Outis

Putting some measure to limit the number of Spartans is a great idea because the main problem of Sparta was that the number of the Spartiates declined over time due to losses and debt. Their numbers could not be restored due to the rigid social structure.

Background: Krypteia was a practice (details not certain) to instill fear in the helots to discourage rebellion and maintain their social status as slaves. Neodamodes (pl. Neodamodeis) is the name given to the class of former helots who are given certain freedoms in exchange for military service. This was necessary due to the declining manpower.

Another proposal: Helots lose the ability to advance rank with experience, and Introduce a technology pair: 1) Krypteia: Helots have (slightly) increased gather rates Or 2) Neodamodeis: Helots gain the ability to advance rank with experience The idea is to give the choice of either having better economy to support the production of the best infantry in the game or to have more variety in the military

Is the presence of the co-king necessary on the map? I was imagining him to sit in the Gerousia. Hence the proposal to include it as a tech rather than a unit. Speaking of Gerousia, I think it would be great to include the building in the game. The model is already there...

Only one king is allowed to lead the army in battle since shortly before the Persian Wars. We do not hear much about the co-kings of famous Spartan kings, probably they are overshadowed by their more famous counterparts. Maybe there can be a unique technology called Second King with unique bonuses for the hero trained?

I love the nuances between the two architectures i.e. Ionic Order vs Corinthian Order or Amphiprostyle vs Peripteral temples. But I love how @LordGoodadded on top of the previous Spartan building to give us the current ones more .

Hello team I was wondering... Athenians and Macedonians are the only remaining factions to share buildings. Are there any plans to create a new set of buildings for either of them?

If we want to vote and propose changes, then I propose to do so on smaller chuncks. Arguments and agreement will be easier to track.

Bigger and better! I think Atlas Valleys and Sahyadri Buttes by @LordGood are masterpieces. I love that they are variable rather than symmetric, so players have different advantages and disadvantages. I also love Neareastern Badlands and Greek Acropolis. I wish we had giant versions of these maps. I think performance is much better and we are ready .

As a former resident of Izmir, I would love to see this in the game. You only see one columm remaining if you visit the site .

One more thing to consider: swords are more likely to break or bend with a powerful hit. A swordsman will be hesitant to hit a siege engine with full force. An axe will not be out of action after such an attack. An axeman is more likely to decommision a siege engine.

This also has the effect of dealing higher damage to armored units than faster attacks with same dps .

Can we mitigate this by giving siege units a low base damage and a large bonus damage to buildings? I think mace and axe units being effective against wooden siege units is a good idea actually.

We need to be careful about this because citizen soldiers are also workers. If some factions have cheaper workers, this may break things.

I agree about biremes and triremes being a single unit line because right now triremes are like biremes but better. Quinqueremes have a different role as siege ships and are capable of garrisoning siege. I think quinqueremes should be a unit line of its own. Different ship lines will indeed make sense if/when we have ship ramming and/or ship boarding.

Having played Warcraft, Starcraft, C&C, AoE series since the first titles, I always dreamed of creating the "perfect" RTS. I can comfortably say 0 ad is perfect and don't let anyone convince you otherwise @Stan` and the WFG team. Those titles do not come close to the level of immersion 0 ad has. Any discussions concerning balancing at the moment is marginal compared to the awesomeness of what we already have. Big thank you! I agree about the necessity of design documents. When we say "unit x needs more armor", it should not be implemented just to adjust current balance as it is without considering to the whole balance concept behind. We should ensure our proposal is adding value towards the balance goals. We should have an anchor. This is so true. Design is about compromise.

Thank you @wowgetoffyourcellphone for starting this thread . I like most ideas and have a few proposals to enhance them: Aura and mixin ideas are excellent. I think we can differentiate spear and pike infantry, especially when in formations. Locked shields and massed pikes auras from Delenda Est are great ideas to make them work with formations. Clubs and axes being more effective against stone structures than swords and spears is not very intuitive. And they steal the part from siege . May I suggest to make clubs and axes more effective against armored units? For example ignore all or a percentage of armor? Justification: clubs and axes apply a more severe blow than swords and spears, and break the bones of the enemy even when stopped by heavy armor. I agree with this. My proposal: do not have a hard counter vs cavalry archer, but make archer attacks against them more accurate. Justification: a rider with horse is a bigger target than an infantryman and easier to hit. This way, an exchange between infantry archers and cavalry archers favors the infantry, and there is no range problem. Civilizations without infantry archers still have to chase cavalry archers with melee cavalry. I really want to keep the kiting effect here; cavalry archers should be devastating if they can outrange the enemy. I cannot see why slingers should be more effective against a particular unit line. My proposal: make them more effective against armored units, as slinger bullets have a crush effect like clubs or axes. I agree with this one. I think sword cavalry is difficult to place...

More great artwork from @wackyserious . Phase IV? Something I liked about AoE2 was, you had Castle Age where you get unique units and knights, defenses dominated so you had great battles but it was hard to destroy cities. Then, you had Imperial Age where you get much better siege, especially ranged siege, so you could destroy defenses easily. Maybe we can have an Empire Phase with emphasis on siege.

Agreed, there were cavalry formations which were combat efficient. What I want to emphasize is: most ancient armies did not operate cavalry alone to conclude engagements. They needed infantry, boots on the ground, or maybe sandals on the ground in some cases . I think the game can reflect that in such a way that most factions cannot pull it out with cavalry alone unless the enemy has a bad army composition or makes a tactical mistake.

Yes, if ranged infantry stray away from melee infantry, they are hunted by fast units. And this does not contradict the statement that they have a different role than melee infantry. I think the question to tackle here is: in most ancient armies, melee infantry was the main force, and ranged infantry and cavalry were supporting melee infantry or having specific roles. And then, there were some armies which relied on particular tactics involving large number of ranged units (Han) or cavalry (maybe Scythians some day? ). How to make sure all are viable strategies? I guess hard counter attack bonuses are necessary to implement this. But please please please, do not give huge multipliers in such a way that unit x rips unit y apart but barely scratches the armor of unit z. And please keep them realistic (spears hurt cavalry because they are longer than other melee weapons and can reach the rider) and/or historical (elephants were defeated by javelins in most accounts). What would really be great also is: 1) Have bonuses to formations. Scattered infantry are vulnerable to cavalry charges. Clustered formations are vulnerable to missiles. Hoplites were well protected from both melee and ranged attack because they locked shields together. Pike phalanx was only effective in formation. Roman Testudo formation was almost impervious missiles. 2) Have aura effect. Camels and elephants need stench aura which prevents or weakens cavalry charges. Elephants need fear aura which weakens enemy attack. Chariots need trample. I think most of these are present in DE.

There is one thing they do which melee units cannot do: you cannot commit all melee units to battle at the same time because melee units need to almost be next to units, their availability for fighting is restricted to the battle line, so they spend more time manuevering. Ranged units may be commited in much higher numbers simultaneously if positioned well. They do not have to move until threatened directly or there is nothing left to shoot. This gives them and also their counters different roles than pure melee infantry.

Nice

(All) Greek hoplites were better armored than their opponents with the large shields and body armor. I prefer not to see Athenian Hoplites have less armor than Carthaginian Sacred Band or Persian Immortals. I will still settle for it if they beat all other champion spearmen except Spartiates and Hypaspists . Better warriors are more likely to capture or be able to afford better armor, but I agree it is not necessarily a rule. Please don't change the name from Epilektos. It fits perfectly . About Scythian Archers; I really think they should remain as archers rather than use clubs. They may be using clubs for policing the citizenry, but the game does not have civic order in its scope. Regardless of their peacetime equipment, they will pick up their bows against the enemy, just as citizen soldiers working as lumberjacks drop their axes and pick up their spears. Please don't separate them from their bows.

Realism oriented player speaking I think when other great features such as ship ramming, charging, directional attacks (flanking) are implemented, acceleration will make much more sense. In fact, I don't see those features working well without acceleration. The challenge today is, how to make use of it without such features and not break the game. In essence, acceleration has an impact in maneuvering. I see it having a greater impact on cavalry than infantry. It will make cavalry raiding more difficult and require more attention from the executing player. Personally, I like outcome.

Chariots were quite unique and were used sparingly in the timeframe of 0 A.D. Their advantage of speed was taken over by cavalry. In battles against disciplined opponents, they were easily defeated. I envision Chariots to have such differences to cavalry counterparts as to deserve their own templates. I am a fan of novelty . - Cost: Chariots should cost high amount of wood - Population: They come in teams of 2, why not make them cost 2 population? - Built from: Chariots are constructs. Why not build them from a unique building? Or have a prerequisite for them as opposed to building them from stable right away? May echo "used sparingly". - Trample damage: They need to deal trample damage as historically this is what they were deployed for in the time frame of 0 A.D. - Armor: High pierce armor makes sense. I remember discussions about directional attacks. What would be super cool is to have directional armor, or make chariots significantly vulnerable to attacks from behind. - Acceleration: Even lower than cataphracts... They should not be agile. What I have in my mind is, chariots have some strengths (trample damage to massed units, strong front armor) which can be used to defeat undisciplined opponents (here I am thinking represented by not paying attention to micro by the player), but at the same time have exploitable weakness (cannot accelerate to outrun cavalry, weak against rear attacks) to be easily defeated by disciplined (micro-ing) opponents.