Effervescent

As a player who likes to make 3-4 Forges and get all upgrades ASAP, I can tell you with certainty: I'll still spam Forges at the proposed cost. In fact, I'll make sure to spam Forges if they are expensive because that'll make my tech lead even more valuable. Having said that, I completely agree with the intention behind the proposal: Make players consciously pick their upgrades and make that choice have a certain weight to it. We can achieve this by simply limiting the number of Forges a player can build (like heroes, or maybe like civic centers in Village and Town phases). Once again, I agree with the intention (and I doubt any 0ad player will disagree with it). The proposed cost however seems very low. Traders IMHO should cost as much as a cav, (about 100-150 food). I propose this not based on a balancing perspective, but purely from an aesthetic standpoint. I mean, a horse costs 50 food (cost of cav unit - cost of inf unit), a woman costs 50 food (don't cancel me pls :). But a horse with a trader on it costs 50 food and 10 metal? How!? Seriously though, I can accept the cost if you give me a proper reason for it. P.S. Maybe a child on a donkey trading goods would explain it. LOL

I only used the right mouse button at first which was pretty intuitive for me. I clicked on tower and right clicked on unit, and then shift + right clicked on another unit to queue the focus fire. After I was done setting the order I used ctrl (attackmove) + right click on ground to set rally point. The focus fire queue stays active even when setting rally point. As for the middle click button. I didn't understand the function. The "Focus fire" hotkey I managed to set and use but honestly, the phrasing in the "Latest Changes" confused me for a bit. "(Left)" made me think I had to press the hotkey and left mouse button. I realised later that I had press hotkey and right key. I would recommend the text to be phrased differently, maybe something like -Hotkey: "Focus Fire" can be set in the hotkey menu and used to control the arrows of the selected building(s). Can be queued with Shift. Unbound by default.

Thanks for keeping the minimum range on Bolts. Makes me feel like my feedback is heard even though I don't keep up with all the changes. Bit late cause I was out but the mod works fine for me. I was only able to test with Petra bots though.

We can't compare previous alphas with community mod patches. Most players don't know all the changes that take place in community mod, myself included. I didn't even know bolts were nerfed for example. The ease with which a soldier unit can be spammed is different from the ease with which a siege unit can be spammed. Even the alpha where mercs were super op did not have widespread use of merc cavs for a similar reason. All the example you mention for op units are soldier units and not siege units. I recall siege towers were pretty op in some alpha but still they were never in widespread use like the op soldier units. Here is a replay of you demonstrating bolts on Standground stance working perfectly with Macedonians.CHRS BOLTS MACE 2024-09-18_0007.zip. Also to be noted in the replay I have attached is the uniformity of your army. Your army consisted of 1 unit type only. The first replay with the filename 2024-09-23_0003.zip I managed to open and view but the other I was not able to view for some reason. In the replay 2024-09-23_0003.zip you were Romans on border against SimonBolivarRamirez and Darlz. I see you did not get past phase 2 and I did not see any bolts. The second replay I cannot comment on as it doesn't show my replay list. sorry. An enemy can also circumvent Infantry army by sending faster units to base like cavs and capture most production units or destroy eco. I avoided taking strategic measures taken by players into consideration because they can be multifarious and would be out of scope for the isolated situation of Bolts allegedly "bugging out" when units get close to them.

More people don't use bolts not because they are not op but because they are too set in their build orders. (I am guilty of this too) It's the intended effect. You probably have bolts set on aggressive. so bolts try to back up and try to kill the units close by (only they never do manage to get away). If bolts are set to hold position this does not happen. The keywords here are Main Counter, removing minimum range renders the main counter as the only counter. Rams and catas for example have multiple counters in varying degrees -rams, elephants, swords, spears, women- from highly-effective to moderately-effective to marginally-effective to virtually non-effective. Removing minimum range does not change the main counters, but it does change the secondary counters in the form of units. So you either have the highly-effective counter units or you have marginally-effective or virtually non-effective units for counter. The lack of moderately-effective counter units is not ideal and definitely makes the bolts stronger than they already are. So instead of changing the stats for bolts that'll have adverse effects on balance, it would be better to change how battle stance work for bolts (not that it's needed since setting it to hold ground avoids bolts from running around, and other stance work as expected)

Bolts are op enough already. Getting rid of minimum range on bolts (just like catas) doesn't make sense. Bolts without minimum range will be almost impossible to counter with units.

This is a buff for Britons and nerf for Gauls. Especially if you consider the resources/time spent after discounted prices is the same but only for limited options (melee or range). This limit to options is pretty insidious in it's own way as it promotes a certain playstyle (melee or range heavy, atleast initially) and more importantly takes choices/options away from players. While I don't agree that Gauls is generic when you have options to vary your playstyle with Gauls -like p2 fanatics if you wanna be fancy, or going for a slinger army for simpler strats, there's also some good options to spam early cavs as they have good food techs and stables that don't cost stone- I can understand if you wanna make Gauls better. There is always room for improvement after all. The keyword being better and not different. If you wanna give more options to players on how they can play Gauls, I don't see how cutting discount for half the military techs will achieve it. The changes to mace and spartans is a good example of adding variety to playstyle while making the civ better and I would be happy if Gauls get something similar but limiting options is not a good way. I agree whole-heartedly with this. Brits need a better team bonus. And honestly, we can do better than giving them second-hand Gauls bonus. This should be the focus and complicating it by changing another civ to achieve this doesn't seem to be the way. I suggest the bonus to britons revolve around their forts. They already have something to do with that in the building Island Settlement which is very good for naval maps. Maybe forts that can be placed in neutral territory. That would allow for some fun plays. tl;dr: Don't nerf Gauls.

I would like to put forward an interesting idea for a new simple game feature: The Commander The idea is to add a non-player mastermind that can help the team to coordinate, come up with strategies, and supervise the team performance during all stages of a game. This "Commander" will act as an additional player in team games, who has no control of troops itself, but can share ally vision, ally map flare, and ally chat. And of course, doesn't have spectator view privileges. Only one Commander per team would be allowed, and it would be an optional figure. Leaving it to the discretion of the team to make use of the feature or not. This would make it possible to involve up to 10 players in a normal 4v4 TG, while adding almost zero extra overhead in terms of unit counts and overall lag to the game as a consequence. Also it would allow players that currently don't want to actively play, but would be willing to act as coordinators and strategists to be part of the game instead of spectating. It could also open new possibilities for balancing games. For example, by giving a "noobie" team a very experienced player as Commander, their combined strength could skyrocket, as most of the time new-ish players can boom well and mass good armies but lack the experience to make op team decisions. Being guided by an experienced Commander should also help players get better at playing in general. We would encourage the dev team to implement this simple feature first, in order to make it straightforward to include soon in a new alpha. Then, in case this feature becomes popular, other more refined ideas can be implemented later, such as: - A scouting or hero unit that the Commander can control. This unit could be used by the general to gather information about the map and the enemies in order to help him strategize. It could also be a kind of hero that could possess an aura to benefit his players in some way. If this unit is a hero it would possibly make sense to not give him fighting capabilities as that would break early game balance (hero being too strong in early game). - The players could send the general floating or excess resources for him to redistribute as needed. - In general the consensus among the players brainstorming this idea was to give The General only power of vision, scouting, strategizing, and maybe logistics, but no direct control in wars. - An interesting feature proposed by one player is that if the commander gets a hero to control he could use it to dance in front of armies during wars to break 0AD fighting mechanics more efficiently (joking! XD). Credit to players contributing to this idea: Stockfish Kakutstha guerringuerin effervescent Mucholag

I'm definitely into this. I like the idea of having a pot of players from which leaders can select names with conditions like 1 player in a certain rating range. For example: a 1200-1300 pick, a 1300-1400 pick, 1500-1600 pick, etc. This would balance teams better by preventing scenarios like having more than one super-op players or super-nub players in a single team. It would also involve newer players who maybe intimidated to participate in such a tournament. p.s. - I realize now that it sounds like I'm proposing flexible teams, which is contrary to the title of fixed teams. :D

I like the space that's saved by removing the native panel and especially like the toggle for the side panel, but still I'll have to agree with Nobbi that the native panel is required. Maybe add a toggle for the native panel too?

Hi, I tested this in a game and I was unable to make pillar in phase 2 because the pillar needed hero to raise the limit from 0 to 5. So basically, I had to train Ashoka to get pillar(p3), an to go overboard I trained chanakya and garrisoned it in blacksmith. The train time was op fast, almost exploit level. but the wait was not worth it. It'll be good if we can make pillars without hero in town phase as proposed though.