Jump to content


Community Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

15 Good

About letsplay0ad

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

109 profile views
  1. @borg- You're right, removing the citizen-soldier capability of units would make balancing much easier (as you remove the economy part of the equation), but what I really like about 0 A.D. is the citizen-soldier concept. I've never seen it in any of the RTS games I've played before. I think the hard counter system you had in your expansion mod was pretty great for balance, but I also find the soft counter system really fun. It's a tough decision-making process. @maroder Good idea! I'll try tweaking the damage values for siege engines. The catapult would definitely benefit.
  2. @Nescio Thanks for catching that! @maroder The base game has minimum distances between towers and civic centres to prevent abuse. The minimum fortress distance is in the same vein with the same logic. However, I do agree that a sort of "attrition" mechanic would be interesting, but I think it would be better suited for another mod since it's an entirely new mechanic. @alre I'm with you now. That idea sounds pretty awesome for civilizations that have multiple choices of ranged units to allow them to choose between a "boom" or "defensive/preparing for war" strategy. The o
  3. @Edwarf you tested the mod! Nice! Thanks for finding that bug with the Carthage mercenary upgrade. I fixed it with v0.2.2. I also agree that four houses should not have more health than a fort. That's ridiculous. So, I have lowered the health of all structures according to be in line with their costs. Generally a higher cost means more construction material was used and the stats should reflect that. The health stat of structures was also way too high as even civic buildings such as houses and economic buildings such as storehouses took upwards of seven hits by rams to destroy. With a ful
  4. @borg- I understand. I can see how it might snowball with Ptolemies and Kushites. And I guess Seleucids wouldn't benefit as much anyway. Cool. Sounds pretty interesting and fun to try.
  5. @alre I like the idea of skirmishers being a cheap economic unit you later discard for battles, but civs with primarily skirmishers (eg: Rome and Sparta), how will they fight? My intent was to have the ranged roughly equalized so that a mixed army would be the best choice in a pitched battle, but still have differences so that rushes could occur with faster units. Something like ranged > melee > cavalry > ranged etc. For armies it would be all cav > all ranged > all melee >> all cav etc. And then a mixed army (melee + ranged + cav) > all of one type of unit. What w
  6. Thanks for the feedback everyone! Now, to address comments and questions with my line of thought and reasoning: @BreakfastBurrito_007 Thanks! That would be awesome. @ValihrAnt the rotation times indeed slow down economy, but since they were implemented to prevent dancing (something that had many complaints), I'm not sure how to best compensate for this. I think it's a great idea to try lowering rotation times though and testing it out. Higher cavalry move speed was not something that I considered though so I'll definitely try it out. Thanks! I also liked
  7. Let's Fight 0 A.D. is an open-source RTS game (https://play0ad.com/) Let's Fight is a 0 A.D. gameplay balance mod for Alpha 24 (Xšayāršā) Motivation Currently the meta of Alpha 24 is skewed towards turtling via walls, towers, and forts. This problem is exacerbated by the advantage that archers, units that already have high range, have over other ranged units. This mod aims to provide gameplay that is more rewarding for aggressive players and roughly equalize the strength of civilizations to allow for a greater variety of strategies. In particul
  • Create New...