real_tabasco_sauce

I would say with 26 votes we could probably call it. Anyone disagree? Looks to me like 1,2,3,4,8, and 10 certainly have enough support, but i'm not sure about 7. Neither cavalry change was supported, we can redesign something for cavalry later as @chrstgtr said. #7 (crush rebalance and hack attack for clubs) is one vote ahead for yes and its actually a fairly minimal change, the main thing is increasing macemen's general effectiveness for fighting. Less crush armor also means catapults will 1 hit more units, which I see as a positive. Does anyone think 7 shouldn't be added even though there are more yes votes? edit: nevermind, I guess the votes keep coming. When should we call it?

so far so good, I haven't found anything broken.

Ok, @LetswaveaBook I fixed the issue you mentioned and updated the tooltips. Maybe after we test these in the next version, we could just allow them to affect all units. It might be too confusing to have them remain non-mercenary upgrades. It would be quite infrequent anyway that the upgrades also effect mercenaries, because there are few redundant mercenaries. One example would be the sacred band cavalry and spearcav mercenaries from the italian embassy for carthage. Im going to go ahead and test all the merge requests together, looks like we have almost enough votes to decide.

Thanks for finding that mistake. I can fix that later today. As for the mercenary part, most civs coincidentally don't have upgrades for their mercenaries because mercenaries are most often unit types that the civ doesn't already have. Since there are exceptions, and also for consistency, I will just say "Non-mercenary soldiers". How does that sound?

Its a good idea, but there is one thing that should be talked about here: In other RTS games, using macros is considered cheating. That being said, if it is implemented into the game, it's definitely not cheating. The question is then are the repeated actions that these macros take care of an important part of the skill gap in 0ad? Are they important for player experience? I would personally say most of them are important, save for very basic things like autoqueue (which can be thought of as a macro no?) So my thoughts are that this might be good as a mod, but not as an addition to the main game.

Haha you're right, I am all too familiar since I am allergic to many things. The point remains tho, that the whole system brings more benefit than individual components may bring harm.

this is just opportunity cost. This is actually a benefit.

They are not available all to one civ. Each civ has a small selection of them depending on their unit roster. The upgrades are much more situational than the forge techs, because they are not just damage and armor. Also, they are researched in the barracks and stable because they apply to units trained there.

Try the burger, if you don't like pickles just take them off, burger is still good no? Idk, I just most players voting no are just afraid of change. The main thing is the mod has much higher turnaround than an alpha release, so we should try new things.

Yes, but these were OP due to their inherent stats, not due to upgrades. in a24, all units were slower so there was no way to escape the range of archers. Also, you should consider that other units (spear cav, slingers, skirms, pikemen, spearmen etc ) also get as powerful if not more powerful upgrades. This is what I mean when I say u should consider the whole system, not just one or 2 upgrades.

each unit gets their own tree. All the upgrades play a role in unit (and civ) differentiation. It doesn't make sense to overlook an upgrade for a unit type, that would be inconsistent. I think you are still assuming a lot. For instance, the javelin cavalry upgrade is not available in p1, where prepare time and accuracy would be the most problematic. Also, civs that already have strong jav cav for some other reason do not recieve this upgrade. See? Very easily modified as needed. The objective part is the content added, not balance because we can't predict the future meta (at least very easily). Its like rejecting the entire hamburger just because you don't like pickles.

Maybe it's exaggerating to call it an arms race, but these upgrades would just improve on the diversity of gameplay options. Thats a positive. ... No, it's definitely a system. It is commonly referred to as a tech tree. This is no grand overhaul. It's just content. Maybe I am doing a bad job of explaining this. Why would you rather throw the entire proposal out the window than allow the possibility of 1 or 2 (slightly more) OP units in an experimental mod?

also, keep in mind that these upgrades replace the rather boring cavalry_health and cavalry_speed upgrades. These upgrades currently serve as a blanket buff for all cavalry at a very low price. You are drawing too many assumptions on individual technologies instead of looking at the system as a whole.

not all 23 technologies are active at the same time. Each civ gets 4 to 8 of them. Sure, some particular upgrades may be imbalanced for particular situations. I get that. But why would you rather miss out on all of this content on the grounds that some things may be imbalanced? Remember this is an experimental mod. These techs are extremely easy to adjust, so in other words the "specific things" you find concerning could be fixed effortlessly if they pose a problem. I also don't understand what is complicated too: its literally just a tech tree for each unit type. Of course it's going to seem complicated at first, as is everything the first time you see it. I disagree here, all the patch does is add content. Balance is a secondary objective. I have simply designed them to avoid being OP as best I can. currently, military upgrades are basically an arms race, with very little strategy involved. Unique upgrades like 'archery tradition' and 'hoplite tradition' are the exception, and the improvement to gameplay these techs bring inspired me to make a larger group of techs. The strategic aspect these upgrades add to the mod outweighs the risks (some things could be OP).

Just curious: what are some reasons to vote against number 3, unit specific upgrades? I would have expected more popularity due to the amount of content included.

I see, yeah 5 hack is too much, I think this might be an older version of the branch because I also seem to have left off the champion macemen here too (yoddahs). In any case, it is unintended. The idea is that they should at least be usable in normal combat. I would say 4 sounds more appropriate. In this case, the CS macemen do 3.5 hack and the champs 7 hack. edit: I split the middle, also this way they do half as much hack as crush.

I see. Well, we can revert jav cav health if it seems they are too weak. It is a small change overall, with the biggest change for champs anyway. Shouldn't be a big concern, as they look poorly supported anyway.

@chrstgtr you seem to go back and forth on your opinions here. How about we stick with the merge request as is, and revert certain things later? If things turn out well, fine. If not, we can revert certain items.

in that case, I think we just chose whichever gets more votes than the other. I would also say both might be overkill.

it's not all 23 in one civ. each civ only gets somewhere from 4 to 8 of them. so for macedonians, they get upgrades for pikes, skirms, and 1 for crossbowmen.

I guess this was mentioned when we first voted, but I'll say it again: We should keep in mind that we are voting to add experimental features to a mod, not patches to the main game. In other words, I don't see an issue with erring on the side of adding content.

is 0ad not 3D? Honestly, I think 0ad has a massive edge graphically even over AOE4 with its massive budget. AOE 4 looks goofy and cartoonish, and apparently it only runs fast on the lowest settings so it looks even worse in that configuration. I think one way to make 0ad more "modernized" would be to improve accessibility. It seems to me that players these days often just want to jump right into a playlist with matchmaking as soon as they are set up with an account and knowledge from the tutorial/tech tree. In other words, it might be a bit of a turn-off to join the lobby and have to pick a 1v1 or host their own game. Within the lobby, I can envision a "Ranked" quickplay button which will queue you up for a 1v1 with an opponent determined by matchmaking. I'd say this would improve accessibility and the competitive interest of the game. These ranked games would have a standardized set of random maps (maybe feldmap incorporated into main game), a particular map size, population cap, and starting res.

ok @Stan` all of mine are ready for voting, idk about @Philip the Swaggerless's MR, but it looks good to me.

yes, rome gets both unit upgrades for swordsmen, the second of which increases their durability some.

really? https://www.google.com/search?q=marian+centurion&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwi5tL-n9-X7AhUyNH0KHQqaAogQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=marian+centurion&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECCMQJzoECAAQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BggAEAcQHjoICAAQCBAHEB5QjwlYixBgqhJoAHAAeACAAWiIAZEEkgEDNy4xmAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=g7OPY_nmOLLo9AOKtIrACA&bih=658&biw=1417#imgrc=Uu-MiRVtrDZmPM I thought the Marian centurions were perfect for the timeframe. These ones resemble them the best I thought.