Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'weak'.
Found 2 results
-
i have a metapost with 3 subposts: * "Celtic Post" The celts were very fierce, but poor on techjnology, that means that the only way for the celts could lauch a huge attack is on forest, in open terrain are very very very very weak, we can implemente as there: O means on open terrain such as desert, F means forest, the unit that i talk is B * Britons: O infantry: 4 F Infantry 11 O delamokludda = 10 F delamokludda = 19 O chariot = 23 F chariot = 16 now the gauls: O infantry: 8 F Infantry 9 O solduros = 17 F solduros = 13 why?????: the britons were more "savage" more noise, naked, fierce, indomit the gauls were more disciplinated and good metalworking, that explains my idea * Note the Calvary "except Carbanto" don't recieve a positive or negative impact of it * Persia: * the persian melee infantry were of the worse infantry on 0AD world but is very very very cheap, we could implement with 8 hack the infantry and 12 the champions but with the 60% of the actual cost, the rest of the units are untouched by the change * Mauryans: many many many many soldiers, but few technology, we could implement it, i'm talking about melee infantry: B = 7 hack A = 10 hack E = 13 hack the champions don't recieve any impact of it B means Basic, A means Advanced, and E elite
-
aremany units that would be OP: * persian spearmen, are very weak "only woddy armor and shield", is a fact that the persian infantry was of the worse infantry on the history "of their age", but was very very very cheaper 8 attack, 30 food sounds good * mauryan infantry: less cheaper but more armored 9 attack 40 food is good, the mauryan army was of 600.000 men "200.000 melee" with few technology but cheap
