real_tabasco_sauce

is what I graphed wrong? I just was saying I like that it is nonlinear.

yes IK, i play the game too. It's just mathematically less. What this does mean is that upgrading pierce armor for units with 1 pierce armor is more impactful than if they already have 10. Thats what i mean.

should be multiplied not added right?

So this is how armor works currently yes? 0.9 indicates 10 percent less damage for each level x. The damage curve is shown for 15 There seems to be diminishing returns with additional armor levels. I kind of like it.

Hyrcannian cav stats: base swordcav stats: dps: 6.9h 0.27 to 0.8 crush depending on the unit dps: 8.6666h armor: 3 hack, 2 pierce armor: 3 hack, 4 pierce all else is the same ^it is clear that hyrcannian cav are garbage and currently only fulfill the role of a hilarious troll CC snipe, which usually does not work. They are also good antiram, so thats the only reason players use these. Instead, further differentiate them from swords and let them stand out as a unique unit. How about these unit stats for hyrcannian cav? elite rank cost: 100f 40w 35m 17.7 hack every 1.5 sec, increase crush to 3 (net crush dps will be reduced to 1.5 from 3 due to repeat reduction, so its not a bs CC sniper). I think they should have a little more prepare time than swordcav. 17.7 comes from swordcav dps * 1.364 (skiri buff vs normal swords) * 1.5 sec, the new attack rate. armor is unified with swordcav 3.0H and 3.0P (from 3 hack 2 pierce) compared to CS swordcav at 3.0H and 4.0 pierce. Mainly, instead of armor (compared to skiritai), speed goes up to 20 from 18. HP would be the same as any rank 3 swordcav (276 hp) In essence, this is a rank 3 swordcav where instead of the armor increase of 2 p and 2h, it gets speed, and where the repeat time is slower (because its an axe) If you think this sounds OP, consider that they would still have very low armor compared to rank 3 swords which have 5h, 6p. If people dislike this idea, then at least give them more dps than swordcav to account for their weakness.

your best bet is to look at the statistics summary for any given game from the replays menu. All your games should be there, ordered chronologically. To be honest, I agree it would be nice to have some additional player statistics as options in the player profile.

people do have a very overhyped image of AI. It doesn't help that every other corporation says their product is "powered by AI"

To be honest, I like the fast ttk. It makes battle more fast-paced and exciting.

i guess garrisoned units get out when the building is weak enough. I have actually never tested this: do units in wall turrets never leave untill the wall is destroyed?

if you still have a few melee units left, you actually win that fight. Also, once the melee units are dead, you can retreat with ranked up units. I have seen this strategy a few times in multiplayer with huge benefits. Here's an example army composition: 50/50 spear/skirm 50 spear 40 skirm, 10 mercenary archers. In this battle, your skirms and melee do the usual meatshield fighting, but your 10 archers are constantly picking off enemy skirms or slingers.

if you kill the real source of dps first, you win. In most cases, this is the ranged units behind the meat shield. After the enemy skirmishers, for example, are gone, all your own skirmishers can safely massacre the remaining enemy melee units. Currently, you can manually task archers to snipe ranged units, which is surprisingly effective because of how confident people are in their meat shield. I agree with @BreakfastBurrito_007 that @chrstgtr's approach seems a little too automatic.

yes, this is also why it should only be +1 hack not pierce.

excellent

they already were. They train at rank 2 which makes them stronger than regular CS cav.

??????????????????????????????????????????? I am sorry you feel ignored, but the spear cav buff discussion is quite relevant to the topic at hand. The fact of the matter is that balance is not black and white, it depends on other units and features. There are already nerfs to merc cav and these should be tested before adding an additional 5 metal cost.

it was because of buildings and because of all inf being slow.

You guys agree on +1 hack armor only for CS spearcav and not champs?

yes but not armor boost. Thoughts @chrstgtr @BreakfastBurrito_007, other balancers?

not unusable, but just unimpactful and hard to balance. Sort of gimmicky you know?

@LetswaveaBook said a new one would be made with those changes, but I haven't seen it yet. Honestly, I would be happy with the minimum, which is just the multiplier increase almost everyone seems to agree on that. I think spear cav should be a little more armored than swordcav, but this could be decided later.

yes, I just hope to avoid adding things that might end up like the bribing mechanic.

No you are right. From a logical standpoint, it is fine. However in terms of gameplay it stands out in a rather awkward way. This is what I meant originally. On another note, what if my 100 ptol pikemen with the pike hero's HP bonus all turn into rams? At the same time these 100 pikes are better off as pikes than as 25 rams. Then how do you balance it? only 2 units required? In that case 50 rams would be wild XD. Im honestly not so sure about it in general to be honest.

Tower buffs should be very carefully tested so that it is not too OP to tower rush. Currently towers are fine IMO. ' We do not want overall strong defenses. What this looks like in multiplayer is A24, where the entire map gets built up if the game is not ended by rushes. It is extremely terrible gameplay. Think about it: If defenses increase the likelihood of your victory too much in a given battle, then 0ad becomes a battle of defenses where both sides just stare at each other in a game of chicken. Currently, fighting under an enemy tower, fort, or temple makes things a little harder but the battle is certainly winnable provided you have better micro, better unit composition/upgrades, or more units.

I'm not so sure. It's a nice idea, but I think it is best to stick to training siege units for the time being. If it is a plan to have siege units be buildable or otherwise field-constructed like in AoE4, then this would make sense. Wouldn't it be weird to have rams, siege towers and catapults trained in the siege workshop, and at the same time permit this formation based siege mechanism?

Currently, the nerfs in a26 are: 90 metal cost and slower rank up time. I think these nerfs may be enough since it will take more time for merc cav to reach the dreaded rank 3. One big difference between inf mercs and cav mercs is that inf mercs are more effected by the inability to gather resources. I think this could justify the 95 metal cost, but we should test rc1 first before we make this change. You have to consider other changes such as a possible spear cav buff ( @LetswaveaBook plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz make a new patch with +1 hack and 2x multiplier).