real_tabasco_sauce

XD. Please, no homing missiles.

a couple of meters, assuming the earth is a perfect sphere. For all practical purposes, this is a negligible difference. I am not reducing all vision range, just cavalry. No this is not a bottomless pit, because I reduced it to 80 meters and no more. I prefer something less for all soldiers, but this is another discussion. Are you just opposed to changing the game? ? no it doesn't mean more micro. It means the same micro in less time. shall I make a poll?

you make a point, thank you. I would honestly say they are more unfriendly to the recipient of a camel/horse archer rush: noobs have an extremely difficult time dealing with camel rushes, often because their own ranged units cannot hit the camels (because the camels see the counter well in advance) That being said, I don't expect this to increase the micro required. After all, the main micro technique is to retreat vulnerable horse archers as needed (and maybe to snipe enemy ranged units). <- these techniques are limited by attack range more so than vision range. the lowered vision range will only change the time you have to respond to a threat.

12 to 16 meters longer to be exact, competing with scout towers and catapults. I would also like to see a reason not to change it.

you are the only one in opposition to my knowledge.

exactly, the same goes for infantry. I bet you would like to escape infantry spearmen, but its very very easy since champion cavalry see farther than an outpost. you literally disagree everywhere, but I still have not seen why

I said it is a contributor. Obviously there are many other reasons. basically cavalry can see their main counter (spearmen) long before the spearmen can see them. Another example: camel rushes are easier to pull off because camels can see infantry archers before infantry archers can see camels.

I don't think enemy health bars should be hidden. It is nice to know what units you have already damaged and its not very friendly to beginners to not see the health bars. I am on board with everything else tho.

I mentioned this elsewhere but I think it deserves it's own topic. Cavalry can see more than infantry in the game because they are sitting on a horse. I understand they are on a vantage point, but 12 meters more is very excessive. Also, vision range is impeded by the same things regardless of height. (hills trees etc) Fog of war represents these obstructions and provides excitement to gameplay. Even if it were realistic (which it really isn't) I think it is problematic for gameplay that cavalry can see more than infantry, because these units are already difficult to kill with their infantry counter, spearmen. lets do some comparisons 1. cavalry versus infantry (citizen soldiers) 92 meters vs 80 meters. this is a substantial difference (12 meters) especially because the area is much larger with increasing radii. 2. champion cavalry versus champion spearmen 96 meters vs 80 meters *notice that champion cav get an additional 4 meters while champion infantry do not get additional vision. 3. Champion cav versus outpost the outpost is unupgraded by the way. I think it is ridiculous that cavalry can see so far to be honest. At best, it is inconsistency, and at worst, it is a serious balancing issue between infantry and cavalry. When people complain that late game cavalry death balls are invincible, this is likely a significant contributor. Luckily, I have already made a simple patch and a mod for a25 to fix this discrepancy: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4744 vision.zip These both make vision ranges for all infantry and cavalry 80 meters. Give it a try if you like.

IIRC space takes you to the last alarm (units fighting)

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4722 +1 hack armor 120 food 100 wood cost (no metal) I consider this a substantial buff, and I think it is great.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWgSzCK6CoFgSdbPiKGmJ4A

now that people have had time to test the Persia changes in RC2, do you all think axe cav should still be buffed? https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4683

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4744#201916 I am not lowering vision of all units. Just lowering cavalry and champion cavalry down to 80 for infantry/cavalry balance.

here are 2 pics for illustration, if you don't want to download the mod. The top is with the mod, and the bottom is without. notice how much more cavalry can see than infantry. If you have ever struggled to kill cavalry armies in the late game, this is a contributing factor.

does this mean u are against changing it? Was A18 vision too small? too large? I was not annoyed by vision inn any of these alphas. Impossible, no. Just slightly more difficult (5 meters in fact). I think not seeing the entire map at once does not make the map any less beautiful. Anyway, you seem to have missed that this is primarily a balance issue. Currently, cavalry can see 12 meters farther than infantry, which is a problem: It is too easy for cavalry units to avoid fights. They move much faster than infantry and can also see infantry before infantry can see them. This is a way to address cavalry death balls in the late game. The reason I lowered vision range (by 5 meters) is to bring more surprise into the game.

more on the vision range change: I made a mod for A25b so that anybody can see how these changes affect gameplay. After briefly testing things myself, it occurred to me that this would be a nerf to ranged units in general. I would say it is an improvement. Let me know what you all think (especially balancers). oops. Here is the mod: vision.zip

realistically, this doesn't make any difference, except that you could see over closer objects like tall grass and bushes. I don't really care about realism in this case: cavalry should have the same vision as infantry. I would give an exception for a dedicated "scout" cavalry in the future.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4744 @wowgetoffyourcellphone what do you think? I would say even 5 meters would make a significant difference. @chrstgtr @borg- @BreakfastBurrito_007too cavalry should definitely not see farther than infantry.

It would be nice if each phase got its own row. (1st row is village, second is town, third is city) ^a problem would be how to fit a bunch of village icons in one row.

An internet classic. Thanks for bringing this back to my attention. Here is a suggestion: Reduce vision range of all soldiers by 15 meters. I think it is currently too easy to see enemies far in advance. This will bring more surprise to the game. Here is a balance suggestion that should be done sooner rather than later: make vision range of cavalry the same as the vision of infantry. Why: Cavalry can already avoid fights very easily and already perform well as a scout because of mobility.

right, and yes I was exxagerating with that statement. my point is that the game time is kind of irrelevant. A fun game can be 3 mins long or 40. What matters is that the entire game time is fun (fighting, raiding, scouting). AOE2 does this largely in part by opportunity costs.

If AOE2 was played at 2x speed, I would expect the gameplay to be similar, just harder to manage 0ad's fast pace is a benefit IMO, as oftentimes players do not have hours to spend on a single game. The root of the issue raised by @BeTe is that the game's meta is a little too dependent on economic boom time (mentioned by @borg- too: eco boom in p1, get 3 town buildings in p2, then right to p3 and fight). In Age of Empires 2, there are many opportunity costs associated with decisions, with the most obvious being villagers versus military production (also aging up versus producing villagers). In 0ad, batch training and citizen soldiers greatly reduce the opportunity costs for certain decisions, such as advancing to the next age, or delaying/rushing upgrades. I would say balancers are working on a solution already: to provide interesting gameplay options in the middle and early game, especially centered around differentiating civs. Going forward, if we think about opportunity costs in the context of gameplay changes, we may begin to see fighting from start to finish even in more casual games.

i think this would be a little excessive. Requiring accounts to have a unique email address is good for a few reasons I think. This way only one account can be operated at one time, no juggling accounts. I think you should still be able to change your name freely, perhaps even in-lobby, but gameplay statistics should remain the same across accounts (games played, rating, win rate, etc).

yea, this is fine tbh.