Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

206 profile views

Alar1k's Achievements


Discens (2/14)



  1. I wouldn't say that worker elephant is the problem because if we remember a23 - nobody was saying "mauri too op bla bla" even tho back then those worker ele could also build as well as be a dropsite at the same time - the balance issue is not the worker elephant but other things like making archers destroy siege engines, giving rams and siege production buildings to all civs for the sake of balance If Kushite can start with a priest and britons with a dog - why don't add something to others civs to start as well (carthage can make trade ships on p1 for example, and nobody minds that...) - athen/sparta/mace can start with extra sheep for example (like corral sheep controlable animal for scout and food)
  2. Skiritai could gather resources in a23 as well - idk spartans don't have -10%pop so that's good but i don't know, now that archers can kill boldshooters there is not much to help spartans out in later stages of the game, rome can still besige with millitary camp and garrison siege engens there so it still has potential you just have to drag the siege all the way down to the millitary camp which is not that ideal, also romans have better heroes to counter ranged attacks
  3. First of all I don't see any reason to compare a free and open source project with a corporate, big-budget product. Second - one needs to look at 0ad not just as a game but as an interdisciplinary art project that is a collaboration between different artists (IT, historians, graphic designers, translators, writers and so on and so on...) If somebody is unhappy with how the PR is being managed and wants to push more capitalistic, neo-liberal path of teasing and waiting to build hype for a few months before a game is released - one should not criticize but make constructive suggestions with some objective examples of similar types of projects - and that is for sure not age of empires 4 In my opinion free form art like this should not be advertised by being a tease because it is not here to make you pull your wallet or make you anxious in waiting for it to come out - the community is too small to be teased like that and let down once the alpha released does not fulfil their expectations - imagine a world in which you had constant announcements on weakly basis on all social media and you get into a game and it is not something you are happy with - one must ask himself a question "is it morally right to tease people who like this project with something that they know is not a polished product and is still in development?" - after you ask yourself such a question then you might be more sympathetic with the developers choice of just putting it out - less build-up of expectations = less false promises and less overall unhappiness with the next stage of the game - because it is not a finished product you cannot expect it to be represented as such and build hype around something that will be changed/fixed in a few months or a year
  4. In my opinion it has to be Carthaginian barracks and stable as it is now - it costs like most other barracks (200 wood and 100 stone (50 for stable)) but only lets you train spearman and an archer unit from barracks and only cavalry javelin from stables - cost/benefit is horrible for this civilisation when you can only make three maximum embassies per game - until the proposal made by fatherbushido is implemented (proposed on this topic, second page, with video example), these buildings will stay the worst unit production buildings in cost/benefit spectrum in the game - where is the balance in this? How can barracks/stable cost so much and yet provide so little diversity?
  5. It's this mod - when I tried to open the latest version it opened through wine automatically and wouldn't stop sending errors until I restarted my laptop and deleted the folder - now the thing is, I don't really know what to do to implement this mod on my linux distro to make everything work (thing to note here is that I installed a24 through flatpack because at the time ppa was still on a23, didn't wanna bother with snap)
  6. I seem to be having trouble implementing balanced maps mod on linux - I run linux mint 19.3, can anybody that knows something about the mod implementation help pretty please A simple step-by-step "how to" would be wonderful
  7. Well since we don't agree on this full scale of hard battalion implementation i propose a middle ground - what would you say to an idea of making a different "flavour" inside the base game that would be called something like "battle of the armies" - in that type of game like we have an option of relics gameplay we could have an inbuild mod in the base game that would be oriented towards the battle more then on economy - unit battalions would cost less and be trained faster - this would be focused on the real-time tactics gameplay Personally, I don't really feel hard battalions but wouldn't mind to have an option of playing that style with 0ad factions/feel - imho single units should be the main core of the game still, but the formations of battalions should be a viable option - not standard - I really like the feel of 1 unit making huge difference, and that is something that tends to be lost in hard battalion rts-s - for example small multiplayer games on tiny maps with pop set to 50 would make the best example, especially when sparta had pop disadvantage in a23 and you really had to be economical not just with resources but with every single unit - the less the pop cap in-game the more focus on micro should be as it is now in the current stage of the game Don't get me wrong, I'm not against implementation of battalions, on the contrary - I just don't like the fights taking more value overall then economy/strategic early decisions made in early game so I think that the game should not become another hard battalion rts, but remain with the focus on micromanagement and economical development with the ability to group units for better mobility and add attack/defence/speed bonuses in battle through combining units in specific formations that can be disbanded after battle when you need them doing something else
  8. Yes, they reduce micro, but still it is hard to implement when units gather and fight - (and I don't really like soldiers only fighting, most rts games do this like that... I really like 0ad because it lets you gather and fight with same units because it makes it stand out) - if there is an easy way to make units in formations/battalions not get stuck on every single tree in the game then it would be just fine to have battalions - but also, if we turn the game battalions only like bfme is - then you cannot train units one by one but instead wait to gather enough resources to train the whole battalion - that is not really a cheap and economically positive thing to do in 0ad - and we should also keep in mind that some players don't play 0ad for the massive battalion battles, but rather prefer city building and having a lot options to build Swiching to battalion only play-style imho is not a possitive thing because it would prolong the early game on maps where wood is hard to gather - and add to it that you could only fight with battalions and not collect as well - as things are now with economy you could train your first battalion in first few minutes (let's assume that you need to spam women/villagers to gather both food/wood to make it economically possible to make 2-3 battalions one at a time and that one battalion = (edit 10 soildier) 10 soldiers - that is 500 food and 500 wood for 1 battalion if 1 soldier now costs 50 each - and also if cav battalions are in size of 10 it would be 10x100 food and 10x50 wood for javelin cav battalion) And also to point it out removing food/wood/stone/metal and adding just one resource (money) is not an option I would like to see in 0ad just for the sake of micromanagement in fights and battalion implementation
  9. I totally recomend that people try out Battle for Middle Earth: Rise of the witch king community patch because it is still active and going well and the game is nicely balanced with each faction having different troops and buildings - and yes, that battalion sizes do work there phenomenally well but also one should keep in mind that in Bfme games there is only one resource to gather (money) which is gathered by farm buildings passively, so I don't see that type of battalions being good in 0ad On the other hand - I would really like to see battalion formations like american conquest where captain/cheef could make a battalion along with flagbearer/shaman and give troops more moral/better stats in formations (this would be neat because in 0ad we could then add generals that are a support unit kinda like hero but low damage/gives buffs to formation - and when you go to fight you form a desired formation with the general - and if your army gathering resources is ambushed you should really feel the ambush as is - not have a prepared formation because to build/gather resources general disbands units - and units can only be formed in formation if they are in a radius of a general - this would make things super interesting - the surprise attack would still have potential to do damage and instil fear EDIT: to add one more opinion - I think that this general with unit formation aura could really help out with ingame formation issues because then the general should be necessary for the formation, and units themselves wouldn't have that option as a given, and the buffs to formations would be based in a single unit that provides the bonus so easier to implement then in a formation code - if there are heroes with existing auras this could be just like that but "masked" as a formation bonus - like for example - tetsudo formation gets bonus armour in formation - roman general that grants tetsudo would give the bonus defence aura - and when he dies battalion disbands/bonus is gone - that way we could have buffs for formations that are easier to define (each civ gets a general quarters and can train certain type of generals for certain kind of unit formations/buffs to make things easier to code/implement
  10. I understand what you are saying - what I'm thinking though is - it is better for mercenaries not to cost wood but just food and metal; I'm even all for it to make them cost more food/less metal but if more metal overall gets implemented on the map and mercenaries indeed get just a tiny, itsy-bisty bit of resource gathering ability - then the price for them would be fine as is and balanced - but yes, as for now, I think they are too expencive for what they provide - going champion route is much more viable because they both are not contributing to eco (yes, I know that mercenaries can build, but so can women that cost only 50 food so yea, I wouldn't say it's worth that metal/food just to make them build stuff instead of regular infantry that can do both)
  11. This suggestion is actually quite similar to my proposal on this very post where I was suggesting to give mercenaries ability to gather at much much lover rate, just like skiritai comandos do because this non-gathering troops make it imbalanced for mercenary heavy civs (carthagininans/macedonians/seleucids/ptolemies) - I mean, come on, for example now you build a colony that is a drop spot and only women can be recruited to gather wood on the front-line while other soldiers build barracks for quicker support - Carthagininas got the worst end of the stick in my humble opinion Also pretty please implement the suggestion made by @fatherbushido on this thread
  12. They are not pointless and super expensive if you manage tradeing/marketplace well, set up metal collection with traders early on, focus women on food and men on nearby metal mines and you can do fine - I'd say in most cases maps are more problematic with the way resources are distributed than the price of the mercenaries/techs - there ought to be small metal patches spread out around the map
  13. There should definitely be dalmatian archers with poisoned arrows - there are some historical texts that speak of a poison named "ninum" being applied to arrows in the roman period, adding dalmatian archer mercenaries would be a really nice buff for Romans in next alpha to make up for all those nerfs (like not getting siege from army camp and archers being able to destroy catapults and bolt shooters) - and I think we do Rome a disservice from a historical perspective when there is no mercenaries available even though they used the alliances with other tribes a lot (for example some Berber tribes fought for Rome against Carthage in Punic wars
  14. Illyrian pirates archers and swordmen mercenary - available from the docks like athens have theirs maybe and give them to romans because they conquered Illyrians after the Illyirian wars But I would also prefer if we could get a balkan civ, maybe those wars for Illyiran independance from rome might make a good basis for some campaign? And also make small, but faster and more deadly ships like an Illyirian pirate ship to accentuate their dominance in the adriatic sea at that time? Hero proposal: Teuta(na) - Queen of the people: all Illyirians gain attack speed and bonus loot Pirate queen buff: Illyirian ships + 15% speed and atk damage; and are made 10% faster from the dock inside aura
  15. Well there is a specific tech available only to Iberians and Mauryans that buffs only swordsmen, and archery tradition for archer civs too, and I made a tread a few days ago about simmilar tech for peltasts that would make them a bit better when dealing with archers
  • Create New...