real_tabasco_sauce

Yeah no need for arson, but I think it would be good to increase wall HP (say + 20 percent or so) so that gates are more valuable targets and so that stone walls have a little more value in the late game.

how about either they train from the buildings I mentioned above for 2 non-mace civs. This should neatly solve these issues. Maybe also give them a different price, but this may not be necessary.

I don't think all civs should get this p2 ram. How about only add the p2 ram to few (like 1-3) civs? I think it would be weird if every civ got the p2 ram, making rams both ubiquitous (all civs have them) and redundant (all civs have 2 different rams). I think it would be really cool for this unit to serve as a mercenary for some civ. This would probably mean inverting the cost: wood -> metal and metal -> wood. Also this would require only 1 or 2 designs. Here is an idea: Maybe mace alone should be allowed to build the siege workshop in p2 and train the p2 ram, while a couple other civs can train the p2 ram in other buildings (could be military colony for seles, or maybe roman army camp for romans "auxillary seige unit", not for ptol because ptol already OPOPOPOP).

another way to do it is to queue garrison orders: so garrison one barracks the queue to garrison the next barracks and so on... the ones that are garrioned into the first barracks are removed from the selection so the remainder go to the next barracks.

I thought at one point you could click alarm bell for women and alarm bell again for men to find all available garrison points? To be honest, I cannot envision a need for this in gameplay, but I guess it can't hurt. Currently in the game to do this after selecting a group of units is hold control alt and garrison each barracks. I guess it would be nice for training melee units and avoiding getting your barracks captured.

well, while I agree that the economic value of these units makes them a little harder to balance, there would certainly be other things people complain about if there were no CS units. In my opinion, CS balance is quite good this alpha, aside from pikes. The nerf pikes received seems appropriate to me. Honestly, at least in recent history, most complaints are over champions (esp. fire cav) and merc cav. yes, and I think the attack ground aspect of this adds an amount of skill to the fights you described. In 0ad, the "death balls" you described are enabled by the meatshield meta. Currently, using fast units with high dps (swordcav) are really effective if you can avoid spears. This can be almost as devastating as siege in AOE2. For infantry battles, you can even use archers or slingers to manually target ranged units past the meat shield, although this is difficult. I think we could add attack ground to essentially represent a volley, which would more effectively deal damage to ranged units and avoid overkill. This would in theory result in more movement or perhaps formation usage. Not a lot of people agree with my idea here, but I think the answer to the meat shield meta should be something skill based.

yes, it is understandable that they receive these stats. Unfortunately, the meatshield meta makes it rare for melee units to rank up unless they are garrisonned in barracks or start in rank 2 (mercs). Its kind of tricky, so maybe its better to leave it alone untill we have somewhat dismantled the meatsheild meta.

Sort of a balancing topic: Remove armor increases for ranking up melee units. It seems OP that melee units (take for example carth merc cav) gain 1 pierce and hack armor with each rank. It is a little much for melee units to receive HP, damage AND armor with each rank. Just damage and HP would be better right?

yes that makes sense. Thats why I said it was "realistic" feedback. I do think a future civ could have less civic buildings restricted to their territory as a civ bonus. That would be cool. Actually, I would not be surprised if I saw something like that. AOE4 is pretty bad by the looks of things. They basically removed skill from the game, only keeping strategy. Between the two, I would consider 0AD the better game which features are this bad?

It's definitely bottom 2-3. At least in TGs. Maybe it is better in 1v1s? Once iphricates is sniped what to do next?

no I mean for spec only. Like to show other specs. It would not be visible to players ofc. Sorry I wasn't clear!

this is incorrect. There are very often rushes in dark age (p1).

Some realistic feedback on these: 1. I agree with the CC change. Cost should also be reduced. @ValihrAnt has a mod to demonstrate these changes among other things. 2. For metal and stone, this could be done. But I don't think it will change anything. The costs of things one needs to buy is what should require multiple resources to be extracted. 3. While I don't think this should be for all civs, perhaps some future civ (perhaps nomadic) could receive this as a unique civ bonus: houses, storehouses, farmsteads, perhaps some other buildings too receive a very small territory while not being a territory root. Is this even possible? 4. There will be very little support for this. One important reason is that we cannot have too many auras at the same time for performance reasons. 5. Why give this to towers? I could imagine this or something similar being a unique tech or some special building. 6. This would frankly be terrible. It can already be frustrating finding space to put buildings down. Forcing unnecessary building restrictions is not the move. Base layout is already something that requires thought.

I've never heard anyone complain about unit diversity and their resource gathering status in 0ad.

Its better than the Athens team bonus in 0ad

this is not a problem. In fact, it is part of what makes the game fun.

How about: Allow specs to flare, and allow settings toggle for spec flare visibility?

full merc gold rush XD

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.