LetswaveaBook

When I get famous, I would want to get creditted for the phrase: ¨Technology only seems like magic to those who are ignorant of how technology works.¨ The only thing in my way is that I need to design the next equivalent of ´flappy bird´.

More of a meme idea: Tux in a schythed chartiot pulled by one or more zebras or unicorns. Can be summoned by the code: Cutting edge tech for nerds. Maybe the models of pony ascendant could be of any use.

What if ships had no firepower other than their turreted ranged units and an anti-ship ram for some ram ships and a catapult for quineremes? What if there was a "board enemy ship" feature for ships when adjacent? What if ships had capture points and could be boarded and captured? Feature request: When you select a number of boats and soldiers, click a button to have all soldiers evenly divide themselves and garrison (or turret) onto the boats. Also a button to have the soldiers evenly repair all the boats. I would like ships to have 3 ways to combat other ships: -having turreted soldiers/catapults/balisatas -ramming -capturing/boarding. But this can probably not be achieved by a simple changes in parameters.

I think such an option does not solve the problem. If it is easy focus your attacks on melee infantry, I doubt if melee infantry would still have any use. I don´t think we should keep a bad system because it provides challenges. I just mean to say that if we do so, we need to rethink the role of melee infantry.

I uploaded a differential which can be (re)viewed at: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4625?id=20173 @Nobbi, if you think the discussion is going off topic you can ask Stan` to split the topic.

I think it suits Seleucid history to create a bonus centered about marital alliances. However I must admit that I also like the cheaper colonies. So I would be in favor of keeping the current team bonus and allowing Seleucids to produce a princess. What exactly should be the bonus that a princess would provide, is something I would leave open for discussion.

I could understand if you were disappointed by the fact that this topic does not discuss mercenary cavalry. You have made a few valid points that merc cav would deserve a cost of 95 metal. Though the essential question is: how much advantage merc cav deserve to get to compensate that they require phase 2? I think increasing the cost to 90 metal is a step in the right direction and with 95 metal you might hurt them to much.

*could be made If the multiplier for CS spear cav is boosted to 2, should that also happen for the champion spear cavalry? Furthermore I think the hack armor could be nice as I deem spear cavalry to weak against infantry swordsmen.

The video has several comments and I hope it can contribute to making 0ad more popular. Among the comments in the video we find:

This is all ready the case. If you open the scenario editor and let the cavalry archer and infantry archer fight one on one,You will see that the infantry archer hits the cavalry archer more often. Both units have the same accuracy.

To be honest, I think the call to for a design document isn´t rooted in practical purposes. I would consider the hope that a design document provides misleading. You might think that things get done once it is clearly put in a design document, but issues don´t magically solve itself when there is a design document. I expect any design document to quickly get stale. So rather than saying this is the design document, It would be probably better to set goals for the next 3 alphas and count how much has been achieved to reach these goals. There was some talk about faction differentiation, but what have the discussion since A24 delivered? Hoplite tradition and moving possibly kush pyramids to p1. You can´t say we should achieve this goal and just wait until it is achieved.

I think the player killing the 400 enemies performs better. Strength is how much trouble your opponents can throw while they are still unable to take you out.

I think it would be nice to introduce some features that represent the culture of certain factions. An idea would be the Roman bathhouses. The in game effect could be similar to the technology living condition where garrisoned units regain HP.

The Numindians provided elephants to Rome in the Second Celtiberian War. So the Romans had sources of elephants, but they did not focus on elephants corps.

In The Conquors expansion for AoE , most civilizations had a tech tree that gave both options and liabilities. But with the balance changes, the liabilities were softened. This makes that the different tech trees become less unique and the game becomes age of eco bonuses.

I think you need to accept that the product will be unrealistic if you have a game where cavalry and elephant´s can´t move and attack at the same time. What I think about AoE 2 development? The developer added enough dis-likable balance features to the game for me to say that the end result is worse than what they started with.

Unless you use shift-delete, there is a warning before you delete something. You might expect that the warning is just something you need to click away, but actually it should be used as a moment to think if you really want to delete it. You can´t blame the system for not checking what you were deleting before you deleted it.

I disagree with @BreakfastBurrito_007 and @faction02 that the CS system makes siege units more important. In most RTS games, an idle army is wasted time and is a serious limitation to your chances to win. In 0ad an attack does not need siege units to be effective. Pikemen weren´t well protected so the high armor values doesn´t seems historically correct IMHO. The main protection of a group of pikeman was that undisciplined soldiers don´t want to walk towards a wall of pikes. Personally, I am no fan of adding arson to the game and I prefer the capture mechanic. The capture-delete mechanic is not a great design choice. Maybe instead of deleting buildings, a player should be able to set his own buildings on fire to slowly destroy it instead of instantly deleting them.

That would be very nice. Currently the dominant strategy has little strategical depth: Spam skirmishers and spearmen (or pikemen)

I dislike this approach. If a faction lacks diversity, just jumping to the solution of giving them slingers makes factions more like each other rather than making those faction truly unique. Spartans have the Skiritai and Spartiates, yet those units don´t stand out as the units that make Sparta unique.

I have seem some people saying that if melee units deal to much damage, then there is no reason to create ranged troops. As long as ranged troops can kill enemy units faster than melee troops can, there is a reason to add some quantity of ranged troops in your army, even if the difference in damage output is relatively small. Even though the damage difference between spearmen and archers is fairly small, a composition of 100% spearmen will lose against 90% spearmen and 10% archers. My point is that ranged units are still viable even if the damage difference would be small.

On mainland there is no guaranteed way to defeat turtlers, but a map that make turtling very difficult is the empire map. On that map you start with 2 CCs and both thus you can focus your cavalry attacks on the weakest point of their bases. But then again, turtlers might not like to play on empire.

NO, it needs an FTA(First Turn Advantage) counter!

It think one should be careful not to misquote people, but for me it is bad language/attitude to suggest that someone does so on purpose. For all of these changes, there are good reasons to accept them as well as there are good reasons to grief about them being eliminated. A23 is history right now. Some things have gone and some have come in place. Rather than saying this is bad, it is better to try to undestand both sides of the discussion. So we should look on how we can move forward. When discussing if something is unbalanced or not, the settings should be considered. Though there is a lot of complaining around here, there is not a lot of people that try to play in different settings. In A24 TG players said that there was to little metal, yet nobody with those complaints created a map where players start with 2 metal mines around their base.

I don't think RTS is doomed. Obviously RTS is not where the big money is.