LetswaveaBook

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.

The most common and basic strategy for 0AD is booming with infantry. I an A25 you could rush with mercenary cavalry to play in a way that allowed you to interact more with your enemy. That added some variety to the game. In A26, prices of mercenary cavalry were increased and this rush was pushed to the sidelines of existance. Also, I dislike acceleration. Cavalry rushing and (extended) early cavalry play in 1v1s in A25 was all ready a strategy that required the attacker to play at his very best. In A26, cavalry rushing became less effecting. In A26 the boomer had probably also the easier strategy and A26 only enhanced that. This is probably my main concern. Booming in A26 and then defeating an (often lesser skilled) opponent in a big battle did not feel as rewarding as constant action. Booming and then losing an lesser skilled opponent did not feel nice either. Also, the pikemen change did feel bad for me. The pike men felt like a clown unit: its low attack makes it a bad and laughable fighter. Its only purpose is to soak damage, which in respect it does fairly well. In A26 it even more laughable in single combat and therefore it is forced even more in its clown role of soaking damage. Pikemen were an asset in their A25's clown role. However for Seleucids, Macedonians and Kushites this benefit was offset by weaker hero's, so it felt reasonable. In A26, only their weaker clown role did not feel like a nice trade off. I want pikemen (specialized to 4 factions) to be something cool, instead of being relied on their clown role of damage soaking. By the way: please don't bother me with any team game logic. A game that is only optimized for team games might not be good for 1v1s. I think if the game wants to be good, it should also be good for 1v1s. Conversely, I believe that a game that is good for 1v1s is most likely also good for team games. I actually never really took team games that seriously, though I enjoyed them when was looking for a less serious game (and when they didn't disconnect). In A25 it was worth to spend some time waiting to play a higher rated 1v1 game. In A26 I often felt disappointed after waiting for a while and then playing a disappointing game. Anyway, that is how I feel and that could just be personal.

And we all know who has the skill to create such an Icon. Unfortunately, it is @wowgetoffyourcellphone and he is someone with his own opinions. Totally disgraceful!

I didn't play alpha 23 much, but I think A26 is worse for me than A24 and A25. By the way: I know some people have strong feelings about A24, but that doesn't affect my opinion.

Blasphemy!

This can also be fairly easily be modded out. Making hills (or anything) appear is actually more difficult than removing them.

I agree on the annoying part. and it can be addressed by editing the map script. I don't have the code rightly available, but I once did change the starting resource placement and made a screenshot back then.

Some AoE 2:

Another tip is to use batch training. Do this by selecting the CC or any other training building and press on "shift". Then you can use the mousewheel to change the batch size. Training multiple units in a batch is faster than one-by-one training.

Answering to @Philip the Swaggerless, I would welcome a little more diversity between some factions. For example, I think Rome could get some credit to their flexible military system by giving them a team bonus "manipules" giving infantry swordsmen +10% speed. Also, they probably could use a few more unique buildings.

What concerns me most about the game is that Romans develop almost the same as the barbarians. I can't really say that Romans in the game feel like an urban and more "civilized" faction.

I haven't been able to play a lot. I was online on the evening of December 13th and 14th to meet my opponent, however I was not able to meet my opponent. My latest 0ad game felt to troublesome and disappointing. Therefore I would like to forfeit the game and the rest of the tournament.

@ValihrAnt are you participating in group D in the TTL Silver League AoE2 tournament?

I dont know all the reasons, but I suspect that most people read badly. Nobody pointed out that the tooltip for the Infantry archer said that it increases damage by 10%, while the code multiplies it by 1.15. Also the sword2.json file is missing a %-sign in the tooltip. There is also the curious case that mercenaries are excluded from the upgrades, without showing that in the tooltip. Apart from that, I dont have any noteworthy opinions about the patch.

If you capture a barracks or so in enemy territory, then you gain some territory control. Then in the small patch of newly controlled territory you can place a CC (if it is a small CC).

Well, as a 0.2 meter advantage for a unit with a 6 meter pole arm. This value of 0.2 meter is not an opinion, it is math.

I think both "exploits" are fine. Building a CC in enemy territory comes with risks, costs and missed opportunities. Building an CC takes time that could be spent for other purposes. Building wooden towers and upgrading them isnt problematic either IMHO.

I think the tech that reduces champion cost while increasing their population cost is especially nice. A major factor why people complain about (cavalry) champions being OP is that you can fill your population cap with units that are (over) twice as strong as citizen soldiers. Doubling their population cost could solve the issue. I am curious to see how it works out for Sparta.

I would say it is entirely the opposite. With 9 m/s they are slow as any melee infantry unit (though pikes are even slower).Their attack is multiplied by 1.2^2=1,44. With 10.5 damage per second their attack damage is still lower than that of skirmishers. Their durability is multiplied by 1.25^2/0.9^2=1.92 and that makes them fairly durable. Skiritai are rank 3 CS soldiers which make them unique. There isn't much more creativity about them. @wowgetoffyourcellphone did in my view a better job in delenda est. If I were more competent in github and spend more time, I would (encourage to) use a variation of how skiritai are in delenda est

To create 3 batches of 3 cavalry units, you need 108 seconds and then the final cavalry leave your CC instead of being at your opponents base. It is actually correct that infantry can manage against cavalry. Your points are partially invalid. I will write why I think they are partially invalid for jav cavalry. -The jav cav deals more damage, but that is less impactful than it seems. A jav cav need 4 javelins to kill a ranged infantry, so the 18 damage would in that situation not be better than 14. Against melee infantry it might be helpful. - cavalry has more HP for sure, but they are also bigger units. Bigger means being a bigger target and being easier to hit by ranged units. That means cavalry might take more damage than you would expect. -Most of the damage received is pierce damage, so the hack damage only is a very minor part. There are also some things you completely ignore, like cavalry being more expensive and slower to train. Also, for rushes players get only melee or ranged cavalry, whereas both types are available for infantry. On top of that, spear and pike infantry have a 3x multiplier against cavalry. There might be a cavalry problem for late game in TGs. However I fail to believe that there is a cavalry rush problem.

I would like to participate as good 1-1s are the best way to enjoy 0ad.

I praise your ultimate wishdom. There is no need to discuss subtleties overly much. Once different viewpoints have been exchanged, it is best to respect the viewpoint from both sides and agree to disagree.

Instead of praising that Athens reached democracy, we should focus on what they achieved (under democracy). So practical examples on how democracy benefited Athens would be welcome.

We agree on that democracy set Athens apart, but then we need to find a fitting bonus.

If so, we fundamentally disagree on this. I think we should look on what set Athens apart as a faction and then represent that with a fitting bonus, instead of cherry picking.