LetswaveaBook

So in all genius it was decided that the olive tree should be a source of food. However on several maps (like mainland with anatolian/aegean biome) the tree is placed. Originally the tree might be placed there because it was a source of food. For gameplay purposes, I think a food tree should be placed where olive trees have been placed. list of changes for A26 https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Alpha26

You can adapt the value by unpacking the zip file and changing the value of 150 in the file han_hero_liu_bang_1.json in the path Vinmemod/simulation/data/auras/units/heroes. You can simply open it with notepad. I implemented the HP bonus idea for mininisters, but there are only 9 of them available, allowing for 1.05^8 (-1)=48% more HP. The support_minister.xml file is found in the path Vinmemod/simulation/templates/units/han/ after unpacking the zipfile. It can be opened by notepad again. The armor can be adapted by changing the resistance component. <Resistance> <Entity> <Damage> <Hack>2</Hack> <Pierce>2</Pierce> <Crush>6</Crush> </Damage> </Entity> </Resistance> In the the is a line that reads han_heor_wei_qing_1.json file in the path Vinmemod/simulation/data/auras/units/heroes, adapted a line such that ministers are affected by the hero. This line reads: "affects": ["Minister", "Champion"] However Ministers are still support units and not soldiers. This effects their behaviour(they tend to run instead of fighting). The second line of the The support_minister.xml file says it inherits several values of the <Entity parent="template_unit_support"> file. This file is also the parent of the file for the women. In this parent file we find the component: <UnitAI> <DefaultStance>passive</DefaultStance> </UnitAI> Also, ministers are support units and are thus not affected by military upgrades, Only soldiers are affected by the upgrades in the forge. If you want to fix both issues, you can replace the second line of the support_minster.xml file by <Entity parent="template_unit_champion">

That sounds like a fair suggestion, but it might run into practical problems. Like with fire cav, people agree that something needs to be done, but they might not agree on what needs to be done. Also, I wonder if the virtue of allowing things "widely agreed on" invigorate some bigger innovative changes. I would prefer to take a more experimental approach. In my view, one of the major problems of 0ad is that the natural state of the game is to decay to a boring boom game.

I tried to make a mod that has these modification. However, I do not know how to limit the bonus cap and therefore left the limit on the ministers at 9. Also, I guess 150 hp per second for walls is awkward. It means the aura heals walls faster than the rate at which 2 (regular) rams damage it. Vinmemod.zip

There are so many different idea's on what would be an improvement for 0ad that success isn't automatically guaranteed. What is a good change or not, is highly dependent on what you think the game should be and how (competitive) play should unfold. So I would guess it would be good to first discuss what the concrete goals/virtues/aim of the mod is.

Modding is fairly easy for 0ad and it would be little effort to do some small changes. A bigger challenge is to find people interested in playing a modded version in the lobby. Also, another issue is that some people won't view past the idea of "I would have done it differently". If you would like to try some modded values, you can list them here and maybe someone has time to make such a mod.

The aesthetics of the gardens of Babylon go nicely with the colours of the grassland and the trees. Considering that wonders provide a resource tickle and can heal units rapidly, I wonder how it would affect competitive team games.

The elephants in the image of @Lion.Kanzen made me wonder what would happen if a ranged attacked the elephant behind another elephant. I made a screenshot myself. Can someone explain how the slingshots pass through the elephants?

Some time ago, a popular AoE2 youtuber called Spirit of the Law released a video on a popular AoE2 mod. Fun fact: This mod is inspired by 0ad and it acknowledged this. See https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/romae-ad-bellum-raw-e-rome-at-war-expansion-concept/123372

Attack upgrades do not increase the damage unfairly for higher damage units, regardless of armor. Obviously+1 pierce attack has more effect on an archer than on a Briton Chariot. For the chariot +1 attack is negligible. @BreakfastBurrito_007, What would in your opinion be a "fair" (such that comparative strengths remain equal) increase for the chariot if the archer had an upgrade providing+1 pierce damage?

huh? 2*0,5=1?

Can you try to convince me that it is actually true? If the winning unit deals 2x as much damage per second, then the weaker unit dies in half the time. However in half the time, the weaker unit can deal 2*0.5 the original damage if the weaker unit has the same upgrades.

pierce damage: good against soldiers. hack damage: good against soldiers and siege crush damage: good against buildings and moderately effective against siege. fire damage: good vs everything as there are no entities with armor against fire

I don't see it as an imbalance. If without upgrades unit A can beat unit B with 66% health remaining, then if both units get the same upgrades then unit A still wins with 66% HP remaining. So it stays the same.

I wanted to test some spear cavalry with their 2x multiplier and I noticed this: Hero spear cavalry still have the 1.75 multiplier. I don't know if that is something "ugly" or not, but it exists.

I dislike the idea of unit specific upgrades. Naturally there will be units that are more useful and those who are less useful. Player are most likely to prioritize the upgrades for the units that are most useful. So if you have researched the technologies of the units that are most useful, then why should you make a unit that: 1. has less overal usefulness. 2. requires some additional upgrades to reach its full effectiveness. My worry is that it tends to lead to less diversity and it makes thing more complicated without actual benefit to gameplay. It can help for balancing, but we could use other methods (like faction specific bonusses) for balancing.

I haven't figured out how to edit the burning status effect that fire cav have, but you can add a fire damage tech like this. First, give the archer template a fire damage slot and set it to 0 to make it inactive. The corresponding code in the template is: <Damage> <Pierce>6.7</Pierce> <Fire>0</Fire> </Damage> Then create the tech to increase the fire damage. The modifications section of the tech should look like "modifications": [ { "value": "Attack/Ranged/Damage/Fire", "add": 1 }, ]

What I really experienced as positive about the AoE2 community on voobly, is that how easy it was to play with modded settings. If someone felt that there was a better way to generate the map, they would install the map and people joining the lobby would automatically download it and be able to play on it.

This defealt behaviour is prone to causing issues like these and other undesirable effects. The problem is a large part due to bad behaviour and that is something that needs to be fixed.

I guess that actually most of the curious or attentive players noticed this. Other resources have similar limitations. On animals the limit can be noticed if you try to use more than 8 cavalry to collect the food of an elephant and you see some of them idling. Also if there is say only 1 goat left and you send a 3 or more of cavalry to it, then only 2 units only execute the command. Most often, the limit is fine. Who would think it is efficient or useful to send 10 cavalry to gather from a goat that has only 70 food on it? If you gather with 8 cavalry from an elephant, you might wanted to use more, but actually 8 cavalry also gather quite quickly.

@borg- Can you give an explaination why the value of the food tickle for the persian ice house starts at 0.5 food per second? with a gain of 0.5 food per second, the ice house does not seem to me as a good investments. Later in the game, I know there is a technology, but I suppose we would want the ice house to be reasonable investment without the technology.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to make it to the game. I hope you get some good games.

Thanks for the suggestion. I did some test in the A26 scenario editor. In 10v10, the spear cav win convincingly. Over 20 the result vary a lot and position is hugely important. Both sides can win with a third of their army remaining. In practical situation there likely will be some spear cav with pathing problems in a if numbers reach over 50. Not only the spear vs jav cav matchup is curious. Javelin infantry have only 1/2 times the HP of their cavalry javelineer (ignoring the cav health upgrade), but don't suffer from the 2x multiplier. In a 60v60 battle between spear cav and javelin infantry, the spear cavalry have the edge, but sometimes the infantry javelineers win. If we fight with infantry spearman vs. javelin infantry in numbers above 60, the javelineers convincingly win. Some would argue that this is desirable balance where players need a combination of both melee and ranged units. To me, this seems more like an ranged vs. melee problem. For me the game would be better balanced if the player with more ranged units would need more micro to get favourable engagements. I also think that in the early to mid game, javelin cavalry is fairly well balanced. So I would like any changes that affect that. Maybe removing the +10% health upgrade could be something. Rather than removing the health upgrade (which is unique as it is an upgrade in a different building than the blacksmith), I would prefer if the final armor upgrades in the blacksmith did not affect cavalry but they get the +10% health upgrade.

I hold the opinion that to properly test for balance it is better to play a 1v1

I failed to reproduce these result in the RC of a26, but I am not sure if I am on RC2