real_tabasco_sauce

I agree. I still think some siege related team bonus is appropriate but this can be for A27, alongside other team bonus adjustments perhaps.

Its a tricky tradeoff

0ad_enemy_scoutingsound.mp3

Here's a perfect sound: counter-strike-jingle-cs-radio-enemy-spotted.mp3 In seriousness, maybe a single trumpet note or something?

Ok, thank you @Freagarach!

I would be happy to test it but I cannot make that time. Do you know if another testing bundle will be available like the December one? Usually more balance issues are found over several 4v4 TGs.

Looks fun! How would the teams be arranged on this map? I would hate to be sandwiched in the middle down there.

the walls are not OP. I don't see why the game should be changed because you made a mistake. Now you know to keep control of ur army. I think if a change had to be made, it would be allowing units that invaded the gate able to leave even if its locked (you could just unlock them). But this would require giving gates a direction, which IMO overcomplicates walls.

the map size and number of fauna (see minimap) also might be contributing to @Abuz's problem.

I think they should also work kinda like ele archers in the video @Freagarach shared:

yes, heroes are part of the balancing strategy, and my point is that there are places where this falls apart (ptol being OP and having arguably 3 of the best 10 heroes in the game). I agree it may be appropriate to have some civs with less powerful heroes, but the heroes with no aura should still do something. Ex: Sparta already have 2 great heroes, so no need to make Agis similarly strong. (although the spartan heroes are very important for the civ, along with skiri and the spear bonus)

My apologies, I was not clear. I should have said that their relative strengths should at least be comparable. I certainly don't think the heroes should be identical, in fact quite the opposite. Creative hero auras make the late game more interesting.

its true, not an entire waste of resources, but the heros should be fairly comparable across civs.

+++++ yes I agree. we need to develop a concrete list of the heroes that should be given a new effect (either because they don't have one or because their bonus is worthless).

to delay the ability to spam champs to a little later in the game. This way early p3 attacks have a little more time to stop someone booming longer for champs. Maybe instead of cost, increase the time to unlock idk. The price really isn't as important as the time IMO. Also makes champs that train from the fort a little more relevant, if you just need a few.

yes keep fort stats the same for sure

I think we should keep the ptol house bonus, but I agree this civ is pretty op. In particular, having 3 really strong heroes is kinda nuts meanwhile athens has one okay hero and two wastes of resources.

For all civs: 1. barracks and stables train champs: perhaps increase cost of champ unlock? or make it cheaper and required for each barracks as @BreakfastBurrito_007 said. 2. For civs without dedicated champ buildings, champs train from the fort with no need to unlock. Allowing to train from the fort is great because sometimes u just need 3 -5 sword champs to stop a ram spam attack. I don't think forts are OP, just annoying. Its almost always best to attack something else if you can.

it would be awesome if there was some means of limiting ranged attacks through stone walls tbh. although that would be really complicated and controversial.

emphasizing defense is fine and all but why on earth do people want turtling to be a viable strategy? I think currently, a successful defense is maybe just a little too hard to pull off, but that it is still very rewarding to quickly counterattack. A24 was a defensive alpha and I think most people agree it was sub-optimal. As for the fort training champs situation, i like @chrstgtr's solution with forts and barracks training champs, but with the tech needed for barracks.

yes, and also if you compare military score to res spent, this gives an idea of their skills (micro, unit composition, etc) ^this could also help show if some units are too OP for their cost.

I could probably make a diff for this, or at leat part of it. IDK about any GUI stuff, but changing the calculations looks pretty easy. My question is would anyone be interested?

oh thats my mistake, i didn't realize there already was one.

@LetswaveaBook's mod showed us a few things about balancing, in particular across civs. One thing that I thought was great from this mod was allowing persians to train both spear and skrim cav during p1. Currently pers are basically only good in the very late game, and if you want to do a p2 archercav rush. I think it would reaffirm pers as a cavalry civ and a good/decent rushing civ. It would also bring more benefit to the stables which used to be persia's unique building. Thoughts?

this is also with greater range than briton champ chariots and firecav. So Omega OP. Three unique upgrades that apply to crossbows both CS and champs seems like an impossible balancing situation to be honest. Either: 1. you balance for the upgraded state and the units are only good after you get all those upgrades or 2. you balance for the unupgraded state as above and have godlike champs for the late-late game that nobody can beat. balancing between 1 and 2 would be ok i guess, but i think these unique upgrades would work better as tradeoffs of sorts. (increasing cost, or movement speed, or accuracy as examples)