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

[Arup]

1. the han minister is op. you gave the hans a movable pyramid for free. no one can beat han early boom without rushing. you force to attack the han at start, the same civ known for it's rush capabilities. 

2. carthage: why can I put down 2 trade routes,a cc, a fort, all kissing each other??? not to mention the op walls as well lmao. if @chrstgtr starts hosting community mod tgs the first thing I'm trying is turtling with mercs. you made 40 metal mercs that can come out in 4 seconds and start building brother, ofc I'm gonna turtle. regarding the stone thingy: have you heard of the "market exploit" ? yea I'm not sure you can have that stone thingy while the whole market thingy isn't fixed

[Arup]

I think we should return maiden guards to normal stats as they were, but, let them convert to each other (sword to archer vice versa) same as we do with immortals. otherwise pers and maur will be a bit too similar imo.

increase the kushite building auras range as proposed by @Seleucids please

buff archers, maybe try the thing @vinme  suggested the other day. I'm afraid I can't explain it that well, so vinme, mind listing your suggestions on archers here?

another thing I had on the back of my mind: nerf vercingetorix. why does the loser of alesia have almost same stats as Hannibal the great?

[TheCJ]

On 20/06/2025 at 2:32 PM, Arup said:

why does the loser of alesia have almost same stats as Hannibal the great?

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?

[Arup]

shut uppo!

at the end of the day, the gaul heroes are all good. atleast reduce the aura range of verci to 40 or 45 meters.

[chrstgtr]

I played several com mod games today. I basically only paid attention to cav balance, which I think is off. 

• Champ cav balance seems ok-ish. 
• CS cav dies way too fast to inf, though. Cav is very easy to counter by just making spear and using formations. 
• CCs seem to be much more difficult for cav to capture. I think this is probably a good thing. 

I, again, state that I think the bonus multiplier should be added for champ cav but not for CS cav. 

 

Edited July 1, 2025 by chrstgtr

[Atrik]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

CS cav dies way too fast to inf, though. Cav is very easy to counter by just making spear and using formations. 

It's a good think if CS cav aren't always better then inf. This counter effect is supposed to be a mitigation of cav strength instead of nerfing their speed or any stats. The way formation works make indeed hard to outmaneuver infantry back-lines with melee cavs, but they still have use cases too (mostly rushing and raiding, but forcing enemy to call formations multiple times make melee cav worth it). I like that cav remain strong and mobile, but have very hard time if they fight polearm inf.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, Atrik said:

It's a good think if CS cav aren't always better then inf. This counter effect is supposed to be a mitigation of cav strength instead of nerfing their speed or any stats. The way formation works make indeed hard to outmaneuver infantry back-lines with melee cavs, but they still have use cases too (mostly rushing and raiding, but forcing enemy to call formations multiple times make melee cav worth it). I like that cav remain strong and mobile, but have very hard time if they fight polearm inf.

Most of what you're describing could be fine. But it doesn't match the resource cost of cav, which is 50% more than inf. Champ melee cav, especially, is very difficult to justify the cost of if they die so quickly and cannot effectively capture/kill CCs.

Cav rushes will also be easier to defend (because CS cav is nerfed) and come with a heavier cost since cav cannot simply go back and go eco after a rush the way the inf can. 

Also, I don't think the bolded was ever the intended purpose. The problem was always champ cav--not CS cav. 

The community mod simply uses to blunt an instrument that nerfs all cav when a more tailored approach was necessary. 

[Atrik]

7 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Most of what you're describing could be fine. But it doesn't match the resource cost of cav, which is 50% more than inf. Champ melee cav, especially, is very difficult to justify the cost of if they die so quickly and cannot effectively capture/kill CCs.

Consider that a lot of players already expressed they wish that cavs in general get nerfed. Some ideas where to decrease speed as we're talking above but also make cs cav 2 pop and 3 for champs... Theses ideas would nerf cavs much more then making their counter actually works. I also agree with players saying that cavs should ideally be an auxiliary force of an army and rarely it's main force. So even if you invest more to make cavs, you aren't guaranteed to be able to take out a similarly sized inf army. Cavs can already choose what fights to take or not which is their core strength in the first place, and alone could justify a greater price.

 

Beside the fact cavs can hardly be caught by inf spears cav have a lot of extra hp:

• Cs melees cavs have x1.5 (1.6 with Horse breading) of melee inf
• Cs ranged cavs have x2 (x2.2 with Horse breading) of ranged inf

These hp make them tougher to projectiles, but also spears x2.5 counter was making them barley catch up with the extra hp...

 

From here I'll be in favor of making melee cavs roles more defined. Spear cav could get their damage against other cav increased, and sword cav could benefit from more pierce armor for them to be more effective when trying to kill ranged units or raid enemy base.

 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

To me it’s clear that the counter alone (whether it should be 2.5x or 3x) is not enough to balance the champ cav and cs cav. In my opinion a speed nerf is needed.

[Arup]

if you wanna go historic route, then every civ should have a cap on cavalry unit as a % of total pop possible. this cap will be unique for each civ and should respect the historical army of each civ. for example, horses are not native to India. they imported them from the middle east and this horse trade was sought after. Persia, obviously, had a large cav force. Hans too, as a result of constant Xiongnu threat ammased gargantuous amount of cavalry force and so on

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Dakara said:

Idea number 453 : infantery and cav same stat except speed

You have to kill the horse, as well as the man

2 hours ago, Dakara said:

Standardize cavalry and infantry.

So, even more blueprint-modelled units. We should strive more towards civilizational strengths and weaknesses, not just slap the same stats on everything and give them a different model.

For example, Roman infantry gets more hack armor and HP because it was that good. However, their cavalry was not good, so they get a small nerf. Spartan spear infantry is stronger (yes, I know we have a tech for this. But, so do the Athenians, who were philosophers) and faster, but it has weaker rams or something.

Also, economic bonuses should applied more liberally, to support the civilization's strengths.

[TheCJ]

45 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

You have to kill the horse, as well as the man

I mean, you would try not to kill the horse, but capture it, no?

45 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

So, even more blueprint-modelled units. We should strive more towards civilizational strengths and weaknesses, not just slap the same stats on everything and give them a different model.

That sentiment is very understandable. You seem to have reached a point where you have a good understanding of the basics of most/all civilizations, hence why you notice that some units being equal for certain civs doesnt really feel right. But there is a counter-argument for more differentiation, as it is more complex, especially for newer players.

When you first pick up the game, you would be happy if you could rely on a spearman doing the same no matter which civ you are, no?

Edited July 2, 2025 by TheCJ
typo

[Arup]

5 hours ago, Dakara said:

Annoying idea and nothing related to historic route 

yes, forgot to mention it's annoying and will be debated and hated by a lot BUT, they implemented this new naval system in a similar fashion so who knows 

[Seleucids]

The naval rebalance deserve its own new topic

Ideally we also get some feedback from single players who play a lot more naval than us

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, Arup said:

yes, forgot to mention it's annoying and will be debated and hated by a lot BUT, they implemented this new naval system in a similar fashion so who knows 

I don't see any parallel between the naval rebalance and a cap on the number of cavalry available.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I'm glad to see all this discussion

In the future we can try some speed balancing to see how things turn out.

@Dakara I see what you are saying about cavalry, but part of balancing CS units is considering their economic roles.

I recall we discussed some naval balance stuff, maybe it was in the dedicated topic. We can certainly continue to tweak the naval balance. Scout ship to p1, also nerfing the scout ship a little, decrease fire ship wood cost. I can also add in the fix for the Kushite fire arrows technology.

[Fabius]

I mentioned the idea as linked below, and then it occurred to me that it might be a good suggestion for testing in the community mod.

A possible twist of interest is both slinger and archer options but as an either/or setup. That being said given the obvious slowing of eco the Reforms imposes, since spearmen are slower than ranged units, an archer would be most consistent to that with its walk time.

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Hi @Fabius I see the suggestion. However, in my opinion, the romans' relatively simple unit roster is important. Civs should have different strengths and weaknesses, and part of that is having an incomplete roster. Depending on how unit balance evolves going forward, there may be a need for the romans to get a different ranged unit, but for now I don't think they need it. I worry that adding extra units creates kind of a situation like mace currently, where they are very good at a lot of different strategies.

If the range is really crucial, using bolts is a good choice.

[Fabius]

37 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Hi @Fabius I see the suggestion. However, in my opinion, the romans' relatively simple unit roster is important. Civs should have different strengths and weaknesses, and part of that is having an incomplete roster. Depending on how unit balance evolves going forward, there may be a need for the romans to get a different ranged unit, but for now I don't think they need it. I worry that adding extra units creates kind of a situation like mace currently, where they are very good at a lot of different strategies.

If the range is really crucial, using bolts is a good choice.

Those are good points, I have noticed the unit balance shifting since A27, I almost never see champion cavalry now, unless I am the one trying to use it, civs with strong anti cav options are also getting picked more, and Han crossbow and halberdier/spearman combination is horrifically lethal to champion cavalry and just about everything else too, I was genuinely surprised at how effective it turned out to be. Pikes have also become very decent damage dealers while maintaining good durability, especially great in wars of attrition, so that is a very nice change

[Fabius]

Afternoon, I had an idea for a bolt shooter related technology.

Flaming bolts, that applies a burning debuff to targets. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Fabius said:

Flaming bolts, that applies a burning debuff to targets. 

And do bonus damage to structures

[Fabius]

7 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

And do bonus damage to structures

That would also be the burning damage application, but yes  

[Fabius]

Also Ptolomies should not have access to this tech on the grounds that their bolt shooter is not designed for incendiary projectiles and for potential balance purposes given their rapid fire bonus

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, Fabius said:

Afternoon, I had an idea for a bolt shooter related technology.

Flaming bolts, that applies a burning debuff to targets. 

I think It could be considered as a unique tech or a unique unit for a civ. It would probably be very strong if the fire damage applies to multiple targets (splash).

[Fabius]

39 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think It could be considered as a unique tech or a unique unit for a civ. It would probably be very strong if the fire damage applies to multiple targets (splash).

It should potentially apply by splash, though I am unsure on the exact splash radius, its not something included in the unit details. That being said it does feel a bit to generic for a faction specific tech.

Currently those who have bolters are Carthage, Athens, Sparta, Ptolomies, Macedonia and of course Rome.

Macedonia is already strong so definitely not them. Ptolomies have machine gun level bolters(Cleopatra boosts fire rate even more) so not them either.

Athens I am unsure where they are at, but they have a bunch of ranged options already. Carthage is very much in the same vein too, albeit weaker. That leaves just Rome and Sparta, two strong infantry civs with very lacklustre ranged capabilities outside of siege units which Rome has a significant advantage on.

Sparta would certainly benefit the most from it given they have no catapults, flaming bolts on their bolters would certainly be an interesting alternative for building breaking.

Rome already has the onagar, but the scorpio is also very iconic to them and they do go hand in hand I would say. They now have a strong theme of manoeuvrability which is cool, so that could be utilised instead. Given their known siege prowess one can definitely still make a case for flaming bolts or something though.