real_tabasco_sauce

@ffm2 we are past the string freeze, so changes to the description can't be made for R28. They can certainly be improved down the road tho.

Enemies would be good. I went with Humans to make it clear that it doesn't affect buildings or siege.

I think it looks good to include a bit of their equipment. They are not screenshots of the actor units, but they do have components from screenshots. In fact, they are so fit into the "norm" that they are long lost cousins of other heroes! The fact of the matter is nothing gets done unless someone does it. I am no artist and I don't think we should wait years for artists to deliver stunning portraits just for the GUI.

But what about the German heroes is inconsistent with the norm? you didn’t answer my question.

My disagreement stems from that I forgot to add "Hero"; someone might notice the departure from the norm, as with the Han counterparts, Cleopatra, or those since Alpha 24. Still awaiting a volunteer for Candragupta... How are the German hero portraits a departure from the norm?

Metal availability varies a lot by map. Metal is gathered more slowly, but if you want it, you can put as many gatherers as you want on it. If it is a metal-scarce map, then maybe reconsider using mercenaries. In a25, we rolled out a version of mercenaries where their metal costs were lower because metal was thought to be more "valuable" than the other resources and it was a nightmare for balance.

The idea behind mercenaries is that they are cheaper in total resources, but you have to pursue a lot of metal to make them. They are also quickly trained and are more effective than their CS counterparts. So you just have to prioritize metal in your build if you want to use those units.

No, same reason as @ffm2, and no entity get spawned. Just test it lol. I tested it on my own builds when developing obviously and nothing was wrong. Something must have gone wrong since then. I haven't downloaded the build since i've been very busy. K i can disable those in order to prevent weirdness/unforeseen bugs.

is that because of points 2 and 3? Or a different reason? Not sure how that happened, its not supposed to be like that. That is intentional, as the tech turns them into 5 pop houses.

If you look at the actor for the encampment, it is an example of how you can use props to let an actor conform to the terrain.

@nifa I like the direction with the wonder. If the ship settings were supposed to be a monument or memorial, then perhaps we can imagine some decor that would be fitting. We may not even need the ship inside as the rocks were arranged in the shape of a ship.

Incredible I love it!

Changing unit speeds and giving units more specialized roles. This is made quite difficult by citizen soldiers, and by unit availability by civ, but i believe it is possible.

try using your women if you don't want to use any soldiers to destroy the ram. They destroy rams pretty quickly.

I don't think rams are OP. Once players figure out that swords and melee destroy them, they are pretty harmless. Right now because of the strength of capturing, you oftentimes don't need siege at all. I don't see the point of requiring them to be garrisoned to move, as one could argue the 3 population cost is three dudes that come "pre-installed" inside the ram to push it.

In 0ad, units can attack enemy foundations which prevents them from being built. This tends to limit the use of buildings. We could also let foundation damage impact the HP of the complete building instead of affecting construction time (as in AOE2), or increase the durability of foundations for a more hybrid approach (more difficult to deny buildings, but not impossible). thoughts?

I suppose the way to do it would be to set origin, then destination, and then use shift+click to "add" destinations in order, similar to queueing orders for normal units.

For a27 you can only get it by building the game. However, this is being worked on for release 28: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8404

Yeah, I think this would be cool.

IMO its a bit obscure for a tooltip @guerringuerrin

so basically there's less unit pushing when they are technically in a formation, so they spend less time bumping into each other when gathering.

yeah I think some simplification is needed for the nomadic part.

Yes that’s right @Atrik. Although both those cataphracts also access the tech I nerfed by about 50%. so through that tech they get another nerf. i think it will be interesting to see how speed vs hp nerfs play out. But ultimately we just need to get some nerf out there.

I don't think so. I think other mercenaries have their appeal, especially with the unique qualities of the iber mercs. I think it will for late game mercenaries. The inspiration is historical, with Gauls at times making up large portions of the Carthage army in Europe due to allegiance. It was @borg-'s idea so I am paraphrasing from him.

The tech to lower Gaul mercenary cost is intended to provide a means for more sustainable merc production. You pay plenty of resources up front for long term savings. Buffing the trade bonus doesn’t make sense because trade itself is not balanced for usual games. Buffing the trade bonus for carth means it will be very OP after any buffs to trade in general or when playing a map where trade is good. the stone bonus is because of the amount of non-unit stone that the civ spends (temples, walls, big houses, etc). Historically, I’m sure it took plenty of stone to build Carthage so I don’t think its a problem historically.