real_tabasco_sauce

Yeah, I think this is the best approach. The cavalry crossbowman seems problematic in too many areas. Should the cavalry crossbow hero also be made a foot soldier?

They were already quite different IMO.

time of war civ bonus: -10% batch train time for each age.

I meant medieval time period.

in AOE yes, but if there are champ archers, why not allow champion crossbows? I remember @AIEND mentioned there were weaker crossbows for lesser trained soldiers, and much more powerful crossbows for elite units.

I agree that they are problematic from a historical standpoint. My thoughts are if these champion cavalry crossbowmen are also problematic for gameplay in terms of balance, then they could be replaced with the infantry champion crossbowman. This would be an easier balancing option. @wowgetoffyourcellphone does art for this unit exist already?

yes, I think so. range: 60 -> 50 prepare time 200 -> 600 spread 0.8 -> 3 speed 120 -> 80 ^This is a massive nerf when there really was no nerf necessary. I think the champion crossbow parent template should be reverted to a25 values, and the Han xbows adjusted accordingly if needed. The cavalry champion crossbow template could remain as is, since shooting the xbow from horseback would be inaccurate (and for balance reasons).

This was a difficult discussion. @AIEND was against crossbow cavalry, since it was not a typical unit. This is historical grounds to remove the CS crossbow cav, which I thought was problematic for a few reasons anyway. However, considering that crossbow cavalry was possible, and maybe very rarely achieved (only by very skilled warriors), I think the crossbow cav champion can remain. Also, the hero is crossbow cav, so it makes sense to allow the crossbow cav champs.

Could be the changes for the han crossbowmen @wowgetoffyourcellphone any clue? I couldn't find any patch or ticket involving this change, so I assume it must have been.

Well to be honest, I like the full buff more too (the poll seems to agree), but @borg- really doesn't like it. It's not really clear why. People who tested it with me seemed to like them.

@LetswaveaBook this is why my original patch specifically differentiated pers axe cav into a raiding unit. One person didn’t like that idea and now i think it would be OP for the civ, considering recent changes. I still think the game should allow a much faster, weaker raiding unit, perhaps it should go to a future civ. the “lite” buff still differentiates axe cav further from sword cav, without them being plainly bad units: 1.5x attack repeat time, keeps crush damage per second, keeps low armor. Crush damage per second should remain as is because these units could already knock down CCs fairly easily.

@maroder's roster patch needs an additional reviewer. Maybe @chrstgtr @borg- @LetswaveaBook interested.

this is the new civilization bonus. I think the tooltips should say 0 sec.

It looks like the mace crossbow's range was reduced to 50. Was this intentional? I don't think it is a good balance decision, they were fine at 60.

No worries! I think we got most of the major balance changes in.

Maybe the ram builders would automatically garrison upon completion of the ram. Just an idea for later perhaps.

Ah, I see that now. I could be wrong, but I think all that is wrong with it is that the patch is made in the wrong directory.

Is there time to commit https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4722 before RC2? Fanas have needed some love for a couple of alphas now. Maybe we need additional balance feedback/approval? I think @chrstgtr was in favor too.

4 voted in approval of the full buff, but I imagine these voters would also approve of the second "lite" buff to axecav. This makes the vote 7 to 1. In light of recent Persia changes, the simple buff (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4683) is better anyway. Are people still interested in this balancing adjustment? @chrstgtr @LetswaveaBook

Yeah, but their crews do. You should see 3 soldiers per catapult.

I should have mentioned it earlier, and I think this is now the best option: CIV BONUS: "Agora" Champions -15% train time (maybe also +10 HP) in the next phase. p1: 100% train time, 200 health p2: 85% train time, 210 health p3: 72.25% train time, 220 health

I think the young spartan part doesn't really belong in 0ad. My complete suggestion: syssition available in p1 with a build limit of 1. Normal spear champs may be trained there (might need train time nerf in the future). apophora is available from the CC in phase 1 (replacing Hoplite tradition spot in the CC). Gerusia is available in p2 with 2-3 upgrades, and heroes in p3. The Gerusia upgrades should be: Hoplite tradition, and Krypteia: melee infantry +15% movement speed. (Available phase 2) Tyrtean paeans: champions +10% attack. Available phase 3 P3 upgrade in the syssition or fort: allows spartiates to rank up into olympic champions. As for the agoge, I am a little unsure: Perhaps it remains an upgrade (expensive one, but maybe available p2): something like -30% train time +10% HP. It would make more sense to decrease train time, since the training was standardized for all spartan males. alternatively, it could be left as is. I dislike the idea of the xp aura because this could be used to make an entire woodline rank 3. Also, olympic champions should be best obtained by fighting, not by sitting next to or inside a building.

@borg- since there is only one champion, wouldn't it be ideal if the bonus affected all melee infantry. The value could be brought down to 15% in that case. by the way, I am still against this.

I guess we cannot know how many of these have played for more than a week, a year etc. To be honest, recalling my SP days, I don't think the original changes would be good for most SP players either.

I would say another difference is those downloading many mods and playing SP are "trying out" the game and the mod.io mods, and will likely not play for a long time. I would say MP has the most longtime fans. his point is that it is extra details that the player has to do that don't add to gameplay. I would consider this annoying too. Another (extreme) example, what if we had to manually give each soldier a shield? In my opinion: too many details, and the game becomes a simulator, too few details and the game is too simple. I think this would be a simulator design choice, and that we can do other, simpler things to allow for more interesting siege. Surely you mean logarithmic here, like units building structures?