Atrik

It's a bit more APM overall, you have to make sure formation is toggled only when desired. Which is what I don't really like, you want to get the efficiency gain from it, but you also have to go with the frustrations of having units in formations at random times .

The reason Petra doesn't use them is that it consider they have 0 attack therefore it's at the very end of it's priorities. So it would stay true even if you buffed them 100x as long as you don't add default attack.

./config/0ad/logs Or gather the errors from terminal if you open 0ad from there. I don't see any reasons why editing the population bonus of structures in template would break anything so probably you are right to try to look into how you packaged your mod. A random guess would be that you extracted the mod you're playing with creating a extra folder like 0ad/mods/yourmod/yourmod/simulation/templates/..., and should be 0ad/mods/yourmod/simulation/templates/.... Besides this, mods downloaded from the downloader should create the correct folder structure.

Under Options > Gameplay > Formation control, one can set orders to unit to not override current formation. With the current workings of formations, this can lead to a non-negligible efficiency gain for orders like gather, build, capture... This because units will waste far less time bumping into each others while in the same formation. I'm posting this because I have for a long time, I not understood it was a setting when witnessing players using it, thinking it was marginal usage of a custom command where the game allowed you to define formation. Recently, much more players starting using it, so I started to try it too. I'm used to using formation at my advantage in fights, so I don't hate the current formation buffs. However for economy, it feels a bit... Weird... To be able to make gains using formations, that should be more like a battle thing. I don't have a defined opinion or improvement ideas for this, but hoping opening a thread on it can gather interesting ones.

I got confused by the template name "cataphract mixin", thinking it was applying only to cataphract. No I don't think they need additional nerf, the speed debuff might already remove too much of there utility and still have them as strong as frontliner. I guess we'll see, if the counter damage increase for spears have been dismissed already. Yes but actually 'normal' champ cav only get HP debuff, so net nerf, against all including against inf there (If I'm not mistaken again).

Bactrians Chavs are have the same stats as Cataphract in a27, they are used more often for champ cav because of the Persian pop bonus. So they'll be nerfed more then Catapharct, intentionally? Your armor and HP changes barely change cav HP equivalent, but lowered it's speed, so they'll be worse at chasing other cavs but as good against infantry. A bit less map control too.

Yes, there are more frequently capture attempts failing this alpha then when it was so much harder. That's the point, it makes it more dynamic then always going for rams just to take out a undefended civic building.

The best change with melee re-balance since I play this game, in my view. Again, in my view, CC should be a building to be defended, and not a defensive building. If you play greedy and recklessly, then you possibly get punished. It's not hard to garrison your best units in it or to plan some defenses either troops or minimum some palisades. But yes you have to do it. It's not longer enough to farm, ring the bell, then having your CC hold all by itself.

On theses changes I only know about the changes to structures (The rest I haven't tested enough or have enough elements to form an strong opinion): Cheap Walls, Palisades especially spammed*, are very annoying for the game-play in current context. They just make pathfinder bug (I know it's not a bug, but a feature of the gates, but it feels like a pathfinder bug); when they are a lot of them, even breached, they kinda take too much visual space; most players don't like stalled games... Basically more walls = more frustrations. I'll rather have them actually strong, and hope for a feature to make them easier to snap with other buildings or even terrain. *In your PR you say that since they are weaker, they will be spammed less, but that's unlikely to be the case, cheaper but weaker incentivize spam, not the opposite. Fort Accuracy; defenses are already super strong this alpha, especially forts, increasing their ability to kill single units like hero doesn't make sens to me. Capture Regeneration Rate of Structures; again, defenses are already very strong currently. But if you really think some famous structures players strategically surround with defensive wheat fields needs be harder to capture, then I would rather increase capture points rather then capture regeneration. This would make capturing and defending easier to learn, because evaluating the effects of regeneration is kinda tricky. A lot of players complain that enemies always capture their structure so easily but themself can't, because they have not yet the experience of the trickiness (exponential effects) of capture regeneration.

Likely to be much more time managing the discussions. The goal isn't to make it easier to write changes (tweaking templates isn't really hard-work to begin with, and require minimal technical skills too, anyone could do it), more like to try to leverage the wisdom of the masses/the community to validate or not balancing ideas. Having theses polls would open discussions framed around existing PRs (and available in com mod possibly to be tested); avoid oversights, or validate changes you suggests. If all these changes just go from com mod to next release what's the point of calling them "tested". At time of writing, all changes seems to be approved, so if ever some would complain later, you would at least be able to point to the poll and say they were voted in, and players complaining should have contributed to the debate then.

My bad, I need to link the git PR. Also remember changes are in com mod.

Disclaimer : Doing this poll on my own initiative. I didn't consult @real_tabasco_sauce about it but I believe that it would be at least interesting to have votes on balancing ideas that are probably going to be introduced in a28; or even maybe, it could be default of how balancing changes are introduced (like it was for the first version of com mod a26). Ideally votes should be only submitted after testing and building a good opinion on the changes through community mod. PR links for more infos: Cheaper Wall Han Ministers rework Carth Techs, Bonus and Unit rework Fort Accuracy Nerf Capture Elephants and Longswords tweak Mauryas Maiden rework

Oh ok, I misunderstood what you meant previously then.. So if this create 0 issues, others techs that would do something similar wouldn't have either, in mods or in future balancing stuff, I guess you already have the proper solution then.

@guerringuerrin your hack is perfectly suited for this. As you said, the likelihood of not having Wicker Baskets researched until you can capture an enemy maury farmstead then research Ahimsa is very very edge case... And wouldn't even break anything. If you really want to hustle it, here two 'long-term' improvements ideas: Support template attribute to mark as 'non-civ specific' techs and structure to be ignored in civ overview Support paired techs to use existing 'normal' techs (Ideal)

Thanks for testing @guerringuerrin! Providing feedback is important to me for this kind of feature. For 1), you guessed right, the option doesn't allow map resizing, and it's not clear. It's noted in the tooltip button but I'll need to improve this... For 2), I think it does display always the correct amount. I've tested it to be sure, but I think it's because of the slight differences with Custom Trainer system. So you see a number doesn't match your expectation but should match the inputs. => In Moderngui it's either you have idle buildings in selection and units are queued there, OR train 'normally' in all buildings. So if you have 2 idle building out of 5 => you see 2; after clicking you now have 0 idle building => you see 5 and all will have queue length of 2 ect.. I'm happy you see the benefits! Before and while doing it I came doubting multiple time if it would make sens. But yes having the extras and ability to compare and see the effects of different options as you browse is a good fit for this mod, and I'm so glad you think it too!

It might make the tech available to other civs, maybe for example if you capture a maury farmstead Should be checked..

I think you got the version 1.27.22 which isn't the last version. If you got it from mod.io, it's because I haven't got it as live release there. I've just uploaded new version there but it's not signed so not "live release". So now get it in "other versions" on it's mod.io page if you want to download it from there (2.27.8).

Requested a few times was to be able to get vanilla top panel. Now the option is here (live setting in GUI builder).

New (gitlab): Queuing techs when selecting multiple buildings will go to least busy building (AOE-like) instead of all to a single one. New GUI Builder/Configuration Assistant. This is supposed to be a great step to be able to call the mod a 'modular GUI': Get guided with a series of small walkthroughs to customize the GUI panels, the GUI updates live so you modify it in real time. Much easier, funnier and digestible then the 50+ options of ModernGUI in normal options page. I'd love to get feedback on this last one ... Give it a try: open it by clicking the gear icon near minimap!

Engine.QuickSave and QuickLoad might make the trick for you if you want to return to a point in game, example : when the overlay is closed, return to the point of when it got opened. It's instantaneous.

Not sure how much players wouldn't.

Never happens in vanilla simulation. If you make a mod, then you can already set whatever default behavior you want. As said, in vanilla, it will just likely be undesired and confusing behavior. Even if buildings were weaker to hack damage, it will still be undesired for ranged units for example, and still perfectly confusing.

Yes I wish it would be possible to have units never interact with enemy buildings unless specified but it's unpractical for a compatible mod to do this. That's what units do with gaia buildings iirc: nothing, they await order or target which is ideal. Units attacking buildings is almost always undesired behavior, and get the player confused as what is happening in fights.

Yes, you could. But if you lookup "Cav" column you expect to see how much Cavs there are for that player... Not just Cavs that aren't Champ. Well, might be more obvious to me who do use it. The counters aren't trying to be breakdown of pop space used. Some units aren't represented at all; some units could cost multiple population space etc etc...