[All Civilizations are my favorite.]

1 hour ago, Fabius said:

Takes over whole of known world and holds it for half a millennia. I already accepted your earlier point, but I do not think I am overrating to much given their accomplishments.

I didn't mean to be disrespectful although holding the "known world" (excluding india and bactria) is more a logistic feat than a military one. But then again I'm a self admitted philhellene so who am I to judge. I just think than conjuring waves after waves of levies is a roman hack and that overshadows most tactical brilliance on their part 

[Interesting unit discrepancies for cav and infantry.]

I mean taking away the extra dmg wouldn't affect their use so why not. While we are at it should melee cav have +1 armour?

["Arson" attacks should be added to cavalry and infantry.]

8 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:

Siege towers: "Are you sure about that?"

Aahaha! C'mon calling the siege towers in game "siege" is a bit far fetched. If soldiers do the job better or at least at the same level as a ram then rams, stone throwers and the like will see a lot lesss play.

[All Civilizations are my favorite.]

6 hours ago, Fabius said:

Ok

Really you are overrating them.

["Arson" attacks should be added to cavalry and infantry.]

18 minutes ago, AIEND said:

On the contrary, this will first increase the status of the stone walls and forts, thus making the siege machinery more necessary.
In current battles, players rarely build walls and fortresses, except for the walls given by Iberia at the start. So it's easier and more common to capture buildings with units (which honestly feels awkward to capture buildings and then delete them), or demolish unfortified buildings with rams.
And if we make burning buildings more efficient than capturing them, then players will fortify their towns with stone-built fire-resistant fortifications, hindering infantry and cavalry attacks, and siege machines will become Indispensable.

 

Well i think that despite your good intensions, you have a lot of "ifs" in there.

["Arson" attacks should be added to cavalry and infantry.]

If u do that nobody will use siege

[All Civilizations are my favorite.]

40 minutes ago, Fabius said:

You could also give hastati a 1.5 modifier against other melee infantry.

Nope. Why would they?

[All Civilizations are my favorite.]

25 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Concerning the topic of single geaves, this is attested by an account, Livy:

LIVY, 9, 40: Equal danger, and an issue equally glorious, soon after attended the war with the Samnites; who, besides their many preparations for the field, made their army to glitter with new decorations of their armour. [2] Their troops were in two divisions, one of which had their shields embossed with gold, the other with silver. The shape of the shield was this; broad at the middle to cover the breast and shoulders, the summit being flat, sloping off gradually so as to become pointed below, that it might be wielded with ease; [3] a cuirass also served as a protection for the breast, and the left leg was covered with a greave; their helmets were adorned with plumes, to add to the appearance of their stature. [4] The golden-armed soldiers wore tunics of various colours; the silver-armed, of white linen. To the latter the right wing was assigned; the former took post on the left. [5] The Romans had been apprized of these splendid accoutrements, and had been taught by their commanders, that “a soldier ought to be rough; not decorated with gold and silver, but placing his confidence in his sword.

 

This is about the linen legion right?

[All Civilizations are my favorite.]

20 minutes ago, AIEND said:

This should be an eclectic product of the Italians influenced by Greek hoplite, because many peoples with swordsmen do not have greaves at all.

Well you can give the italians some credit.

[All Civilizations are my favorite.]

1 hour ago, AIEND said:

That's not fashion, and if you've ever used a sword and shield, you'll find that in combat your left leg is in a lunge in front and your right leg is supported in the back. In this position, the shield is more resistant to impact and your right leg is safe in the back, so you only need to protect the left calf in front with the shin guard.
In addition, it has little to do with the shape of the shield. This is mainly because the sword at this time is relatively short, the scabbard is on the right side of the body, and the sword is drawn upwards faster. You can't do this if the sword is longer than 80cm.

I'll contest your statement on the greaves thing as to my knowledge this feature was characteristic of the italian peoples.

[All Civilizations are my favorite.]

11 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

Small nitpick, but i think the sheaths are on the wrong side of the hip. They were generally worn on the opposite side of the dominant hand.

Nope they were worn on the right side because the geometry of the scutum would interfere  with the drawing of the sword. Well thats the common explanation but it could a fashion thing, like wearing the left greave only.

[Can or should 0 AD move past melee meat shield+ dps ranged?]

12 minutes ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

Greek colonists in Sicily

 

Not that. Citizens of syracuse were never, acording to ancient sources, employed as anything other than heavy infantry and cavalry. The native Sicel and siculian tribes however did.

[Can or should 0 AD move past melee meat shield+ dps ranged?]

1 hour ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

For the timeframe i think Syracusan slingers would be a better option; they were used by Rome in the Punic and Macedonian Wars.

 

Surely you mean sicilian slingers

[Can or should 0 AD move past melee meat shield+ dps ranged?]

1 hour ago, ChronA said:

 here... unless you want to build the counter around ranged cavalry, in which case what is left to counter them?

Archers of course

[Can or should 0 AD move past melee meat shield+ dps ranged?]

5 minutes ago, Outis said:

Agreed, there were cavalry formations which were combat efficient. What I want to emphasize is: most ancient armies did not operate cavalry alone to conclude engagements. They needed infantry, boots on the ground, or maybe sandals on the ground in some cases . I think the game can reflect that in such a way that most factions cannot pull it out with cavalry alone unless the enemy has a bad army composition or makes a tactical mistake.

Although historically these eastern armies were very " anoying" to fight, and in game these factions would be doubly so, not to mention that they would be a one trick  poney, see AOE 3 DE Lakota Confederation.

[Can or should 0 AD move past melee meat shield+ dps ranged?]

1 hour ago, Outis said:

And then, there were some armies which relied on particular tactics involving large number of ranged units (Han) or cavalry (maybe Scythians some day? ). 

Actually only the mainland greeks and the latter sucessor armies were cavalry deficient as we have written evidence that the greeks from magna graecia( italiotes and siceliotes) had bigger cavalry cores and these were already used in shock tactics as early as the early classical era, before the rise of the macedonian kingdom.

[Can or should 0 AD move past melee meat shield+ dps ranged?]

Range troops are already cheaper( comparing pikemen to javelineers) and they are better at collecting resources( the infantry at least) so they are already better that melee troops outside combat. Defensively ranged troops fare much better too since shoot -> garrison-> shoot allows them to poke at atackers and be way more effective than melee troops against the small number of an enemy raid /rush.

[Ratings Disputes and Offence Reporting]

@user1

The player Beathoven(1322) left our rated match without a word and exited the lobby soon after. U know the story, he gets beat up and leaves to not loose any ranking. And the bot did not count this as a win, as it happened with my previous complain.

commands.txt metadata.json

[Tips for Players Who Dislike Turtling?]

2 hours ago, Sevda said:

They are extremely vulnerable to spear cavalry rush, so you can easily kill them in early game. 

Yeah said no one ever

[Can or should 0 AD move past melee meat shield+ dps ranged?]

Just a question really.

[Ratings Disputes and Offence Reporting]

Gboss leaves the match then leaves the lobby.

metadata.jsoncommands.txt

[Cavalry stables should be removed]

I think macedon's siege proficiency started and ended with Demetrius. Because Alexander's siege efforts cannot really be put in game, ie a lot of sapping and build landills. In this light we are missing siege civs

[Cavalry stables should be removed]

The only cavalry that needs a slight nerf is jav cav

[Cavalry stables should be removed]

1 hour ago, Sevda said:

Huseyin is complaining about cavalry being too OP and the stables are helping his opponents to spam out cavalry too quickly, therefore in order to resolve this problem from the root we must first NERF cavalry units in general, then consider changes to stables.

The acceleration mechanics of A26 will be a blow to the strength of cavalry, so I believe this part of the problem will be fixed. Furthermore, we can decrease the attack value of javlin cavalry to 16, equal to their infantry counterparts. If Huseyin is discontent with spamming stables, then perhaps we can raise the stone cost to 100, identical to a that of a barrack. I cannot understand why the stables should be any cheaper than barracks or vice versa.

You heathen!!

[Cavalry stables should be removed]

11 minutes ago, huseyin said:

It's nice that the game is rich in every aspect, but chasing cavalry all day spoils the fun of the game and is a waste of time for me. Immediate inference in a game with cavalry, waste of time.

The mercenaries not working and the game turning to cavalry only wars is killing my motivation to continue playing this game. I miss the old 0AD.

Then don't chase him, get your own cav