LetswaveaBook
-
Posts
953 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by LetswaveaBook
-
-
To be honest, the concept of buildings that solely function as houses, storehouses, granaries, corrals, forges or markets seem like a gamification to me. I tend to believe that many cultures grew some vegetables and had some cattle around the house. For houses we can say that people did not commute much and tended to live and work in the same building. The storehouse/forge also possibly overlap historically. Furthermore it seems plausible that cultures would not transport raw iron ore, but rather transport purified versions as they were considerably easier/cheaper to transport. It seems awkward to me to give a bonus on something that is a gamification to begin with. Neither do I think a market would really count as a building, rather it would be something that develops itself in an urban centre.
I might have it wrong on the gamification element. If it is a gamification element, it seems weird to give a bonus on something which is a gamification element to begin with. Also I am not a fan of food related bonuses, as having food was important for all cultures.
3 hours ago, alre said:Romans were a very popolous faction, and that was one of its greatest strength, during punic wars, but they still lack a substantial population related bonus
Romans do get the team bonus where they can raise armies faster. Judging numbers by battle records is tricky, but the Romans did not always have the superior numbers in battle. What characterizes the Romans more is that for every lost army they were able to raise another.
-
26 minutes ago, ValihrAnt said:
The structure population bonus was quite liked in the community and allowed players to have a different starting build, so it's a bonus that I'd like to see returned and wanted to ask for input from @Genava55, @Nescio and others before making a patch for this.
I understand that the Celts didn't really have any historical justification for having this bonus
I would like to toss another idea here. What do you think of replacing the javelin cavalry at the start with the faster sword cavalry? It would make their rush unique.
For Persians I think we could really do something with spear cavalry in p1. Maybe give them the unique option to train both the spear cavalry and the javelin cavalry in the CC.
32 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:For persians, it could be they start with 8 women and 2 cav
I would personally prefer to let persians be a faction that booms slowly, but can get the extra 10% population and in addition get the apadana. In late game they are potent, so I would prefer them to have a weaker early game.
-
@Huffman3829 I guess the title for this tread was maybe a ill proven. I mainly wanted to make a point in a humorous way that the armor values are problematic. So take the suggestion with a grain of salt.
-
On 02/10/2021 at 12:08 AM, Huffman3829 said:
I just think they are a little too powerful. Anyone feel the same way?
For me, they feel very situational.
Without garrison, it can be captured easily. You can't have forces nearby to quickly garrison a tower once an enemy arrive. If a large enemy force(50+ units) arrives, then they can take out the tower and its garrison. Every unit that is garrisoned adds one arrows which does 10 pierce attack per 2 seconds, which is not much. You can ignore the towers to some extend and use your army for easier targets. Furthermore, towers distribute their damage over all enemy units instead of focusing some units down. This means that in some situations, the tower can get decent damage output but fail to get a kill.
A way to render towers ineffective is by healing your units that have sustained damage. When a lot of your units have sustained damage, it is better to retreat. Also, if your army is big enough the damage of the tower does not compare to the things your army could achieve.
-
1 hour ago, hyperion said:
considerably
ouch...
-
1
-
-
There has been a lot of discussion about Carthaginian mercenary cavalry, inspired by @Dizaka and @BreakfastBurrito_007. I would like to point out that it is not unstoppable as I stopped it in this video against a respectable opponent.
I have to admit that this was the 3rd game I played with Dakeyras that day. In the first, I played as britons against Carthage and I opened with a stable. Later I added a barracks but before I lacked enough spearmen, all my units were slaughtered. That build did not seem to be a workable strategy. So then we played again and I took Seleucids. I was housed 2 times before reaching 40 population and planned on getting 2 colonies, which did not do wonder either. Only the third game I got a right approach and execution.
-
1
-
-
Is the question correct? Is A26 planned?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, faction02 said:
I would rather see different economic bonus for each civilization kind of balancing each other out such that there is no big difference in late game.
We can give factions each an economic bonus such that it cancels out, or we can give none of them an economic bonus. I don't see why the difficult option would be worth the effort.
6 minutes ago, Dakara said:We can have little idea very easy. Delete all tech for boost monk (druid) on temple and remplace by an unique tech which teaches druids to morally boost their allies. When druide heal ally they boost 20% dammage for 5 seconds of the unit.
That feels weird to me. I would prefer to make the trumpeter champion useful. Maybe the trumpeter is all ready useful, but it does not see a lot of play.
8 minutes ago, Dakara said:A pillager unit with flashlight and a small dagger, very fragile and bonus plunder multiplied by 3. This unit can burn building, but they are very weak in fight ! Fast moving like a skirmish unit.
I like this idea, but I doubt if it works in practise. If they are weak, they can be hunted down by cavalry and most often, players place their buildings such that there is not much to be captured. However adding extra units in the game is not bad as nobody forces players to make them.
1 hour ago, faction02 said:I think the game should be balanced only on mainland, for other maps just put a warning sign that game might be unbalanced.
I think the game should be balanced on maps such as mainland. Other maps might not be balanced. If people like to create other maps, they need to keep balance in mind. So that might sound the same, but it is a different way of thinking about it.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
By this you mean that skirmishers can beat either pikes or spears 1 to 1?
I agree this is a problem that won't be addressed by attack-ground. Would you prefer just reducing the damage of skirmishers? (I guess we could also reduce skirm cav damage too since they beat spearcav in 1 to 1 also)
I meant that indeed and it is problematic. Also for Javelin cavalry this is problematic. Not only for CS, but also for champions, which perform surprisingly well against melee cavalry. From 48 meter, the slinger does not do OP damage, but if the enemy gets closer it can have DPS comparable to the skirmisher.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
If you add attack-ground into the equation, it could be possible to begin killing enemy skirms before they can even attack your melee units. This adds variability and balancing to gameplay without even changing unit stats.
That might help to balance the ranged units against each other, but it does not help so much to balance ranged units against melee units. Secondly, also the skirmisher/slingers could use the attack ground option to target the archers, even though not as effective as archers could.
-
1
-
-
I was still looking on how to make a diff and I was on the page:
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructionsGettingTheCode
I have used some SVN for testing/playing a development version of A25. What would be recommended for a new user on linux mint, would it be Git or SVN?
-
3 hours ago, alre said:
Same problem holds for pikes and spears: pikes are just better, because they are so damm persistent. Their speed that is so low does make them feel different, but the toy is broken because their role as undying pests is too effective in a game like 0 AD (and is also anti-historical, so that's another reason why I'd like to see an attempt to change them). About swords, they are simply not a valid substitute for spears and pikes, and one may decide to mix them in the melee for some extra hack, but apart changing your army stats a little, they don't change tactics in any enjoyable way.
I think pikemen are not problematic, the powerful ranged units that support them are. In the scenario editor I saw that if a force of 10 swordsman attack 5 pikemen and 5 skirmishers, the skirmisher survive all and 1 or 2 pikemen survive. If we take a weaker ranged units such as the archer, the swordsman defeat the pike+range combo by a small margin.
The fact that 1 on 1 the spearman can't defeat the javelineer convincingly is something to keep in mind concerning this topic.
On 29/09/2021 at 11:08 PM, maroder said:Much of the discussion about differentiating the civilisations in the game is right now focused on small changes to enable different strategies for the different civilisations. But I want to open a discussion here if those changes are not a bit too "small".
I do not agree with the fact that these changes are too small. I will list some thoughts on uniqueness.
Group 1: Uniqueness from the start.
Ptolemies: There is no reason to call them ordinary.
Mauryas: Starting with an worker elephant does significantly impact how you can play the game. Also they have unique options with swordsmen and elephants.
Iberians: Starts with walls, giving them a totally unique feeling on top of all other uniqueness they gain.
Britons: The are the less unique than the 3 factions above here. They start with a dog, which can be used to bring the deer towards your CC in the start of the game. These deer allow you to get more cavalry, which can rush excellently with the help of the dog. The war dog can be a very convenient unit for rushing. Having with slingers allows you to put that 300 starting stone directly to work, which means you can produce ranged infantry very conveniently at the start. Also the hero Caratacus makes the Briton units the fastest in the game.
Group 2: Uniqueness in p2.
It is not difficult to reach p2 and reaching p2 becomes all ready feasible at 40 population.
Carthaginians: Strategies where you advance to p2 with 40 or 50 population and go for merc cavalry are very much feasible. Also they get the colonization technology, which is worth after you have build an (extra) CC. Once you reach p3, you get access to powerful heroes and you can instantly train champion infantry from the temple (does not require a technology like most champions do)
Seleucids: They get their military colonies for 160w, 160s,160m. what you get for this investment is a great deal, 2 population space (equivalent to 2 houses=300wood+100sec build time), a resource drop of point (valued at 100 wood and 40 seconds build time, I will ignore for this comparison that you can also drop food on it), a defensive structure(a tower cost 100w, 100s and 150 sec build time) and you can use it to produce mercenaries(mercenary camps of kush/carthage cost each 200 resources and 150 sec build time). So the value totals at 500 wood, 100s, 200 extra resources for the value of merc camp and 540 seconds of build time. I am ignoring in this value, that it is a resource drop of point for food, can train women, allows for territory expansion and can heal garrisoned units. All in all the value of this building is much larger than its costs. Furthermore the faction boost instant hero and infantry champion production at p3, as you do not need to build an extra building or wait for a technology for the champions. On top of that, it also has good unit variety.
Kushites: Once you reach p2, you can build mercenary camps which makes it feel unique. The Noba clubman is one of the few tools that can efficiently deal with fortification in p2. Also it gets a pyramid for faster gather rate. Once you reach p3, you can instantly produce champions from the temple. It heroes are fine and they have a big temple for rank 3 heroes. They also can mass elephants easier. Overall, this faction is still feels under-powered because the archers are under-powered. The kushites have 14 different types of soldiers (elephant included) and 2 siege weapons. So the Kushite problem is not a problem with its design, but with balance between ranged units. It could be more unique if it would be allowed to train pikemen in p1 or its pyramids would get available earlier: see https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4280
Group 3: Factions lacking things that make them feel unique.
I don't mean to say that these are bad or don't have unique properties. However the unique things that they have mostly don't make much of an impact until p3.
Gauls, Romans, Macedonians, Athenians, Spartans, Persians.
Now that I have concluded that 6 out of 13 factions lack the unique feeling, what can and needs to be done about it? First of all, there aren't completely bland. Secondly it might be nice to have a group of more standardized factions and those who are more unique. Just a few suggestion: Make Naked fanatics more usable, make the temple of Vesta more special (like larger aura), No idea for Macedon, Give Athenians a Theatre bonus and allow the council hall to train champ hoplites in p2, Persians could use their levy upgrades and spear cavalry in p1. Having 7 factions out of 13 being unique is not bad.
15 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:Be able to train Spartans at phase 1. Simply speaking Sparta without Spartans is stupid. My proposal in a thread regarding ways to diversify champions included making making Spartan hoplites free as well, only offset by a lengthly recruitment time, two population, and a hard cap of one Syssiton in the Village Phase and +1 for each subsequent one. Technologies would be able to change the characteristics of its citizenry over time, making each Phase give an option to represent the political elements affecting Spartans.
I am not opposed to p1 champions. I feel that it would be well balanced as people would prefer in p1 to make units that can gather resources over melee infantry units. Even if it allowed for gimmick strategies, Sparta was know for a militaristic culture and aggressive wars to enslave fellow Greek populations.
Furthermore, I have decided to end every post with this quote
Cato Maior: Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam, LetswaveaBook: Furthermore I think ranged damage must be reduced.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
If we increase spear damage, it would make cavalry even better overall, which I don't think we need.
In my view, increasing damage of spear cavalry does not make cavalry better overall. It just makes spear cavalry better.
4 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:Changing all the other stats just makes balancing more complicated (and more likely to be screwed up) because multiple variables will be changing at once.
Things are all ready screwed up. If you try to have 20% of your army to be CS spear cavalry, you would lose in an otherwise even matchup.
Also, I tried 10 spear+javelin cav vs. 10 sword+javelin cav and the side with the sword cavalry won the fights with a small margin. So that's how decent of a counter it actually it.
-
16 hours ago, Micfild said:
Crush Damage:
I haven't seen anyone complaining about Crush damage specificaly, but i think there is room for improvement.
Currently crush is treated as "anti-building" Type of attack.
I have voiced my issues with crush damage here and there on the forum and I agree with the room for improvement.
What I would like crush damage to be, is damage that is not as deadly as pierce and hack against weakly armored units. However I would like to see that heavily armored units don't see their crush damage improved as much as their other armors, so crush would be something to overcome armored units. That is also somewhat historically correct. So an citizen ranged unit could have 6 crush armor and a champion infantry could have 10, which is a difference of 4, while for hack/pierce the difference would be 7.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, LienRag said:
Would they be "p2 champions" (i.e., weaker than p3 champions that we have now) or be the p3 champions transferred to p2 ?
That is a good question and something I did not think about. Sometimes asking good question can be as valuable as trying to provide an answer. I have no answer on the question, but it is good to consider all the options.
Another question would be: If you were able to train champions in p2, would you actually train them in p2?
6 minutes ago, Dizaka said:I'd also add that adding more mercenaries to p1 would be good, imo.
I would not advocate enabling Kush or Macedon to train rank 2 javelin cavalry for 80 metal in p1.
-
28 minutes ago, alre said:
yes, but even for infantry swords were often just side arms, not the only weapon anyway.
Going off topic, I would like to comment that in Italy there were some units that had the sword as their main weapon. So a swordsmen would not be totally unhistorical, but it would be uncommon. The Rhomphaia also seems to be a little to long for being a side-arm.
4 hours ago, chrstgtr said:Because it is supposed to be the counter to cav with its anti cav bonus. If spear DPS is better then there is no reason to ever make sword cav instead of spear cav.
I understand that the idea is that the spear cavalry is the counter unit, but the gap is bigger than it needs to be. I would advocate giving the spear cavalry an attack of 3.5 hack and 2.5 pierce per 1 second and giving sword cavalry 6.0 hack attack per 0.75 seconds. On top of that I think it would be acceptable if both units had the 4 hack and 3 pierce armor (Also I think most ranged units need a 10% decrease in attack as a DPS of 12.8 seems disproportional). That would still allow the spear cavalry to function as a counter, while the sword cavalry would be superior in most cases.
-
I just continued the habit of posting very mediocre youtube content about 0AD. I hope this strategy gives some food for thoughts on team game strategy.
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Micfild said:
Crush Damage:
I haven't seen anyone complaining about Crush damage specificaly, but i think there is room for improvement.
Currently crush is treated as "anti-building" Type of attack. This way buildings have low crush armor, while humans have high crush armor. The problem with this approach is that it limits what you can do with crush.
In my opinion, there is no real reason why humans would be so resistant to crush damage in the first place. Clubs, slings, maces, can crush bones, burst organs, crack skulls and so on, even with armor (if you hit'em enough times). As for buildings, again, there is no real reason why a building would be weak to maces, slings or clubs. So it having low crush damage makes little sense to me. Buildings are indeed weak to siege weapons (catapuls and rams) and therefore those units should have a damage bonus vs buldings, instead of buildings having low crush armor. This ways we can make units use crush damage more liberaly without fear of breaking the game.
This also helps against Elephants being able to take down stone walls and forts with ease. Elephants are strong, but they are not siege weapons. They can stomp units (crush), skeewer them with their tusks (pierce) or whack them with their trunk(crush), but they have limited usufulness against stone walls.
Palisade Walls:
Palisade walls are defensive structures, made out of sturdy wood and are hard to take down, specially with swords (chances are they will blunt before the wall is taken down). So for the sake of realism, i'm suggesting a significant increase in the Hack resistance of wooden walls.
In order do make it difficult to spam them in the early game, an increase in their price can help with that. If there is a need to make them more fragile, my sugestion is to lower the hit point of the wall instead, or slightly decrease the Hack resistance, but not by much.
I think this makes sense.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:
Because they don't cost metal? Lol
infantry Swordsmen have 10% metal cost and have 33% more attack than infantry spearmen and similar armor. Sword cavalry has only 6.7% metal cost and do 55% more damage and have better armor.
I guess 10 metal can't justify the difference and on top of that, CS spear cavalry are fairly useless. Any faction that gets spear cavalry in p2 might as well not get them in 99% of the games.
-
1
-
-
We have been talking about melee cavalry, but there is something that strikes me as odd and I have mentioned it earlier. If we want to get a proper feeling of balance, it would help if spear cavalry was decent, such that we have something to compare sword cavalry too. On top of that, better spear cavalry gives a decent counter to sword cavalry. On top of better attack, sword cavalry has better armor but cost 10 metal.
So why do have spear cavalry a DPS of 5.6 (9.8 against cavalry) and sword cavalry a DPS of 8.66?
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
How does rank 1 versus 1 play out?
A rank 1 spearman has 48 HP remaining and promotes after fighting a rank 1 swordsman.
38 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:yet at the same time spearmen are extremely slow, meaning that cavalry rarely have to take these unfavourable engagements. It is that problem that I believe makes sword cavalry difficult; their counter to them has no easy way of getting close enough to force fights. The question that we maybe should ask ourselves is if spearmen are not an adequate counter, what is?
In many RTS games issues like this arise. What players could do is to mix ranged units with their spearman, so that the ranged units can do damage from afar and the cavalry can't engage. Also mounted counter (spearman cavalry) could theoretically do something.
12 hours ago, vinme said:altho ranged ones largely useless accuracy boost given p2 battles are too large and bad accuracy is probably even benefitial.
I want to clarify on this. I ran tests with ranged skirmishers. If we tightly pack the units together, then 40 advanced skirmishers are equivalent in strength to 48 rank 1 skirmishers. I also mad a little mod that removes the accuracy boost and then the 48 rank 1 units defeat the 40 rank 2 units and have 14 units remaining (Though some have low HP). This shows that for skirmishers, there is really some benefit for lower accuracy in massed fights. I haven't tested for other ranged units, so I can't comment on that. In these test I would estimate that the reduced spread is equivalent to roughly +15% attack.
13 hours ago, vinme said:carthage has extremely weak build, other than mercs, that is their SPECIALTY so ofc they must excell at it
As @Dizaka just said, I agree that they must excel on the strategy and that it should remain viable. Though Carthage has its weaknesses and strengths, I think both need to be less extreme. I hope we can get a situation where both units are viable. However as @vinme said, it is not always just a sword cav merc problem, it is a problem that needs to be addressed on the entire roster.
-
1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:
One of the main problems are that rank 2 units only need 1 or 2 favorable fights to advance to rank 3, where they become much more powerful. With swordcav in rank 2, it is very easy to rank up simply by killing archers or women. (this can be in minute 9, before most people are p2)
Something I would add to this story is that a rank 2 unit needs as much xp to promote as a rank 1 unit needs. Since the rank 2 unit has better stats, it has an easier time to get this xp.
39 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:If carthage gains other good strategies in a26, training a few mercs to trick your enemy into getting the anti-merc upgrades could be an option for them to slow down your enemy while you try to go p3 to get eles or rams or catapults.
Carthage has a technology that looks very potent to me, colonization. It reduces the cost and build time of civic structures both by 25%(CC, houses & temples) and cost 250w, 250m. That technology nearly pays for itself if you place 1 CC.
I also like to share my experience with mercs in 1v1s.
Cl2488, has done some strategies with Carthage where he went up with 40 pop and then went for the merc cavalry. That is a decent strategy, though Cl2488 showed himself to be vulnarable to infantry rushes. If the carthaginian player gets 10 sword cavalry, the biggest trouble for your defense is that they can jump at the fields and disrupt your farming. CCs deal lower damage in A25 and women have short LOS, so you can not always see the cavalry coming. Also the CC fits only 20 women, so if you have 5 or more fields, that are some vulnerabilities for you. If you split your army to different wood lines to keep a better view of your territory, then the separated infantry gets slaughtered. Defending with CS cavalry does not help either, as the cheaper mercs defeat your more expensive cavalry 1-on-1 and there is always a chance that the mercs slip though and find some easy damage. CS cavalry can be used as moving outpost.
There are also other factions with cavalry mercenaries: Macedon, Kushites and Seleucids (and Ptolemies). For these factions a similar merc cavalry rush seems unimpressive. I have played several 1v1s with Seleucids and probably more than most high rated players. My take on the situation is that with these factions a merc rush only works if your opponent makes mistakes. So only Carthage seems problematic.
My take on mercenaries are:
Ranged infantry: They cost only 60 resources and train faster which is nice. Though it is an advantage, it is not a major advantage.
Melee infantry: They are half-way to skiritai (rank 2) for only 60 metal, so that is a good deal.
Javelin cavalry: They aren't bad, but Javelin cavalry requires the most micro of any unit. Their vulnerabilities prevent it from being a go-to unit.
Spear cavalry (Seleucids): This is a special case as it requires a colony, and you would very gladly build one. It provides a dropsite for resources and 20 population (houses are expensive), territory expansion, on top of that it gives some protection and finally it can train both women and mercenaries. So for 160 wood, 160 stone and 160 metal you gain a lot. The merc spear cavalry has as much pierce armor as the regular sword cavalry and +25% HP, while its DPS is 23% lower. I tend to think about it as having the strength of a CS sword cavalry, but the cost of a mercenary (and a bonus vs. cavalry). As with the Javelin cavalry, a rush with these units is only institutionally good. One of the examples where it shines is against Carthage, as the archer is the weakest ranged unit to defend against them and the unit (in combination with the colonies) provides a good defense against the Carthaginian mercs. if we excludes Ptolemies, Seleucids have the second best mercenary rush.
So in conclusion, the other mercenaries are nice to have, but they are not as deadly as the sword cav mercs. I think this just comes down to the fact that basic sword cav have more pierce armor and have a damage output that is 55% higher than spear cavalry. On top of that, It deals hack damage which is advantageous in a number of situations. How can you expect that to be balanced?
Another possible (but dubious) solution could be to give most factions their spear cav in the stable in p1 and give that spear cav and extra multiplier against mercenaries.
3 minutes ago, Dizaka said:Did it again.
I am not against cavalry rushes being lethal, as we also see that bowtech never got his eco rolling. Carthages mercs cavalry seem problematic, especially if the Carthaginian player targets someone who is especially vulnarable (either by a skill difference, or because he has been rushing/rushed).
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, alre said:
much more relevant (in my mind at least): to this day women gatherers still have lower vision than males.
this is quite absurd, and clearly has no historical justification, there's only a gameplay motive, but effect on gameplay is actually minimal, and some times even paradoxical, like women not seeing archers attacking them.
With low vision it is also almost impossible to react timely against cavalry rushes if there are no men around.
-
1
-
-
On 30/11/2020 at 1:14 PM, Nescio said:
In Age of Empires II, there were no differences between male and female villagers either.
Oh, this is a serious misconception. When a male villager and a female fight in AoE2, the male has the advantage.
Economy bonus ideas
in Balancing Discussions
Posted
This is a very valid point. Howeverwhat storehouses and such represent in a historical sense is not really clear for me, so I would find it odd to base a bonus on that. Also a bonus that is not directed at any particular strategy feels bland to me.
Especially the good justification is something I find problematic for the population on storehouse bonus.
I agree with the statement, but our conclusions probably differ. Training Citizen soldiers 10% faster is a major boost. Not only could you produce more, but even when producing the same amount of infantry it has advantages. If you produce a batch of 6 soldiers, then the romans get the batch 4 seconds earlier meaning that they get to work 4 seconds earlier. That allows them to collect some resources (about 6*3) in the saved time and makes them about 3% "cheaper". So it is a very impactful bonus both for the extra units trained and the extra gathering. If I think of Roman advantages, I think of this bonus. So I feel if it was a civilization bonus, it would be fine. However since all their allies also get it, it makes it feel less unique. So in my eyes the bonus is not bad, but it should be a civilization bonus (and there should be a new fitting team bonus).
That is true, but if we think about Rome, we do not think about a city that got sacked very often. 7 years of trouble for a period from 500 BC to 0AD is not that substantial and Athens seems to be a better candidate for being sacked/sieged (Who were sacked/sieged by the persia, sparta, Macedon and the Romans in the 0ad time frame).