real_tabasco_sauce

there's not one right now @diagonalo as I've been very busy. I'd like to make a release, but I can't guarantee when.

yep, the fact that map size and playable area so strongly affects cavalry balance is good evidence that their speed is too great a share of their balancing. I think it would be good to bring them closer to infantry units and differentiate their roles (as opposed to just being faster, better infantry for the most part). This is made much more difficult by the fact that CS infantry are economic assets while CS cavalry are not, but improvements are still possible.

this is because they have extremely high population efficiency, and their speed makes them hugely survivable. when combined with the HP nerf, they essentially have the same resistance. When you factor in the change to nissean war horses, its a net reduction in resistance actually.

imo cav generally is too fast but people are probably not ready for that discussion XD. I think catas being OP must be the Ambush map speaking.

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.

it wasn't play tested enough and there was lots of mixed opinions on it.

they seem good to me!

Renaming the civ is fine, just be sure to really hunt down every last “pers”. I see some discussion again of coalitions, or the idea of selecting specifications with each phase, but I maintain the position that these are awkward for gameplay. Myself and others have a lot of comments on this in the “coalitions” discussion @Genava55 linked.

As an alternative, perhaps we could add a capture defense boost (technically a capture attack addition or a multiplier) for specific buildings, like the CC and fort. Also, we could change the default hero contribution to capture point regeneration (currently +1, which is negligible).

I was referring to the fortress. I agree that more points would be good. On the last point, I don't recommend adding an additional point of complication to a mechanic that is already complicated, as you mention in your OP. I agree with the other stuff, especially the need to nerf the high volume capturing scenario and not the small volume. To clear up some confusion about the nerfs that I introduced ahead of R28: by increasing the default regen rate, we essentially increase the number of units needed to achieve the "high volume" capturing scenario. At the same time, you are punished less for having an empty CC, giving you time to garrison it. I don't say that its perfect, but its better now, and in my games I see people go for siege more often.

This was already the case, adding regen rate just shifts the curve rightward. Also, I don't get how adding 1000 points would help that much in the cases you bring up. 5 seconds to maybe 5.5 or 6 seconds?

totally, there needs to be some pushing. Or just remove the option that stops formations from being disbanded as it is pretty much only useful for the exploit.

i thought there was an issue already but I am not finding it.

That is probably beyond my time/abilities but I know it has been discussed. I think it would be a great opportunity to enrich gameplay (multi-projectile siege, unique units, ships perhaps).

currently food resources all have the same carry capacity.