real_tabasco_sauce

yeah mods change js components and easily modifiable things like damage values and other properties. Core engine components need to be compiled (c++ files) or depend on things that need to be compiled and therefore cannot be applied as a mod. Once added to the main game, we could, however, modify the weight values and other things @Atrik has set up in the unit templates. And that could be nice to test adjustments in the community mod.

I'm pretty sure it is from the main community mod discussion. There are plenty of differences since I didn't think it was necessary to use the same amount of detail.

yes, but this is already the case with elephants. IMO the target should be to keep their maneuverability through buildings and other immovable obstacles as close to current as possible.

not sure if it is finished or ready, but it might be a good idea to implement some way for animations to play depending on motion at the time of death.

if you have a handle on if a unit dies while experiencing force (ie elephant strike or siege weapon), I wonder if one of @Alexandermb's new infantry death animations could be used. There is one where the unit gets knocked backwards off its feet, could be very cinematic.

I am aware that these are mutually exclusive to a degree. I am just saying elephants and ships are already very clumsy as is. On the ship side, there have been discussions to scale down ships for a while which would help. For elephants, we have the upside of improved pathing through own and enemy units, which is sick, but problems are clear when handling forests and buildings. Unless I am mistaken, it seems like these 3 points are less "mission critical" to the elephant attack and charge effects.

Is minimizing overlap important for the momentum/pushing? I think much like for ships, we will have to allow an amount of overlaps for the sake of pathfinding. Otherwise, you might get results that look good on paper but that can end up quite frustrating in practice.

Our first Release 28 community mod is up on the 0ad mod downloader. you can also get it straight from the 0ad community mod gitea page (https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod) With this version, the goal was to tackle some relatively simple balance changes, some of which have been in high demand. Fanatics HP, hack damage, and hack armor reduced. Persian immortal HP reduced (both melee and ranged), ranged version damage and accuracy were reduced. Heroes may no longer be used to "bait" enemy units, as Heroes are removed from the preferred target class for all units. Champion cavalry and ranged champion cavalry HP reduced from 260->220 and from 220->200, but wood and metal prices were reduced. This, combined with speed reduction is intended to bring their population efficiency closer to infantry champions. Cavalry speed was reduced by 15%. Scout ship counter damage vs ships reduced from 3x to 2.5x, range reduced, and price increased from 50f 50w to 50f 100w. Foundation pierce armor increased from 10 to 20. (Foundations take 66% less damage from pierce attacks). Capture balance: Civic center capture points increased from 2500 to 3500. Fortress increased from 4000 to 8000. "Sentries" tower upgrade now also increases tower capture points by 50%. "Professional garrisons" fortress upgrade now also doubles fortress capture points. Scipio's Capture attack aura removed. See https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8892 for more. Germans buffs: Champion axeman unit metal cost reduced from 100 to 80. Seeress damage aura range increased from 15 to 20. Seeress armor increased from 2->3 hack armor and 4->6 pierce armor they remain unaffected by blacksmith techs. Wagon encampment price reduced from 350w, 150s to 275w, 100s. Feel free to see the full changelog in game thanks to @guerringuerrin. As always, please give us some feedback about how these balance changes go.

I suppose if you treat it as additional storage capacity (not for fighting, but capable of fighting, so no buffs), it could work out ok. But even still, it would complicate any attempts to scale down ship models to improve ship pathing.

I agree with you that turreting units on boats is cool, but I think once the novelty wears off, this won't bring much enhancement to multiplayer. First of all, in the PR, the range of garrisoned units is doubled, which would result in 140m range archers when combined with archery tradition. So by needing to make turreted units stronger to make a difference on water, you risk adding balance exploits when the ships are brought near land. also, a major complaint of prior navy gameplay was the need to garrison soldiers for ship effectiveness. Needing to garrison much of your total population space on ships to properly fight on water meant a constant labor of garrisoning and ungarrisoning ships to switch between fighting on land vs. sea. Also the current naval design splits ships into classes with distinct roles. By making a ram ship capable of ranged attacks, the arrow ship would be somewhat redundant. My opinion is that the proposal is better off as a standalone mod.

The units are already more expensive than their infantry counterparts, just much better. Both champion and CS cav take a while to mass up, but their pop efficiency is very strong. Making them cost more will just delay things somewhat. I would prefer to nerf the unit itself (i.e. speed).

yeah I can do it np

I think it is pretty nice! and you can presumably share custom hotkey setups as a .txt file. I think it is useful, and simple enough that it fits with the existing intrastructure.

I really do not suggest applying this idea. Modifying unit speed according to their health just implements a huge amount of gameplay inconsistency. It is important that units respond to commands and behave as expected. I suppose there could be niche scenarios in mods where the ability to do this could be useful, or possibly for new unique units, but you have to ask yourself what benefit to gameplay this will realistically bring. To me, the idea is just not well motivated, it seems like throwing in some inconsistency for no reason at all. On the realism argument, I have said this before, but making specific aspects so realistic while leaving other aspects of the game very unrealistic sends mixed signals about what kind of game this is. I think we would be better off just changing those units' base stats to begin with.

I was in a game where it was used quite recently. I think its just that people prefer the comfort of knowing their position to come up with strategies before the game starts. I like it both ways.