Fabius

I feel that things should be added to counter rams rather than just reverting a change, it can be argued that all civs would know how to make a ram at the minimum, hang picking up a log and using it on a door counts as a ram, so, I think the path should be towards things that can damage rams.

Alrighty, back to walls. After some contemplation the idea of doubling or tripling the garrison capacity is a good one, it will incentivise walling strategic areas I believe as the extra range and armour will give an edge to the defenders that is badly needed. As pointed out the reason it is not used is spacing units out like that makes it completely unviable for general combat. From my perspective if this was implemented I would definitely consider walling strategic places like fortresses and civic centers and stacking troops on the walls. The main drawback is how many troops can be put in a small space, so doubling may not be enough to give an edge at all. Then you have the issue of how to put that many troops on a single wall section.

Definitely agree, my point is that we lack viable means to defend those walls currently from rams, in A23 we used catapults by in large as it was most effective. A24 removed that so we were forced to use swords, the issue is that is not cost effective in either population or resources or anything really. Two catapults could do the job of ten or twenty swordsmen for a fraction of the cost, and still kill hordes to boot. A26 is giving some accuracy and even more damage so it is likely wall defense will be a lot more viable again. I definitely like the idea of a fortified wall technology

The basic problem with walls is that they cannot be viably defended against things meant to break them. Therefore its a waste of stone. Also consider the amount of time needed to mine extra stone and build the walls to begin with, In a game were everything depends on reaching P3 the opportunity cost is to much.

Well I suppose that is a reasonable use for walls. But I thought walls usually were supposed to keep everything out and not just people on horses.

I like all of them except decreasing wall HP, unless you plan on decreasing the cost and build time as well, in which case I will accept it. In my books stone walls are already weak and useless at keeping anything out. Hopefully with catapults back in action again that will mitigate that point somewhat.

Yes I agree, it would make sense that you would get the civ specific elephant. As far as models go would one create a unique roman elephant model or use existing ones? I would really like to see a unique roman one, the current in game Roman aesthetic is very eye catching.

In summary then of Roman feature discussions Move castrum to P2. Allow for training of elephants from captured elephant stables. What about the distinction between Indian and African elephants, would that be included? Add a nice elephant character with a triarii on top with a pike

I see, very well I concede your point.

No it won't, it has nothing to do with siege camps. And attacking will always be to destroy civic centers or cripple eco. Wasting troops to hold an elephant stable is pointless and dangerous. Especially as you cannot garrison it with anything other than elephants. Potentiality is a bad way to design a feature. Either its there to use or it isn't. I am not going to factor something into my strategies that either wont be there to begin with(a civ without elephants) or probably wont be relevant if I happen to get it. Its a highly situational feature at best, a dangerous distraction at worst. Just look at the Carthaginian merc buildings, how many people go out of their way to capture them for the chance at training mercs, or even know that it exists as a feature.

Rome captured a lot of war elephants from Carthage and used them in later wars against the Greeks and even their early civil wars. This is why I said it should be a technology with a title that references the Punic Wars and allows a limited training number. Lion.Kanzen is suggesting 7-8 I believe.

It is a nice idea, the issue is that it is very situational to the point of never going to be used, if you capture someones elephant stable you have probably already won the game, and they can also delete their stable before you capture it. I don't want an ultra situational gimmick like capturing Carthaginian merc buildings is. If I go into a game I want something I know is going to be an actual option for me to play around with.

Jumping back to this, what about instead of melee elephants it gives ranged elephants? We don't have a champion elephant archer yet, and a ranged elephant might be more beneficial to Rome than a melee elephant. One would have to create a model from scratch though, we only have Indian elephant archer models currently.

Honestly I am hoping they try this for A26 in spite of feature freeze, would be nice to have something properly new for Roman players to play around with.

True, but you will be floating plenty wood anyway, 300 extra wood ain't that much.

Sometimes I would simply delete my civic center and place a few camps then rebuild the civic center back again. Veteran Triari and A23 scorpions where awesome

I am half turtle so yes lol. That being said, everything got dropped down to 11 pierce damage, I am not sure that the reasoning is quite so valid now two alpha's later.

Great, that leaves only Rome then, "nod nod wink wink"

Great. There is the benefit of using army camps to guard key border areas against attack as well. I still wonder why they can't be built in ones own territory though, is that just for balance? What about siege walls, would it be to much to move those as well?

If you add a stone cost to blacksmith players simply build markets as those don't cost stone, its less useful than 3 blacksmiths by far, but since you rushing P3 it doesn't matter. Since Rome and Athens have the worst P2 options, how can one improve upon those? A thought I have had for Rome is perhaps moving the Castrum to P2, meaningful access to veteran rank troops, chance at earlier pressure. Athens I dunno about, my sphere of interest centers in Rome. Honestly why not make heroes P2 as well, at least we would get more benefit out of some of them, or make it graded so some heroes are P2 and some are P3.

Also the logical response is 3 markets and then P3. Or more reasonably a blacksmith and two markets

Eg if i wanted to play Rome, what are my options in P2 to defeat my opponent? Do I try and raid him silly with horses? Gauls at least have fanatics which are rather fun though honestly I think to expensive to really be useful. Britains have wardogs in P1 which lends some interesting flexibility into P2. Sparta has skiritai which are cool. And other factions have mercs which as we are all know are quite strong though only Ptolemies, Carthage and Seleucids can pull that off well. That leaves Athens which has nothing, Iberians has nothing, Maurya and Persia also. Kush has macemen but thats it and they rather gimmicky.

Not really sure how a more expensive blacksmith is going to help. Forcing people to have a slower P2 does not solve the problem that P2 is literally irrelevant unless you plan on goin full merc and killing your opponent. The base issue is there are very few useful options in P2.

Sounds like a reasonable idea

Match limit as in only 5 per match? I was thinking more 5 on the field at any one time rather, much like you have in DE with merc limits.