real_tabasco_sauce

I was thinking something along those lines, but then again, Athens already has a metal boost as a civ bonus. Perhaps trader stats could be interesting but other civs already have trader bonuses. Here's another couple fresh ideas: 1. Gauls team bonus is cheaper blacksmith techs, what if storehouse upgrades researched X amount faster (maybe 50 percent?). I guess it would be like sharing technologies with other civilizations. 2. Siege workshop training time/cost reduction (like kush's bonus for eles). Maybe also siege workshop build time could be reduced for the team.

It's hard to say what should be done. I don't like capping trade per minute. Replacing the bonus is a possibility I guess but i'm unsure what team bonus would be suitable, maybe something related to taxation and/or tariffs? @ValihrAnt, any ideas about a suitable team bonus for mace?

maybe hero should raise limit from 1 to 5?

speed does not matter it seems, if you start from X to Y you will gain infinite X and lost like 20 of Y

mace_exploit.mov Credit to weirdjokes for this one. People will soon be abusing this, as word is spreading. Macedonians seem to be able to generate res by repeatedly trading res back and forth. Ex. 500 stone -> metal 500 metal -> stone 500 stone -> metal 500 metal -> stone 500 stone -> metal etc. If you do it with speed, it seems to generate res, so in just a few seconds, I had an extra 500 metal. Maybe this is a release blocker?

That pretty much only saves the player 600 metal, since athens already mines faster, maybe this isn't super impactful. Perhaps also quicker research times for eco technologies? Practically, cheaper techs won't get ppl to p2 any faster, as usually only the wood and farm upgrades are needed (100 metal saved).

In the mod they are in the champion class, so they cannot rank. Maybe this was already the case before the mod, and the elite rank was just a visual anyway? I do think they should get to rank up to 3.

I would say smurfing is one of the more trivial lobby related problems: one or two games in, and people recognize that a new player is likely already exerienced and they are balanced accordingly. Its also funny sometimes, like when it took us forever to figure out akazid was @Dizaka. The smurfing problem certainly pales in comparison to DDOS, which is downright depressing. However, there isn't really a readily attainable fix for DDOS right?

Philly cheesteak sandwich, this is a very american dish if you can't already tell XD. Theres a lot of division however: some people say no peppers, several different cheeses may be used, but most of the time the steak is shredded or thinly sliced ribeye. To cook it, you first caramelize onions, grill the steak, (and peppers if you want). Then, depending on the cheese, you either add it to the final sandwich, or toss it into the steak and onions. The bun should be toasted on the grill too. Traditionally a "Hoagie" bun is used but really the better the bread the better the sandwich. Don't worry about mayo, since this is already a one way trip to obesity. Not a health food

I think almost all of these are very agreeable.

one of my previous accounts was a sequence lol and it translated to n-EAE-c, a very short protein XD -to be clear, no smurfing was done on that account, i'm not good enough.

Victory at last!

+

perhaps units should start from a baseline speed and accelerate from there? instead of accelerating from 0. It may not sound realistic, but it might look less clunky. Also with @alre's formation changes, formations would be less useful for dancing.

Nah in a24, most people were unhappy because there was little aggression, average game time was like 45 mins (in a 4v4). This was because of lower unit speed and archers being strong, so people would just build up the entire map with forts and defenses. I think a lot of people were fed up with playing like that. I'd say its pretty balanced at the moment, but i'm no expert in balance. I think most of us don't wan't the game slanted towards defense. Imagine a 1v1, but the winner is the one who defends first. I guess the strategy in that case would be building rushing anyway lol. Yes I think a limited introduction is ideal, maybe just a few civs, or just mace as they used to be the main siege civ, for differentiation.

I understand, but there are some things to note: Artillery towers could not be "anti ram" unless you could target rams amidst other units (maybe splash would increase your odds of damaging a ram). With or without these towers, your best bet for anti ram is swords, other melee or simply women if you are desperate. Maybe artillery towers could help protect against pure ram spam, but they shouldn't be that strong. If they were that strong, they would be annoying and OP. There's no need to make rams less powerful IMO. Catas were fun to play with in a23.

IIRC people didn't like wall towers shooting arrows so I bet people won't like artillery on wall towers. Also catapult splash damage was removed so for consistency that would need to be brought back. (I also think it shouldn't have been removed tbh) I think the most likely to be agreed upon application is this: For siege heavy civs (Mace, Rome, Ptol): artillery tower (bolt or cata but not both) is an upgrade from existing defense towers and is available p3 OR fort gets artillery function with an upgrade available p3 (Although this could end up being worse than the arrows it would replace) -Maybe if we go the fort option, it should be one civ's unique property? (civ differentiation)

I would say add 100 metal. It should still cost just a little of these resources, since you should have a balanced eco to put down CC's. I think otherwise there could be CC spam.

@maroder I think your idea in addition to @ValihrAnt's changes to CC/colony costs and territory expansion would make territory and map control a more dynamic part of the game. I also like Vali's economic bonuses as they add more civ dfferentiation in a good way.

Thank you @ValihrAnt! I'll try this out.

This is for the mac bundle. I agree that infantry acceleration should be a little faster. Launch a random game + Launch a skirmish. + Connect to the lobby + Play on the lobby with someone (nobody else there) Launch Atlas and try things out there + Open Unit tests demo (To see if there any breakage in displaying entity's) (It's in scenarios) + Enable feedback and see if it works (Main menu) Example video + Connect to and use mod.io ( Try to download and install the linux libertine font) Test replaying new games + Test Screenshots (F2) + Test Big Screenshots (Maj+F2) + Test hotkeys + (except for shift + delete) Test Saving and loading a game. + Test Quickload/Quicksave + The acceleration makes formations look unnatural when changing directions (same swirling motion as in A25, but slower now) Would it hurt to use @alre's formation changes (from proposals for formations), or does that cause other issues? Thanks for sharing the build, you all have done a great job!

@borg- I agree, I don't think we are ready to consider this for A26, especially since acceleration is also introduced and there would probably need to be some rebalancing after attack-ground/attack-group. At last, the answer to my question! XD Also, I hope those of you with indifference tried the mod, or watched the replay to see how much of a difference was made in gameplay with the meat shield meta gone (aside from balance issues e.g. firecav). @chrstgtr I agree. Maybe attack ground won't be enough to beat the meat shield meta, but it will make a large difference between those who use it and those who don't. In conclusion, after reading all the comments, I think I have an idea of the pros and cons to each: Attack gound: Pros More easily implemented (i think) More micro, also player must decide if it is worth it to use. Cons has fewer use cases Might require too much micro to be practical (especially when the game is laggy) Attack group: Pros A little less micro, more easily manageable More use cases Cons Harder to implement (i think) This is all that I could definitively say most people seem to agree on. I think there would be disagreement over which involves more skill, and which one would be more effective for attacking ranged units. As for me, I like them both. I think getting a taste of either would help solve the debate, as we can only predict so much. Thanks for all this discussion, I think we are on the right track.

commands.txtmetadata.json Here is the replay. I believe you have to have the mod for it to play. The FFA game showed us that battles are unpredictable and chaotic, with some things (like firecav) being even more OP. If this becomes a feature, it will need to be a mode the ranged units can adopt (call it fire at will perhaps) and it should have the same constraints normal attack has (cannot fire while moving, capturing, building). In my opinion, the way forward is to keep a25 ranged attack behavior and add attack ground to allow more player control and heighten the skill ceiling. Attack group would accomplish similar goals, but I think it could be abused by selecting a large area. It also seems a lot more complicated and I think it does too much for the player. would you guys be interested in trying an attack-ground mod?

Ok. I renamed it the "saucemod" Ranged units now capture. However, an issue that makes ranged units OP: They can shoot while capturing and while walking. This mod is just to see what gameplay is like when ranged units can shoot other ranged units, and build interest in attack-ground or attack-group. You can see my observations above. I think this does improve a number of other gameplay issues like pikes being OP and healers being often unused. saucemod.zip

@Vrayer Its not a table, and it doesn't contain absolutely everything, but I think the in-game civ structure tree and civilization overview will help. (menu->learn to play). From this information you can see for example: Gauls have a melee cav damage bonus, or that the Iberians get a training hero.