LetswaveaBook

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.

hmm. I only want more features.

Only the champion archers can poison. They are the toxic women. Try to stay at least 70 meter away from them.

That would give persians an CS axe infantry!(trolling) Stables currently only garrison cavalry. Without horse, there no room for you inside

I was playing around with the idea of a farmstead that could build fields nearby. If fields would be placed this way around farmsteads, that would look more natural and nicer than placing them around CCs. However I haven't been able to attach the builder template to a building. Since I do think the axe cav is underdeveloped, I experimented with reducing its required promotional experience to 2 and setting it promotion entity to a (Persian) field. This does not feel like an ideal solution though, even if you set the required xp to 0 (instant development into a field). Though in all seriousness, it could allow the engine to "train" an unit and the result would be a building. However I am afraid it could be used to create overlapping buildings.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone probably knows.

The issue is that citizen soldiers are both valuable as fighter and economic units, which has its problems. Nobody denies that. However, the desire for a male economic unit is based on a debatable premise: Is the role of the rank 1 citizen infantry that of a capable fighter? Personally, I would prefer if the military role of rank 1 citizen soldier was more a supportive role, where the reliable core of the army would be (melee) mercenaries, champions and rank 2&3 CS.

I think the reason might be different. With voice call you sacrifice the safe space provided by a good keyboard. I wouldnt be suprised if vulgar language by keyboard warriors is actually partly caused by insecurity and speaking to other people is scary.

No, I found out it is not a major task. After installing Pop!_OS, I found out there is a super convenient way to do it in 4 easy steps. 1. Ditch windows and install a suitable Linux distro. 2. Download the mod. 3. Open the zip with archive manager a click on "extract". 4. In the folder selection menu, chose the destination Finished. On top of that: Ditching Windows comes with a lot of other benefits!

Some things from p3 can be moved to p2 and some things of p2 might be moved to p1. We do have several good techs and units for differentiation. However some of these differentiations could be buffed such that they get a more prominent role in the game. For example: Nobody uses Briton dogs in p3. So now Britons just are the Javelin Chariot faction. Persians have the axe cavalry, which I would discourage from using (better focus on javelin cavalry). Mauryas/Kushites have some special Champions (and maybe special healers) which we barely see at all. Carthaginians have the colonization tech, which we don't see often but allows cheap CCs. Romans have special walls that get used rarely. Though I wouldn't antagonize new bonuses either. I prefer bonuses to be represented visually. Instead of only giving it cool stats, special building/units should also be seen. I think this is probably the biggest problem of competitive 0ad. Booming is the most reliable strategy and to easier to execute than rushing. It is a bad incentive if the strategy(rushing) that is more difficult to execute, gives worse results than booming.

The easiest solution to try out multiple damage values is adding an autoresearch tech to the mod as @hyperionsuggested. Then you only need to change a few numbers in 1 single file to test some different values.

in a26 this is 6.5 dps, in melee mod, this is 11.6 in a26 this is 9.15, in melee mod, its 11.9. I admit. It is a miscalculation, but the conclusion remains the same.

The conversation is so long with one person repeating the same logic all the time, that I have to admit that I didn't completely read everything, but I will react to some things. @chrstgtr Welcome to RTG games! Unless the winning unit is faster, the losing unit can flee. That is not a problem, but a given fact. To chase and kill a fleeing unit, the chasing unit needs to be faster and only one of two units can be faster than the other. One unit being able to escape due to its speed is not a solvable problem, rather it should be considered as a given fact. There can not be a greater delusion than asking for an "issue" to be solved if it is clearly unsolvable by nature. Furthermore, you forget that a combined arms approach is possible. If the melee units win the battle and the losing javeleers flee, then they might escape. However if the winning player has just 10% cavalry units, then the losing javelineers cant escape the cavalry and if they stay to fight, then the chasing infantry might catch up. Okay, I will give an example that differs from what you mentioned. Consider two armies. Army A (Kushites/mauryas) consists of 20% archers, 40% spearmen, 40% swordsmen. Average DPS: 10.4 Army B (Guals) consists of 50% javelineers and 50% spearmen. Average DPS 10.9 Army A has the unit with most range and has more HP, whereas army B has the fastest unit (javelineers) and a little more DPS. Whereas army B can be agrued not to deviate to much from meatshield meta, army A does. Melee infantry in army A isn't the meatshield, but the core of the army. This example shows that the proposal is a fundamental change: You no longer need javelineers to have a competitive DPS. That is very much correct. It needs to be understood that ranged units might run away, but you wont win the game if you run away instead of defending your base. I hope everybody understands that.

without the hindering pathfinding of Age of Empires 1&2, melee infantry won't be like in Age of Empires 1&2. You need 'bad' pathfinding for that. 5 ->3 armor means that units receive around 23% more damage, which is not entirely the same as 100%

The swordsmen only need 0.75 seconds between attack, which might make them OP. If melee damage becomes the deciding factor, then maybe a smaller increase in attack rate (from 0.75 to 0.8) would be sufficient to make swordsmen viable. This suggestion might be nice to try in the weekend of the 1st and 2nd of April.