LetswaveaBook

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.

Interesting. In Dutch we have the word "uitrusting", but that should be translated as equipment.

It's already there. In A26 development version, you could place storehouses over trees and remove them. I don't know if that was a feature of the storehouse or of the tree.

I don't want to go off topic, but there might be another 'bug' with walls/turrets. They increase the range of a garrisoned unit, but not their search radius. That means stationed infantry won't automatically use it to full effect.

The outpost template has an element to define that it decays in only enemy territory. Removing "enemy" should probably fix it. Or maybe you could disable the TerritoryDecay element completely Now the big question about your claim: Is there a difference below the surface?

In A24, outpost also decayed. In A25 this was changed. You could look at how outpost are in the game file.

You are right, it is 25% HP. The statistics in you mod suggest that the dogs now should win against both ranged infantry and spearmen in a 1v1. I dont know if that is desirable. Especially since if you send the dogs directly to the ranged units, then they are good at taking them out in A25. That becomes only more potent in your mod.

I looked at the statistics and I see that most ranged units lose 20% attack, and most melee units get around +50% and -2 armor. The war dog seems an outlier. It gains +50 attack boost, but no durability penalty

My opinion is based on that I hope the game is free and open source. Whereas "free" should be as in freedom. Since (I hope) it is free (as in freedom), there is a high boundary to consider something cheating. Obviously, a mod that reveals the entire map is cheating and crosses that boundary. 0ad should develop as a game and people should be able to develop anything they want without any self-censorship. Whether it will be popular among the masses or not, should not impact freedom of the users. The (other) users should find a way to enjoy the game for themselves. It is not a matter of whether such a mod should be allowed to be made, it is about deciding if you want to play with other people that use such a mod. The host of a lobby determines the rules within the lobby. Joining the lobby is in my view equal to accepting that (you don't have to join the lobby). if the host decides that (s)he won't allow these mods, then respect that or leave the lobby. For me, I currently don't see the problem of others using such a mod .Though I don't refrain from the freedom to change my opinion. In the end, I hope we can provide freedom (and good manners). It is thus not about what the community thinks, but of what your own individual opinion is.

My current idea is to set a limit to the number of autobuildables of 1. Once an autobuildable is completed, it promotes to a regular building. That way, only 1 building gets constructed at a time.

The difference is that if a unit has 10 foundations around it, then it can build only one at a time. If a farmstead has 10 autobuilding fields around it, then all of them get constructed at the same time.

You pulled a prank on me. Delanda Est does not have that cool feature. Farmsteads in Delenda Est can't build fields. Fields build itself ;P I haven't found any code yet to make buildings construct other buildings.