LetswaveaBook

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.

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.