real_tabasco_sauce

Here is another suggestion: Hide enemy civilizations in the diplomacy window. In random games, it kind of ruins the surprise.

Totally. I support a buff to spearcav since they nearly lose to swordcav at the moment, and @wowgetoffyourcellphone's cataphract mixin sounds great. Differentiating hyrcannian cav would be a an addition to these enhancements and a buff to the persians.

I agree: they don't need to have higher DPS. They should just be a little different, since they are a unique unit to the persian civ. As you can see, this is not a new cavalry type. I was just suggesting a new role for the worst melee cav in the game. Unit differentiation is good for gameplay IMO, so they should not be unified into spear cavalry.

you're exactly right. 0ad is historically inspired, but also a videogame. You will see debates between those who favor more realistic features and behaviors, and those who are more willing to abridge reality for better gameplay. Most people consider that features should be historically "justified," where enough reality, enough plausibility supports good gameplay. The fact of the matter is we have to draw a line somewhere: so debating in length the physics of an axe versus a sword gets us nowhere. We should instead decide how an axeman behaves in 0ad more for gameplay's sake. I think the higher hack damage and lower attack rate are justified, but more importantly will introduce and interesting unit (see my discussion on a hyrcannian cav change (page 1)).

yes, but there is an amount of abstraction required for a game to be fun. This is something we must accept as part of a videogame. Even if 0ad were a simulator, some sacrifices to realism would be made. I encourage you to play multiplayer, as these gameplay balances will make more sense there.

I would say maybe a little higher dps, but less armor. perhaps even more speed? Even if they had the same dps, the axemen would do more damage in one hit, with implications as a raiding unit.

Thats exactly it. Very few people consider this a gameplay problem. Only a realism problem.

Right, so the new damage type would be largely unnecessary. I appreciate that you are experimenting with mods, but this change seems to be a terminology change rather than an enhancement. I think it would be cool if axe units (hyrcannian cav) had much more hack than swords, but also a slower repeat time.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone should the balance changes you suggest go all together or be considered individually? For example, I really support the siege tower change, but not the rock-paper-scissors counters.

If we add a damage type, it should be "siege" as @Lion.Kanzen mentioned earlier. This could allow crush damage to take more interesting balancing roles. Although to be perfectly honest, this is still equally possible without the new damage type.

yes, I agree. I think they should still do damage to buildings however, in large enough groups like they currently do. I see no problem with both of these at the same time. Lower crush damage for armored units seems valid.

Does anyone have any "special" ship ideas?

Yes, but my point is that the trireme should have various civs specfic upgrades. I just put metal ram as a possibility, not implying it could be readily implemented. I was referring to something along these lines, although this probably would only apply to fishing boats. https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/56010-did-someone-say-improved-ship-movement/#comment-453813

lol sorry i didn't see this. I guess that means we agree XD. How do you think what I wrote above fits into those classes?

I'm not so sure, currently boats seem to be the bigger the better, with bigger boats being faster, stronger, and dealing more damage. While this may or may not be more realistic, I think the ships would be better off in different classes, like citizen soldier infantry: First, some things for all boats: acceleration Smaller footprints (scale them all down some, perhaps to near bireme size like @Stan` said) Less garrison space for all boats perhaps boat turn radii? bireme -> faster, lighter, perhaps scout ship. trireme -> medium HP, speed. Some civ specific upgrades could be applied (metal ram, oarsmen training, any other ideas?). quinquereme -> slower, more HP troop transport +40 garrison space or catapult variants. (slight visual differences) Special -> fireship, juggernaut, other ideas lastly: thoughts on allowing ships to have turret spaces?

I think most people agreed about the spear cav buff. As an outsider to the "balancing advisor" group, I would say that the spear cav discussion is a good example of how these closed discussions go. People agree something must be done, but differ on how to go about it. After the dust last settled, it looked like the best option was +1 pierce armor, cav counter raised to 2.0. There are times I would like to add to these discussions, but cannot. I think the open format is better. Yes often balancing discussions become hypothetical, which is unavoidable. When actual patches are introduced, discussion becomes more fruitful and better values are found.

yes, but then it wouldn't be clear how a player that was fed could get such a high military score. Perhaps it is best to keep it as simple as possible? Either keep eco the way it is, or make it rescourcesUsed.

I am a bit on the fence for this, i guess. Tributes received would already count towards the receiver's economy score, because they would be spending those resources on their own soldiers and upgrades. Would it be OK to have this number given to both the donor and recipient? I had the intention of making eco score resources used so that a relationship (the value ratio) could be drawn between eco and military regardless of the total resources available. The issue is: if player A gives a total of 2000 food and wood to player B, player B ends up actually using the resources, but player A receives no "credit" for those resources gifted as part of the economy score. Maybe it would be fine anyway to leave out resources donated to dissuade feeding. If a fee is ever implemented to tributes (i think it should), this fee should be a cost to the donor (and would then be part of eco score) I think the value ratio could be added regardless of the eco score decision, since it is (military score/ resources used) in either case. While I think changing the eco score would help, I am more passionate about the value ratio.

XD good point. In 0ad, the waste is usually the player with many resources gathered and very little spent (on military, upgrades etc). New players often have a hard time spending their resources, so this could perhaps help with that, and explain why some players lose even with high eco scores. I would say tributes should not count as res spent, because they are spent by your ally. The idea behind the change in eco score is to set up the "value ratio" i mentioned earlier. I expect this stat to be very helpful.

yes, i proposed changing the economy score to resources spent and adding a "value ratio" of military score/economy score. KD would stay the same.

Do you think it would be better to call it "value ratio" or "effectiveness ratio"? I think value is good but perhaps effectiveness speaks more to the player's skillset. At the same time, value ratio might better explain what the ratio represents.

This could be good, but I think k/d ratio is better off as a standalone statistic. In the value ratio I suggested, the player who only lost 100 units would have a higher value ratio because the 100 units likely cost less. I think it is perfectly acceptable to win even with a low KD.

I certainly think wonder differentiation could in part fulfill this role.

maybe the chariot units could get an accuracy reduction if in motion.

I also like the cataphract and chariot mixins, but maybe without the auras.