Introducing the Official community mod for 0 A.D. Empires Ascendant

[Fabius]

One thing I would love to see is a return of the Roman mule and see it used to once again move scorpions around instead of them being pulled in little carts like everyone else.

[binobo]

11 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

It also lacks techs and other functionality. 

I agree for all your reasons and more. But that’s how we got here

There could be upgrades to the camp to make the troops veteran. Personally, I like that the troops trained are higher level.  For the sake of creativity, the camp could slowly heal troops inside at the cost of an upgrade. To circumvent the "abuse" of mobile arsenals, the production of rams could be slower in the camps. Also, nobody uses the siege wall. currently, garrisoning of walls is one tactic I see no one use.

Are there any thoughts to this?

Also, on a side note, didn't the romans have slingers too? I think it would upset some balancing if they were a stock troop but if there was an upgrade in the barracks to allow the production of slingers, the romans would have more versatility. One of the worst things about playing Romans is playing in low wood environments. They don't have mercenaries or slingers so it makes Romans extremely disadvantaged in these biomes. 

[binobo]

I like the idea of centurions. It could be similar to an area affect troop like the minister or trumpeteer. Or it could be similar to the Iphicrates in Athens and have a slight movement boost (5-10%)for soldiers in a formation with a centurion. 

I think it's cool to have formations but there's no point to do the testudo other than keeping troops together. It would make sense if testudo troops had +1 pierce resistance while moving. 

On the debate of Cavalry, I think all cavalry, especially sword cavalry should have a health decrease and/or a reduction in armor. I'm guilty of it but the Roman sword cav (and other sword cav like the carth mercs) are too tank like. 

[Philip the Swaggerless]

51 minutes ago, binobo said:

Also, nobody uses the siege wall. currently, garrisoning of walls is one tactic I see no one use.

I would love to use the wall but you lose control of it quickly to gaia if in neutral territory or to the enemy if in enemy territory and you can't prevent it.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, binobo said:

camp could slowly heal troops inside at the cost of an upgrade.

It used to do this too. The camp used to be really useful and open up a lot of new strats, but it was entirely gutted. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

3 hours ago, binobo said:

garrisoning of walls is one tactic I see no one use.

The main reason no one uses it is that its hard to get the troops in the right places, and also you can only garrison 8 troops up there, which means its not worth the clicks to get them up there unless you are iberians in p1. 

I have previously recommended adjusting the number of positions to 20 so that it can be useful, even if there is some unit overlap (god forbid).

[Fabius]

8 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

The main reason no one uses it is that its hard to get the troops in the right places, and also you can only garrison 8 troops up there, which means its not worth the clicks to get them up there unless you are iberians in p1. 

I have previously recommended adjusting the number of positions to 20 so that it can be useful, even if there is some unit overlap (god forbid).

the main problem is the only unit that actually effectively works on walls are archers since they have the longest range.

Skirmishers are useless and slingers are mildly better.

[Fabius]

12 hours ago, binobo said:

Also, on a side note, didn't the romans have slingers too? I think it would upset some balancing if they were a stock troop but if there was an upgrade in the barracks to allow the production of slingers, the romans would have more versatility. One of the worst things about playing Romans is playing in low wood environments. They don't have mercenaries or slingers so it makes Romans extremely disadvantaged in these biomes.

Why not put some focus on allied troops? Apparently Rome was using regular legions drawn from Rome as a province and then Allied legions drawn from other areas nearby. You could use this to bring on other troops to fill in gaps assuming they weren't all just carbon copies of each other. 

[Fabius]

12 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

I would love to use the wall but you lose control of it quickly to gaia if in neutral territory or to the enemy if in enemy territory and you can't prevent it.

nobody uses walls at all, not even stone walls. And hilariously enough this is the first alpha since A23 where I have used walls and had them play important rolls in multiple battles. I think players are so not used to seeing walls that when they do see them they sort of freak out. And now we have functional catapults to deal with rams again.

Still, siege walls are nice as an alternative solution, if you have no stone you can still wall stuff using wood. It is a pity though they lost one point of crush armour, used to be 4 but then became the generic 3. Is great for wood maps like Ardennes, the broken terrain can really be played for advantage.
 

maybe could make siege walls phase 2 as well?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok everyone, I found a good civ bonus for Seleucids:

farms -25% cost, -75% build time, and no diminishing returns for farmers.

How does this sound?

This way the bonus works in the short term, but also a little bit in the long term.

here is the merge request:

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/24/diffs

[Fabius]

48 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ok everyone, I found a good civ bonus for Seleucids:

farms -25% cost, -75% build time, and no diminishing returns for farmers.

How does this sound?

This way the bonus works in the short term, but also a little bit in the long term.

here is the merge request:

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/24/diffs

An interesting idea, why Seleucids? 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 minutes ago, Fabius said:

An interesting idea, why Seleucids? 

I called it "fertile crescent"

It should help with seles need for food, in particular for eles and cavalry, two Seleucid strengths.

[alre]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ok everyone, I found a good civ bonus for Seleucids:

farms -25% cost, -75% build time, and no diminishing returns for farmers.

How does this sound?

This way the bonus works in the short term, but also a little bit in the long term.

here is the merge request:

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/24/diffs

I think the non-diminishing returns are a very big buff actually, even if late. must be well evaluated. maybe it's better to just keep the building bonus.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

6 minutes ago, alre said:

I think the non-diminishing returns are a very big buff actually, even if late. must be well evaluated. maybe it's better to just keep the building bonus.

perhaps yes. Maybe this is something we could remove if it proves to be OP.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

no diminishing returns for farmers.

 

Do you mean the number of builders?

Edited December 5, 2022 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

no, this is for farmers here.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

also, I added a merge request for unit specific upgrades, after I finally found an image for the last upgrade.

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests/25/diffs

take a look, this could be a large content drop for the community mod.

[chrstgtr]

5 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

no, this is for farmers here.

What the normal diminishing marginal return?

 

Also, do you know what the actual quant impact is? Say how much more food collected by min 10 assuming all fields are max staffed

Edited December 5, 2022 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

11 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

What the normal diminishing marginal return?

90% return,

so i think it's each additional farmer is 90 percent of the previous one.

1st farmer = 100%

2nd farmer = 90%

3rd farmer = 90% * 90% = 81%

4th farmer = 73%

5th farmer = 65%

Maybe I am wrong tho.

Just now, real_tabasco_sauce said:

90% return,

so i think it's each additional farmer is 90 percent of the previous one.

1st farmer = 100%

2nd farmer = 90%

3rd farmer = 90% * 90% = 81%

4th farmer = 73%

5th farmer = 65%

Maybe I am wrong tho.

in theory, you would get pretty good benefits from spreading your women out after you move some to a woodline.

[alre]

cumulated effect of proposed bonus:

1 farmer per field: +0% food income

2 farmer per field: +5.3% food income

3 farmer per field: +10.7% food income

4 farmer per field: +16.3% food income

5 farmer per field: +22.1% food income

so if you keep your farms fully staffed, it's +22% food income. it's not wild but it's very good from the moment you get farms.

[alre]

formula: n / sum (for i from 0 to n-1) of (0.9 ^ i)

[real_tabasco_sauce]

yeah not huge, but it's substantial. The main thing is that its present for the whole game time, unlike the discount on construction. 

[chrstgtr]

10 minutes ago, alre said:

cumulated effect of proposed bonus:

1 farmer per field: +0% food income

2 farmer per field: +5.3% food income

3 farmer per field: +10.7% food income

4 farmer per field: +16.3% food income

5 farmer per field: +22.1% food income

so if you keep your farms fully staffed, it's +22% food income. it's not wild but it's very good from the moment you get farms.

Thanks.

So this is about double what the Gauls' extra gathering tech is except it starts immediately and you get it for free. Could be fine--I don't know. Sounds substantial, though. 

My guess is that in the long term this would be less impactful than the extra pop that Persia and Maurya gets, but in the short term this would be one of the best booming features. 

Edited December 5, 2022 by chrstgtr

[real_tabasco_sauce]

12 minutes ago, alre said:

formula: n / sum (for i from 0 to n-1) of (0.9 ^ i)

wait, is it 90 percent for each farmer, or only for the added farmer?

In any case, it could be removed or changed to .95 if it is too OP for seles.

Edited December 5, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[chrstgtr]

6 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

yeah not huge, but it's substantial. The main thing is that its present for the whole game time, unlike the discount on construction. 

See above. I lean towards just making it the diminishing marginal returns. Or going bigger on discount cost (i.e., make fields free) and forget about the diminishing marginal return issue.