real_tabasco_sauce

ok, if we did a "ram attack," one could make ram damage proportional (by some function to balance) to the speed of the ship. I think it would also have to be in the form of an technology for some mediterranean civs (which imparts an added metal cost). I think it should also only be possible for certain ship classes, perhaps only triremes, ie ships of the "heavy" class for the following reasons. 1) biremes would probably be too light to ram well, 2)siege ships are too valuable to use this way, 3) most importantly, players need to be able to anticipate what ships can ram them. Unfortunately, that probably means the ships that have access to rams would need a version of the model with a visible ram. <- maybe its not worth it, idk.

yes, I think a naval overhaul in general should be in the works for a27, probably starting with some ship classes instead of just bigger = better. Ideally naval combat should be more diverse (different ships with different qualities), easier to handle like @Philip the Swaggerless said. light, heavy, siege, transport, special where special includes the fireship and maybe the ptol juggernaut. from there we could balance things, add a couple new "special" ships, and maybe implement some ship mechanics of interest.

This could be good, but I think we should avoid adding too many UI buttons/mass action hotkeys. For example, there was also a discussion for some button to garrison all barracks evenly. There is a pretty simple way to do this with the alt or option hotkey, ordering one unit at a time out of a selection to do something. So select 30 or so units, hold option/alt and click each boat that should be garrisoned until no more units are in the selection. (similar to sniping method). I think would it be ideal to decrease the garrison space of fighting boats to 10-20 depending on the ship, and add a dedicated transport ship. This way you would only need to garrison a few units for effective ship battles

oh, also, what are your thoughts on the contribution of the cavalry health and cavalry speed upgrades. In my eyes these are basically blanket buffs to cavalry as a whole. (I already am working on a much better replacement anyway)

yes, I also find that it takes painfully long to get infantry armies where they need to be. Ok, I could start to put these ideas into a branch, which could be a merge request for later.

settings -> options -> session -> deselect minimap icons

IMO, better to have that tanking power be the less damage-dealing unit, hence the original suggestion. Anyway, I guess @chrstgtr is right, we need some nerf to cavalry in general, and there is no better way to experiment than with a mod. So, cavalry have 4 advantages (mobility, damage, armor (generally), and HP) to infantry and 1 setback: not being able to gather resources. From a principle standpoint, I think the main advantage to cavalry should be their mobility, with any HP and armor stats being secondary. Their mobility is already very strong when used to its full potential (skilled player) and in my opinion, this is almost enough to justify their inability to gather. if we want a wholesale cav nerf, making damage equal to their infantry counterparts is a start. Changing armor would effect their balance with infantry and should probably be avoided. Mobility is what makes cavalry cavalry, so ideally this should stay the same (although i would support making infantry a tiny bit faster). So I think damage and health are what should be lowered, who agrees with this? now, we could make all cav do the same damage as their infantry counterparts, which could be a good start. Perhaps we would then want to give a "mounted vantage point" damage increase of 10% to melee cav, but not ranged cav. As for health, currently they are hard-coded to 100 for ranged cav and 160 for melee cav. How about instead, we give cavalry in general a 30 hp "mount bonus" compared to infantry such that ranged cav is 80 and melee cav is 130. From there, we could then balance as needed (like how I suggested with the +1 armor for spearcav, -1 armor for swordcav) how does this strategy sound?

4 hack 3 pierce -> 4 hack 4 pierce armor for spear cav 3 hack 4 pierce -> 3 hack 3 pierce armor for sword cav.

looking towards additional balance changes after the current voted ones are added to 26.3, any thoughts on sword cavalry -1 pierce armor and spear cavalry +1 pierce armor? I have heard players are calling for another spear cav buff and also that the swordcav rush is a little strong. The reasoning would be since spear cav does less damage, it should be slightly more tanky, not just a counter to sword cav. On the flip side, since swordcav do so much more damage, you should be able to kill them more easily. Importantly, this should make defending the han swordcav rush easier without moving the unit to p2.

CCs and colonies have smaller territory increase in p2 and p3, but they are cheaper

I know, first they pick apart my use of "democracy" with no care about changing the term to "socratic scholarship", then they pick apart the gameplay effect as if they are experts of multiplayer. It's not fair , i'm just trying to help add content. If it is bad we can always change it later. In any case, those users are probably outvoted by a mile. I do thank those of you that actually gave suggestions, they will likely be used to adjust/rearrange stats as necessary.

in this case, it remains useless. Even in water maps with ships, you could only save something like 100 to 400 wood/metal.

Perhaps the athenian one is too powerful, I don't know yet. In that case we will modify it as needed in future releases. Team bonuses should be just powerful enough to make a difference. We see this with ptol, rome, iberians, especially, and to a lesser extent, seleucids and kushites. I will give you an example: the briton's cheaper healers is basically unknown to players in multiplayer, because it has 0 effect on gameplay. Like @BreakfastBurrito_007 says, it is not "actionable." we should avoid these.

yes but this team bonus has 0 impact on land games and basically 0 impact on water maps. The impact of the team bonus I proposed is far more impactful and interesting. Can you come up with another name for the team bonus proposed? I came up with one before, but you still think nothing of it. The name is pretty much trivial, what matters is the impact to gameplay.

seems pretty cool

Propose an alternative then. I went to the effort to try and find a bonus that players would find exciting and with enough historical historical plausibility that would explain its significant effect on gameplay, and all you two can do is shoot it down on it not being historically accurate enough. I can't believe the historical debate has yet again ballooned so much. You two need to let up. It is a videogame, not a historical nonfiction. Please propose another alternative (I already did and @AIEND and @LetswaveaBook don't seem to notice, perhaps because they are busy hating on my idea).

? Nobody is praising Athenian democracy, we are only using it as a plausible justification for a team bonus. Why are you so insistent? have you looked at other team bonuses, they aren't exactly real life simulation. That being said, democracy allowed normal citizens to access power that would normally only be for nobility (ex. Themistocles). One could say that democratically elected leaders will generally be better suited to lead their people. In addition, ideas are readily exportable, so it's not inconceivable that athenian democracy could effect other systems of leadership. Is that good enough? again: would you rather it was called "socratic scholarship?"

now I am really confused. What is wrong with the team bonus?

what do you mean cherry picking? how is Athen's bonus not fitting? It is Justified and historically plausible. Honestly, it is no less fitting as a team bonus than its successor (which was ships -10% train time, unsure how this would effect other civs IRL). Do I have to mathematically calculate a percentage from the effect(s) democracy had on athenian research efforts? Such efforts of historical simulation are really kind of silly when my skirmishers can walk in 1 minute from the British isles to China. if you dislike that it is the term "democracy" then why oppose the team bonus merge request as a whole? instead, just suggest calling it "Socratic scholarship" or something. Sorry if I seem offended, but it makes just no sense to dislike the whole patch on a single (personal) historical concern.

Well, admittedly I don't know how much impact athenian democracy really had. It is beneficial in theory to policymaking and development (technologies), and it is conceivable as a team bonus.

Ok that is fair, honestly I wouldn't say iphicrates is all that OP currently. His strength certainly comes at some limitations like you said. So as far as the vote goes, that merge request seems fairly conflicted, with plenty of outright disagreement, and plenty of 'skip/no option' which is likely partial disagreement.

So far, I'm seeing that we should probably not add the rams and the iphicrates/ptol nerf. I'm thinking we should still wait a while longer so more can vote. Is sentiment around the second one that the ptol hero should not be nerfed, but that iphicrates could use a nerf? Maybe the appropriate change then is to instead merge just the iphicrates portion.

yes, they are already glass lol, just not yet a cannon.

Classic Macintosh move

I think Han will need a couple nerfs in other areas. The farms are not what makes the civ strong.