[Loot when destroying a building in Construction-Phase]

If you destroyed it half way, logically you should get 50% of the complete building loot value

[Add Roads to 0AD]

1 hour ago, Stan` said:

For the record https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/26269

So terrain is just cosmetic, apart from elevation affecting range?

[Add Roads to 0AD]

9 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The road boost/off road penalty needs to be substantial for the player to feel the need to micro this.

The bonus should be substantial for wheeled units ie siege and some traders, or rather, the penalty for going off road should be severe

[My and my buddies love the game, just 1 thing sours us on it.]

Rams should be not more than 50% of the walk speed of infantry, siege towers even slower

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

5 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

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.

So their protection against ranged weapons is too high. The protection against held pierce or hack should be good.

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

6 hours ago, AIEND said:

The problem is that the pikeman's high armor is unreasonable. This problem has existed for a long time and needs to be solved, whether or not arson is added.

Why is it a problem? It is historically correct. The real world penalties were cost, training time and that they were slow, vulnerable to attack from behind

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

10 hours ago, AIEND said:

I mean, in most RTS, the battering ram is a relatively basic unit, not very high in attack and HP.
But 0AD, rams are put in the later stage (I always wonder why P2 did not siege), the cost is very high, and it looks like a high-tech weapon.
Excessive technical requirements and costs result in the battering ram having to be strengthened in terms of data, otherwise it will become an expensive and fragile waste product.

The catapult or trebuchet were much more expensive and hi-tech weapons

The downside of the ram was having to go up to the target, so it needed serious infantry support to survive very long.

The 0AD model of a few unmanned rams quickly flattening a fully manned fortress is so wrong. (or unsupported elephants same argument)

The catapult mainly damaged with fire

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

33 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I would like to slow down the battering rams.Very strong, no hard counter, only sword cavalry.

Which makes no sense at all, they should be easily broken by infantry and need infantry protection to survive

[Slingers defeat javs in an even and controlled head-to-head battle. Why?]

Slingers should cost more as training time is higher.

Back in the real world slingers can carry far more ammunition

[Exponential Rise in Building Cost]

The way that the AI plays large numbers of traders to generate a high flow of resources, when the map has been mined out, encourages this massing

[Iberian champion cavalry]

Why do cavalry have such high pierce armour? Foot soldiers, especially Roman, had large and effective shields. Nobody had cavalry with good anti-pierce armour until plate armoured knights in the Middle Ages

[Maurays are too weak and Spartans are too strong against Maurays]

It seems to me that which is the best faction is a rock paper scissors choice and the map comes into it a lot too. The AI thrashes me on the high resource maps as it is simply better as gathering than a human. Very limited resources like Northern Island is much easier to win

[Maurays are too weak and Spartans are too strong against Maurays]

On 19/11/2021 at 2:03 AM, UltraMan said:

Also I played 2v2 match today. made bunch of champion chariots. They so useless. They die very quickly to normal infantry javs

Chariots were already obsolete tech at 0AD, they belong to a time when horses were too small to carry an armoured man and they had not invented stirrups

[Maurays are too weak and Spartans are too strong against Maurays]

I have found the Spartans are hammered by Gaul cavalry

[Effect of Terrain on Defense/Attack Capabilities?]

On 09/11/2021 at 1:07 AM, Dakara said:

range effect is not enough?

Range bonus is only really useful for towers and fortresses. Archers etc usually just attack the nearest units, so their range advantage gets wasted.

[Effect of Terrain on Defense/Attack Capabilities?]

On 09/11/2021 at 12:48 AM, Freagarach said:

Currently (as long as I have to finish https://code.wildfiregames.com/D781) there is only a range bonus.

I like this, choosing your ground is important and it makes the map more than just eye candy. So many real battles were decided by terrain

[Mercenary cavalry: The Macedonian case.]

Why do sword cavalry have such high health? Cavalry is all about mobility and a strong attack. Its weakness should be cost and low health - there are limits how much armour that you can put on a horse and it makes a big target.

[DUNE]

In the book, it was explained that thousands of years before, what we would now call AI had reached a point that there was a revolt against it and the banning of intelligent computers, the Butlerian Jihad https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad

[Temple Healing is Fast]

2 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:

I think temples are fine. The real problem are the healers which heal much too fast and have far too much durability.

Do they heal each other if you have several together? I could see how a large number of healers could become almost invulnerable

[Temple Healing is Fast]

OK, not instant, but very fast

[Temple Healing is Fast]

Why is it that when I move injured troops onto a temple in a25, that they are fully healed instantly?

I have developed a very efficient strategy with the Spartans, get 40 commandos as strong as I can and just fight near my temple. Move 20 inside,  the other 20 fighting then swap.

They can wipe out much stronger attackers

[DUNE]

Anyone who did not know the book would be puzzled by the shields and why guns and especially lasers could not be used.

The lack of computers was also not explained.

[ability for units to build bridges spanning water]

You should only be able to build bridges in shallow water. Replacing the shallow water pixels with bridge pixels should make the terrain equivalent to dry land.

You really want shallow water to be treated differently to land, slower for people and impassable to siege

[0ad can provide about half a year of entertainment but after that its over]

Add some weather so that on a windy day the archers cannot hit a barn door, another day they wipe out the melee.

[Suggestion: Unit buffs / debuffs based on territory]

I always was told that an attacker needed to have about 3x the strength of the defender to be confident of winning. Defence naturally gives advantages. A25 does not feel like this at all.