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

[Dakara]

45 minutes ago, Arup said:

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

Annoying idea and nothing related to historic route 

[Deicide4u]

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.

[Dakara]

7 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.

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.

do it = kill balance lol

you know romans have free champ if melee unit upgrade level for example. I don't see the issue of blueprint-modelled units

Nothing prevent to have unique unit for each civ like fanatic, dog etc 

Edited July 2, 2025 by Dakara

[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. 

[Deicide4u]

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.

[Deicide4u]

44 minutes ago, Fabius said:

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.

If structure capture is nerfed, Sparta will need to have another way to destroy or weaken fortifications. Currently, their only option are rams. Which aren't ideal, to say the least.

[Fabius]

Is there scope for having the javelin thrower as a technology for increasing infantry skirmisher range?

[Fabius]

Afternoon folks, I had an interesting idea to share, its a unique tech for Rome called Spoils of the Punic Wars and would allow training of a limited number of elephants from the fortress. These could be regular war elephants or perhaps champion/citizen elephant archers but with javelins instead of bows. Cost wise it could be a reasonable chunk of food and some metal or just food like the regular champion unlocking tech, or something else like wood and stone, to represent the addition of elephant stables in the fortress.

While Rome did not make extensive use of war elephants they did capture them and did use them on several occasions, in the Macedonian wars for instance. Seeing as we have options to create limited troop types, the Centurion for instance, this seems a reasonable way to add some limited nuance and interesting tactical options, and certainly could be applied to other civs as well in the future if a suitable option comes up for them.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

For Rome, I feel like the civ is already pretty full of content (compared to the other civs). However, if someone ends up making a "rome expanded" mod or something for the SP community, this would be great.

Or maybe it could be campaign only (whenever we are able to make campaigns, they take a ton of work).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 07/09/2025 at 9:20 AM, Fabius said:

Is there scope for having the javelin thrower as a technology for increasing infantry skirmisher range?

There's the idea of having unit-specific techs, but I think they should wait for:

https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/7666

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Yeah that scheme would be super nice. If it can be doable via mod I can certainly put specific techs together in com mod.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I've asked @Vantha to look at that ticket. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

Unit specific techs are an untapped treasure trove of gameplay value. I don't think we should get rid of the blacksmith techs of course, but I think unit specific techs could have more creativity in addition to rewarding focus on unit compositions.