real_tabasco_sauce

Ibers already have a differentiated tower. It's just not very good, costing way too much for the added benefit. Imo they shouldn't be so much more expensive than normal defense towers, but thats another discussion. Id say it is best to keep these towers just for mace for the time being.

how does it work with the defense tower upgrades? In my mind, the minimum ranges should be preserved for artillery and bolt towers. When u "level up" towers, none of the existing upgrades to defense towers apply right?

Great! thanks for doing that. We should consider if both towers should be buildable, or just the bolt tower. I am fine with either, but I think the build time should be increased more. Defense tower is 150 sec and these towers are 200. I think it should be raised further to 250 so that it is difficult to play the towers very offensively. They should definitely be easy to deny.

yes @Sevda there are many videos that go live on April one that are hilarious. Here is one: Also, in 2020, FINA (the international swimming federation) announced changes to the rules of breaststroke on April 1, which was shocking to many swimmers XD. https://swimswam.com/fina-votes-for-dramatic-post-olympic-changes-to-breaststroke-underwaters/

looks fine to me

Yes you are right about the cost. I misinterpreted @Yekaterina. IMO The stables didn't make a big difference for Persians. It was civ differentiation but not very impactful. A better way to differentiate pers is to give them both skirm and spear cav in p1. Thoughts @chrstgtr?

no, cheaper than barrack. I think seeing the building does ruin surprise, but adds value to scouting the enemy. There's also nothing to stop you from training some cav from the CC. Def keep the stables, and give Persians skirm and spear cav in p1.

Using a good mix of ranged and melee is key to any battle not just cav. Also, when you have a lot of spears, you want to force the enemy to attack them. For example, add siege and push their buildings and they will likely have to come try and kill your spears up close.

I envision this being either unused or abused to troll your teammate. firstly, the only protection a building can give is building arrows, so I have a hard time imagining how effective the protection the garrison provides would be, especially considering how huge the costs you listed are. perhaps it could be modified to the form of an anti-rush building available in p1, maybe with a build limit of 1. The cost of the building would be on the builder, but not exorbitant. (maybe 150w 50s) The cost to the teammate would be that it takes 3 pop space or something.

yes I agree, but there was some consideration that the mace team bonus should be changed to avert the problem (since mace is the fastest to generate res with faster exponential growth). I don't know how many people abuse it tbh, but in a 1v1 it could be very bad. I guess in TGs, it would be fairly obvious if someone was heavily relying on it and specs could also see the abuse. definitely better to try and fix the root cause.

@chrstgtr Im sure you could try this once or twice and see how busted it is. Especially for 1v1s: take mace rush p2 build stables and all eco on wood for houses generate metal and therefore infinite champs.

You must not have seen the video in this discussion. The res generated can be done by one player alone and in vast quantities. It is the most exploitable with mace. This is very different than simply observing that 100 wood gets you 164 stone (because of other players) and making the most of that trade/

you could also call it tariffs or something

it seems to kind of balance out in games because people realized they can trade 100 wood for like 600 metal for example. But even in that case, it makes the barters crazy for everyone which is really annoying. Probably the worst possible abuse would be in a 1v1: take mace, rush p2, build stables and market, generate metal -> infinite cav mercs.

no it exponentially increases the more u click

I agree. I still think some siege related team bonus is appropriate but this can be for A27, alongside other team bonus adjustments perhaps.

Its a tricky tradeoff

0ad_enemy_scoutingsound.mp3

Here's a perfect sound: counter-strike-jingle-cs-radio-enemy-spotted.mp3 In seriousness, maybe a single trumpet note or something?

Ok, thank you @Freagarach!

I would be happy to test it but I cannot make that time. Do you know if another testing bundle will be available like the December one? Usually more balance issues are found over several 4v4 TGs.

Looks fun! How would the teams be arranged on this map? I would hate to be sandwiched in the middle down there.

the walls are not OP. I don't see why the game should be changed because you made a mistake. Now you know to keep control of ur army. I think if a change had to be made, it would be allowing units that invaded the gate able to leave even if its locked (you could just unlock them). But this would require giving gates a direction, which IMO overcomplicates walls.

the map size and number of fauna (see minimap) also might be contributing to @Abuz's problem.

I think they should also work kinda like ele archers in the video @Freagarach shared: