly abusive relationship that could benefit the team in some situations and give some extra strategical options as a team. But that concept would need more thought. When it comes to suggested team bonusses, I think we should also think if it wouldn't be just more fitting as a civ bonus than a team bonus.

I wanted to make a joke about it all ready being there, but I can't think of a fitting joke @Stan`

On fedora it is super easy. You create a folder, download the code with pre-installed git and compile it.

I think the acceleration also looks wierd. It looks like there is an invisible man the cavalry pushing (or pulling) them forward until they reach maximum speed. I think there would be a very improved visual experience if the animations between the acceleration and full speed phases where different. Maybe scaling the length of the run animation with the units current speed would make it look very decent.

That would have side effects and kills the entire accerelation idea. I personally am not convinced we need accerelation to begin with, but we should respect the hard work that has been done to enable the feature. I think we should address the problem at its core: reducing the time in which the unit does not move. Though I can't claim this is a programmable solution.

The big thing people seem to be curious about is unit acceleration and the ability for cavalry to escape bad situations. I watched on the SVN version in slow motion and compared speed of an infantry javelineer against the speed of cavalry javelineer. I would assume that the most important factor in this situation is the time cavalry needs to accelarate to a speed such that it is faster than infantry. Only during the first step the infantry javelineer seems a tiny little bit faster. So that seems not very impactful. What does seem impactful is the following: I ran away with a cavalry archer from a chasing spear cavalry. Everytime the spear cavalry attacks, it needs to stop. In A25 that because of this stopping, after the attack finishes and the spear cavalry starts moving, the cavalry archer is about one length of a horse ahead of the spear cavalry. In A25 the spear cavalry needs to accelerate after each stop/attack, the length of the gap will get more than twice as long. Basically chasing and killing cavalry with other cavalry becomes nearly impossible even if your cavalry is faster. If we consider it a problem, a solution would be to reduce the stopping time such that it is close to 0.

Please give me a day to think about how these two will fit together.

Why would it be the only option? I think it does not necessarily need to be this way. It is a decent start, but it is not the only option. I think it is fine if melee is slower. it does not mean that archers can endlessly hit and run, that is a false assumtion. Suppose you want to hit and run against this: If you get 80% sword/spear infantry and 20% javelin cavalry, the infantry can never catch the archers, but the archers can't afford to turn around to deal with the chasing jav cav or the infantry will close the distance. Honestly, I think these 3 points made by you are more like assumptions than solid facts.

In most situations 20 spearmen struggle to beat 20 skirmishers even without micro. In reality the player with ranged units get the chance to decide when to fight, can micro during the fight and can easily retreat when needed. I tried going for high numbers of CS spearman in TGs and the results were very poor. I don't think that is just an A25 conclusion. I think the spearmen never performed well. When talking about units, people are only obsessed by "This ranged unit is OP" or "This ranged unit is worthless". So melee units are ranked as Pikemen are the best for absorbing damage, spearmen are as good at absorbing damage but are a little cheaper than swordsmen. Can the melee infantry do enough damage for any other role? I don't think so and damage output is not their only disadvantage (lack of speed, can't hit and run on opponents). Pikemen do so little damage that sometimes in a fight I consider it better to use them to capture a temple than actually attacking the enemy units. When I have javelin cavalry and the opponent has pikemen and infantry javelins, I don't bother if the pikes can attack my jav cav with their 3x multiplier, as longs as I can target and eliminate the more dangerous skirmishers. So I feel the 9% damage boost is a very conservative boost.

For the smaller farms and higher cost, we also need to consider the full cost per farming lady. We need 50 food for the woman, 20 wood for 1/5th of a farm and 15 wood 1/5th of a small house and there is thus 16 seconds build time. All of that adds to a cost of 50 food, 35 wood and 16 seconds of build time. For Han the cost are 50 food, 48.33 wood and 22.66 build time. Not only the wood cost, but also the build time each worker needs to do is increased. I don't think it gives a comfortable early economy. When other factions place 3 farms for 300 wood and 150 seconds build time and research the farming tech, the Han need to place 5 rice paddies for 500 wood and 250 seconds build time and thus lack the wood for the farming tech early on. If we ignore the ministers, this faction has similarities with Persians. Persians also get the 10% more pop and the Persian palace also gives resource tickle worth 3 population. Persians have a very strong lategame, but they start with archers/crossbows. Persians are not a good 1v1 and are below average. Ptolemies and Iberians are way better than the average faction. I don't expect Han in 1v1s to be more potent than Ptolemies or Iberians, unless these factions receive major nerfs.