TheCJ

Thats why you dont let kids balance the game, they try to use some pseudo-logic to buff the units they like more and nerf the ones they dont like. On a more serious note, whether a general lost at the end is not a ideal indicator of their skill. If you only have cs units while your opponent has champs, you can micro-manage them perfectly and still lose... I mean Hannibal lost to Scipio at Zama?

Well, larger maps are better for hit and run units, like cav archers, since you have more space to micro/run to. But jav cav doesnt really benefit since it cant hit and run (it gets outranged) and neither does melee cav. For both of those (jav and melee cav), larger maps just mean more time for the enemy to react or build up defenses in preparation. For early rushes, you might get to my base before I have my first additional soldiers out on a small map, but after I got them on a large map; similarly on a large map when approaching lategame, you can scout that your enemy has cav and build palisades/towers before he arrives.

I agree. Melee cavalry needs to be faster than ranged cavalry if its supposed to be a counter. And if ranged cav already falls in that range, thats also good. But it might be better to equalize the speed of all ranged cav to a greater degree (so its not 1.3× to 1.6× but instead maybe 1.3× to 1.4×), then we could reduce the speed of melee cav while still having melee cav quicker than ranged cav (maybe at 1.5× to 1.6×)? Lastly I wanted to add two more things I think are relevant to the cavalry issue as a whole: For one the entire game is incredibly quick by the numbers; fast queue times, fast build times, fast gather rates. Thus, it feels like cavalry needs to be even faster to keep "the same advantage" as in other, slower rts. Additionally most games are played on "standard mainland settings" or even ambush nomad or pizza, all of which are very small. You can see this by looking at how often people build additional ccs to get more map control (it doesnt happen often, atleast not in my games). Small maps also make cav more effective, since the moment you see them coming, they are basically already in your economy, thus you need to be very quick in reacting to defend sufficiently.

but do they have to be twice as fast? wouldnt 1.5× or even 1.3× as fast be fast enough? I feel like this would be an unnecessary "unification" of playstyles across different civs. A civ with good defensive options could (if walls, forts, towers werent so bad) secure their eco without needing to keep troops at home and force the enemy cav to take a fight by attacking the enemy base. Then the cav die to normal spearman and no "quick" counter unit is necessary.

I mean, the concept of free software (as in, you can read the code and find out exactly what your pc is doing) has its place in certain situations, although I dont necessarily believe gaming is one of them; it makes more sense when actual real-world data is involved; i dont really care to know *how* the game calculates where my units go, i just need them to go. But I dont think this quote (even though its certainly true) is very applicable in this situation? Just knowing what code is executed doesnt mean anybodys screwing anybody over?

I dont think its a "strict violation", but your goal is to obfuscate the code so its harder to determine what the mod is actually doing, which kinda goes against the concept of free (as in freedom) software? I think?

I dont really think cheating in mp is the reason we need more sp content, but we would definitely profit from more sp content. That being said, there are some great minds already at work to make it happen afaik, so be patient

Well, since I posted this, I have tried it in a teamgame, and together with my pocket (who had a normal cs army), my 50 roman sword champs decimated two opposing cs armies while fighting under 2 forts and a cc. I am also not sure why you think spartiates would be so much stronger than roman or iberian swordsman, why persian or selecid champ cav would be so much stronger than gaulish or roman champ cav and why you disregard the champ pikeman, which are still the most "tanky" unit? Probably every champ wins against 3 citizen soldiers of his type at once (although I have yet to test this).

I am not sure you are? It is possible to make nothing but women and champs. If you work out a good build order for that, it might even be quite strong, since you only really need 40 champs to win against a full cs army (130 units). There is not much more the game can do to make them feel that way, though. I mean, if you choose to use them as your only army, you can (and many do, I agree with you on that), but its not a very good idea, since they are a lot weaker than champs. I mean, I can choose to only make villagers in AoE and use them as my army, the game doesnt "prohibit" that, but i will lose. likely, if your enemy makes champs and you dont, you will lose.

And what do you want from those "30 people", other than that they should kiss the feet of you and the other 10 people that complain about the core gameplay? Hehe. But no, please keep giving feedback on everything you see that could be improved (but stay civil in the discussion. This game has as much of a mp fanbase as a sp one).

Why? If this is not just an opinion you wanted to share with us, but an argument, you have to convince others that this is true. I mean, the current system makes sense logically; every man that can work as a lumberjack or miner can also be called to fight in war. Those conscripts would not be the best fighters, but they would be plentiful. Professional fighters on the other hand cost lots of money, but are a lot stronger. Those would be mercenaries and nobility/bodyguards/temple guards. Ingame, the second category is represented by champs. Ok, that was my cent about the logic part... but how about gameplay? In his original post, @Deicide4u mentioned that the cs concept was which I interpreted as the first argument, even though it is (merely?) an argument of personal opinion. I am not sure how many people that come from AoE have this opinion (I myself dont), but if you like the way AoE did it, why not stay in AoE? (And I dont mean to tell you to leave, we all love to have more people here, but sometimes certain games just arent made for certain people). It was continued on with which is presented as a desirable goal without argumentation, while simultaneously already being the case; champs and mercs are fighting units, cs are just poor citizens you told to get a sword and fight in your war. As a third point, we have the feeling that 0ad starts too quick; and this point, I actually agree with, but its just a design choice/preference issue. Many players love the fact that a 1v1 round of 0ad only takes between 5 and 20 minutes. (while a 1v1 in AoE can easily take up to an hour) Lastly, I want to ask a question; Why is it a problem if "booming equals turtling"? This is only really an issue if you accept the notion that there needs to be 3 types of strategies (booming, rushing and turtling), which have to be differentiateable and counter each other. But why would 0ad have to follow this notion? What exactly is the problem with the gameplay right now? (in your eyes) I already commented a bit on the way I see it, but I will reiterate; which is true, but doesnt mean you lose the fight, if you catch your opponent by surprise or use stronger units (mercs, naked fanatics, cavalry), or just have better upgrades since you went p2 sooner. here I unfortunately chose the word "soldier" to refer to a citizen (cause they are citizens foremost and soldiers secundarily). But I still dont see this as a problem; as @Deicide4u pointed out, you dont want to give the player a unit thats too versatile right from the start.

Indeed. But sticking to what other rts are doing just for the sake of being the same is useless aswell.

good thinking, but icons cant be too complex either, since then they are hard to understand at a short glance

Thats not an argument. Even if everyone was a vegetarian, the icon for "food" could still be meat, just like the icon for "saving" on your pc resembles a floppy disk, even though nobody uses those anymore. The purpose of the icon is to convey the meaning "food" in a way thats easily understood and requires little space on the screen. A meat icon fulfills both those qualities regardless of whether a player eats meat or not. Or was it confusing for you, because you didnt automatically make the connection "food - meat icon"? A wheat icon would work just as well, so theres no technical reason to change it. Your personal preference is indeed a valid argument, albeit not a very strong one. I find the argument that the icon should resemble the most common food source in the game a lot more convincing.

might run into a spacing issue with languages that have exceptionally long names for "food" and players with small screens, no?