Fabius

A bolt shooter is in the same category as a ballista, I don't think it can shoot fireballs, though maybe flaming jars would work, sling arm catapulst would be a better choice for that. Also later era Roman bolt shooters used mostly metal components, so they could easily do incendiary bolts if necessary.

Also they would light and fire very close together so it probably would not have time to catch fire. Overall a fire pot would be a much more effective way to set something on fire than arrows.

metal plating, also its a long bolt so the flaming part is likely sticking out in front and not on the actual framework. Same way that incendiary arrows would work except on a larger scale.

Two because I would like to have a reason to enjoy using catapults again, and three for tactical diversity.

For use against siege yes, we need to be careful with ranged units though. This is why i prefer to add it to catapults, one because ranged units already have a lot going for them. Catapults do not.

Is that possible to code for?

Chiefly I would like to see it as a technology for those civs with catapults. Basically apply fire debuff to targets within a given radius.

This bring me back to the idea that utilising the fire mechanic from Iberian cavalry could open up some interesting diversification. Nobody has a monopoly on fire, I think it would be interesting to have a diversification in the incendiary department.

True, and would be devastating against a wooden structure.

A bolt shooter would be a safer option for shooting flaming projectiles.

A good point, though I belive this type was still quite accurate, the Trebuchat which also uses the sling arm was noted for being quite accurate as well. In rough seas though pretty much anything will be inaccurate, it must also be noted that in that age most battles would have been fought in calm weather and near the coast, so accuracy would not really be an issue.

The ballista can fire stones directly, all the catapults in the game follow this design. So yes they would actually count as artillery. While it may not be really possible to sink a ship with one mounted on a ship it would still do significant damage to a ships superstructure.

The force exerted by an axe stroke versus that of a sword stroke is significantly different, an axe head will generate much more damage than a sword stroke will. It comes down to the design of each. An axe head is designed to generate high cutting damage in a small area, a sword will generate cutting power over a much broader area but has much less weight concentration.

Fair point, I would argue axes should have a stronger bonus since they can comfortably threaten both man and machine at once

With all respect there are only really three ways to inflict damage, pierce, hack/slash and bludgeon/crush, if you want to add permutations of those you would need to add resistances for them which means things get complicated quickly. Your best option is to use damage modifiers. Its simple and allows for alterations using the existing foundations without bloating things.

Mace units maybe not, real maces are not the monstrous chunks of metal you see in fantasy, they are actually rather small. An axe yes, this I definitely agree should have bonus damage against siege and wood. The hyrecanian cavalry could greatly benefit from this. So could Kushite axemen.

My two cents worth. Biremes should be first phase 1. Triremes phase 2. Quinquiremes phase 3. Quinquiremes should be viewed as battleships, I am uncertain as to the current view, but my thought is they must be ship killers primarily, like they were in the past. Simple fix to this is to increase the accuracy again. I once spent a minute trying to hit a lone woodcutter with one in A24, it was embarrassing. For comparison in A23 one could evaporate entire armies and coastlines with just one fully loaded Quinquireme/juggernaught. Which was fun Decreasing the size of ships might help with the performance issues. Adding more interesting upgrades like borrowing the fire mechanic from the Iberians. Honestly, why has nobody thought to use this for area damage on catapults(fire pots)? or for use by ranged infantry against siege units(fire arrows)? This would be such a good way to diversify tactical options.

I would much prefer if the K/D statistic is left alone and you just add other stats as you feel inclined, it is very satisfying ending a game with a good K/D, even if one has lost. Its also very funny knowing that perfection is achieving a K/D ratio of infinity.

K/D ratio does depend on tactics employed by the player. Someone who gets bogged down in a war of attrition with a player who can trade well is going to have a different K/D to someone who can just run over an opponent without any opposition. It is possible to overwhelm and win by sheer numbers just as much as it is possible to annihilate an opponent with minimal losses in pitched battles.

yes :O

Thing is we already have temples, so another unique healing station while nice for eye candy will simply be redundant, also not really relevant to the function, a stronger fit is to tie a health bonus to the building because cleanliness means less disease so healthier people. Also they usually had gymnasiums attached. So a health bonus overall seems most appropriate.

Do that and you'll see much more elephant doom stacks than currently, especially as units tend to overlap and any kind of splash damage changes things considerably. Still its a good idea

The Mediterranean and its surrounding land mass.

Fair point, but auras shouldn't affect that though since its just an effect attached to a unit.

The game is not slow, 12 minute third phase is hyper fast, there is no reason to do anything in second phase beyond prepping for third phase. Average games last half an hour if you lucky. less than five minutes if you really unlucky and get rushed.