real_tabasco_sauce

Well, you are using gaul champcav, which have 10% more damage than regular champcav. Also, regular CS spearmen benefit from ranking up, so involving more units would give a more realistic picture of the situation. Lastly, you should keep in mind that champ cav cost more than 3x the resources of spearmen, so it is justified that they should survive a 1 to 1 match with spearmen. Its a resource counter, but obviously there's more to the situation since we have citizen soldiers. A good player can avoid spearmen extremely well, and in that case, you still have half your economy chasing cavalry while your enemy can have 100+ units on eco. Someone with champ cav and skirm cav can almost always choose their fights, so if there are too many spearmen coming, they go to something weaker. So I think the mobility factor is heavily underrated.

Its typically off-meta in most games. 10% is pretty expected to me.

Gitea

its a typo. You can see that a27 techs are in there.

! This is really nice data here. Its still shocking how much ppl skip loom.

Coast Range and Migration are the two new ones. They are not fully naval, but hybrid maps.

random maps are also handcrafted. Just programmatically.

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7104 You can read up about it here. Basically, it focuses on economic flexibility (wagons and wagon encampments), infantry mobility, and crush-dealing units in each phase.

I haven’t noticed it happen yet.

I think being able to control what your ships attack has been a pretty nice improvement. this was worse in the old system for sure.

Garrison effects are pretty problematic for ships. Previously, ships subscribed to the "bigger = better" model, and 1) having a ton of ships and 2) garrisoning ships was the way to dominate the seas. But this takes an absurd amount of population, so very few players wanted to play like this as there is usually land to fight over. With garrisons affecting the strength of ships, you often could not tell how strong an enemy ship was until after it sank your ship with your handful of soldiers inside. On improvements we can make, I think moving scout ships to p1 would be good. I initially was against it, but I think its the right move. They might need to be weakened a little bit. What cost changes would be good? I heard that ships are a bit weak to land units, so we could bring up pierce armor. I don't think the techs are very complicated, but if players don't get a lot of the techs and don't get value out of the techs compared to just making additional ships, they should be streamlined.

Sorry I missed this. A "garrison" refers to a host of troops stationed at an outpost or defensive location. So the idea is you paid for some soldiers to be stationed at the fortress, which is why you get additional default arrows.

@ffm2 nice data you have here! Are these the most played civ for players that belong to the 600? Using military score by 13 minutes could highlight which civs are preferred for aggressive gameplay.

In my opinion, the Han are not put together very well. It seems like a bunch of separate and distinct mechanics that do not fit together well. I think Kush had this problem before, but its better now.

You can also withstand getting berries or hunt denied since their farms are cheaper and faster to build.

you could have the p3 tech give promotion points to just whatever class the p2 ram belongs to, as long as its unique. So the same promotion approach used by silver shields and the roman reforms. If the p2 ram is not unique, you could make a unique phase up tech like what is done for athens and persians for the promotion approach.

Ive noticed before that if you have opened the structure tree before in the same game, opening it with this method puts you back to where you left off, not on the civ you clicked. Did you look at the structure tree before this? I've also noticed sometimes that some fraction of selected units don't show health bars. I'll screenshot next time I see it and make a report.

a better civ bonus for carth could be good. Maybe something stone-focused to help with the cost of apartments, temples, and the more expensive stone walls. mm I think the infantry merc train time is pretty substantial, but its true that it really only helps merc civs.

A commit before a27 made it so that champs trained from non-barracks buildings train 25% faster. I think it has helped justify making things like fanatics and spartiates, but not so much for carthage champs.

and whats ur OS?

@TheCJ is gui sim update very similar to sim update? At 200MS? For me GUI sim update doesn't approach even 1/10th of sim update. Can @Seleucids and others also make this comparison?

My understanding is that the f11 profiler uses some averaging, like a sliding window average. For me, hash checks in the f11 profile that get as high as 15 or so MS correspond to profiler2 peaks (gaps in a non-visual replay) as big as 130 -150 MS. Ok this is interesting. You are also on linux right? The bots add in some lag. What you can do to test is do alt+d, opening the developer overlay, and then check "change perspective" this allows you to do "gift from the gods" for each player and then set up some auto queues into the middle to make a large, enduring battle.

I like this, with all the melee mercs and champs, the ranged cav gets very overlooked. I set it up so they train from the temple for civ differentiation purposes. They were originally trained from the temple. While you can get them faster since temples may be built in p2, there doesn't seem to be much benefit at all to doing this. Perhaps some way to make building temples less taxing economically would be good. I notice they take a very long time to build.

I think it’s that the generic name is still siege catapult.

@guerringuerrin and I tested that a few days ago and it’s an improvement but not nearly as noticeable as quick hash only.