real_tabasco_sauce

Thanks! I'll look into those.

well if the camels have to dance, that's time they can't spend killing ur women. combine some of your other units like spearmen and try and kill one. I mean there isn't a great counterplay always. Is this a 1v1 you are talking about, or a TG?

there might be some issues with the mod downloader at the moment. In the meantime, you can download it from gitea, mod.io, or right here: community-mod.zip

https://mod.io/g/0ad/m/community-mod#description you could download it from mod.io here, just be careful that the folder name in your mods folder is "community-mod" https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod/releases this version should also work just fine (0ad-community-mod-0.27.1.zip), but you might need to rename the folder to "community-mod" after unzipping.

I'm not exactly top 10 material, but I think getting loom as soon as you notice them coming is important. Loom doubles the number of arrow hits to kill, so considering they miss quite a bit, your women won't go down nearly fast. other than that, cavalry and towers.

walls weren't even really necessary in a24. Just forts and archers.

Check out the community mod. Walls are cheaper/faster to build but weaker. Weaker as in you can destroy stone walls with infantry, but it just takes a while. by making walls and palisades cheaper but weaker, they are more useful early on and less useful in the late game.

Well hopefully it will be eventually. I did some 1v1s today with it and it turned out that a bug exists. This change is reverted with version 0.27.1 because there was a bug. I'll need to troubleshoot it.

Ok, its not on the mod downloader yet, but you can download here if you want it now. Ok its on the downloader now.

Ok, we have a community mod release for a27 out now. Here are the main changes: Units no longer get "stuck" attacking low preference units, like buildings. When attacking buildings without player intention, they will check for higher preference units each time they attack. If you told them to attack a building, this does not occur. Walls and palisades can be placed on top of trees, deleting them upon completion. Also, walls and palisades are cheaper, faster building, and weaker. This is to selectively improve their utility early on, while decreasing their effectiveness when spammed all over the map. Stone walls can be destroyed in reasonable time by infantry. Buildings are more difficult to capture while empty. Base building capture point regen: 0.5 -> 5. CC capture point regen: 5 -> 20 Fort capture point regen: 10 -> 30 What this means is you will need a larger capturing advantage over the defender in order to start bringing down capture points. Buildings (except for CCs and Fortresses) are easier to destroy without siege. Hack and Pierce armor are both decreased, so ranged units will now be able to damage buildings, just not as well as melee units. For some buildings, crush armor is decreased from 3 to 2, allowing siege to break through weaker buildings more quickly. Edit: I forgot to mention that cavalry receive a 30% damage debuff vs buildings, which mirrors their existing 30% capture attack debuff. It is my understanding that something along the lines of the last paragraph was intended to come with attacking buildings by default, so we can see what gameplay effects this has. From my own testing, destroying a building is roughly as good as capturing with the same number of units, but buildings don't regen health like they do capture points, so attacking buildings would be better than capturing if there are defending units.

That would push us even further into playing "keep away" from the spearmen, which is pretty easy, but when you are forced to take a fight against spears, they will just get absolutely melted. A 5x counter might actually win with a numerical disadvantage for spearmen since they would rank up incredibly fast. edit: spears can win 25 vs 20 champ spearcav w/full techs. No, I'm thinking bigger picture speed balancing, but it will be near the bottom of my list.

1.8 m/s difference for spear cav is just about as big as the speed difference between spearmen and skirmishers. It doesn't make for much of an apparent difference because cav are generally on another planet in terms of mobility. in another rts game, speed is very carefully balanced, with small differences in movement speed making substantial differences in perceived mobility: I'm not saying we should copy this, its for juxtaposition against our situation. If spearmen and champcav in 0ad had the same disparity as pikemen and knights above, champcav would only go 12.8 m/s. I just don't think its good for the only counter to champcav to be 0.5 to 0.4 times as fast, but absolutely massacre them if they end up fighting. We can experiment in the near term with palisades, walls, and buildings soon (as well as building walls over forests).

@Seleucids with that said on fortresses, I would like to come up with some more truly unique champion units, not just your "standard" champs, and some of these could make forts their home.

Thats because they costed 80 metal, which is almost half the cost of the weaker CS swordcav unit.

You could do this just fine with the hp tech in p1, which would have more of an impact anyway. I support more targeted techs, unit specific techs, or class specific techs. In fact, I designed a suite of them a while ago for all of the unit categories (longer pikes, buttspike, heavy shot, javelin slings for example), but it wasn't popular. the speed tech pretty much just serves to widen the mobility gap between infantry and cav, especially champ cav, save for the occasional cav vs cav p1 situation. well that kind of sucks, then you just hardly ever see them. Also, what does that mean for champ melee infantry? They would be even less used.

10% is a lot actually. Caracutos (brit speed hero) is 15%. Also, speamen do not need to beat champcav in a 1:1. They currently win decisively in a 2:1 engagement (which is less spearmen than a resource-balanced fight). The issue is that a champcav player will almost never need to take a 2:1 engagement against spearmen. first you kill some vulnerable economy to buy some time and later strike with closer to a 1:1 ratio. The massive mobility gap allows that (as high as 230% between spearmen and mace champcav+hero), not so much the strength of the unit. Also, such high mobility means champ cav can always be dealing damage, while infantry must spend a lot of time simply walking. persian and seleucid champ cavs are now "cataphract" units, which are a bit more expensive, and even stronger, but slower. Has anyone else noticed their popularity slip a bit compared to gaul, mace, or roman champ cav? So I think a few options are good here: close the mobility gap a bit by removing the extremely cheap, global cav speed tech, improve the utility of palisades, walls, and buildings to constrain mobility, and if need be, bump the cav counter up a little.

A change for this alpha is that champs coming from temples and unique buildings train 25% faster. I could bump that up a bit, maybe 30 or 35%. The issue I have with training from forts is that you had a situation where forts were just an expensive barracks that you needed a lot of space to put down. In other words, they weren't used defensively. Making them come from forts doesn't change the fact that the unit itself is strong, and it would make melee infantry champs extremely unhelpful. I think specific units could be moved to forts on an individual level, but I disagree with the formulaic approach of moving all the barracks/stable champs to the fort. IMO, this tech has to go:

I've got a fairly elegant solution for this, but there is an oos when cross-playing between windows and linux. https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/6960 The video is an older, slightly bugged version, but its enough to get the idea.

yeah the hero is on the left. The cavs at the very back are champion swordcav.

This is a false dichotomy. We can and should have both these aspects of gameplay. The skill curve comes from strategy and multitasking ability, it has never been and nor should it be exclusively be one or the other. Skill curves/learning curves are important for a game's long term enjoyability. The vision also states this: This should disqualify macros and large-scale automation scripts from being compatible with the vision since these are very unintuitive. One of these automation mods has an added GUI panel and additional settings slots for configurations. Compare this to simply clicking a building and then clicking a unit.

Your interpretation is not supported by the the text you are referring to. Saying a player's superior strategy should beat another player's faster clicking (with a poorer strategy), does not mean that the vision calls for removing aspects of the game that involve many actions like training units from your buildings. To argue that macros and scripts are not cheats because they handle inputs that shouldn't exist according to this misinterpretation is a bit illogical.

it is also quite common to use one of your starting infantrymen to scout. It kind of depends on how worried you are about getting stomped by a big rush.

This is a error. They are supposed to be affected by this bonus.

I think that says more about han ministers than it says about women vs CS wood gather rates.

I think there first needs to be some change as to how the categories for the dropdown are set up. Right now one map category has to be called "Default" in order for it to be the default, which is not good. after that the procedure should be to better organize existing maps like I tried to do, and then remove truly redundant maps like Kerala. My thoughts are if there are only 10 to 20 maps per category. Things will be less overwhelming.