Even thought of @ValihrAnt .

I don't think it is necessary to create new models. as gaul and brit are extremely poor in water maps, putting trireme early can be interesting. we can lower the attack a bit (original design idea), or even increase the value of the gaul / brit / (iber too?) triremes in proportion to their largest hp.

Why don't we move the gaules / brit trireme to village phase? the original idea of ​​the brit / gaul trireme was to have more hit points and less attack. We put it in phase two and reduce the attack a little bit, I think it's fair.

As mentioned by @ValihrAnt, pikeman is a great unit, specially with ranger units, better than spearmen or swordmen ofc. it doesn't seem bad or unbalanced, it doesn't seem bad that they are stronger, some civilizations can take good advantage of it. what cannot happen is the extremely strong unit to the point of ruining gameplay. Rome may have a best sword inf of the game or iber with slings. Some "specially" units dont seems a problem with me.

Some civilizations do not have bireme it does not seem like a problem with the patch, this makes players make better decisions about which civilization to choose on water maps.

We can reduce the strength of the bireme a little more, so that the snowball is not so significant, Increasing your cost is also interesting.

As I mentioned earlier, I think we should reduce the pikeman armor a little bit, so that the new attack can be balanced. Giving a bonus is not a good solution, he would still have 1 attack, which is unpreparable.

DefaultArrowCount 1.

Tnx god, tnx angen.

Outpost are almost not used in 2x2 games and
3x3 or 4x4. The current changes along with nescio pacth(outpost need unit to vision)outposts are more interesting and useful, as they do not need vision technology to have a considerable vision, they also lose territory slowly.
100% is not true.

If vision is deemed “practically useless”, then I'd suggest deleting the carthaginians/special_exploration.xml and romans/vision_sibylline.json technologies.

The "add": 50 could be replaced with e.g. "multiply": 1.2 (i.e. 20%), if you think that's better. However, the effect would be exponential, i.e. with a population cap of 250 the first wonder would add 50, the second 60, the third 72, andsoforth, so I guess that's why a flat addition rather than a multification was chosen in the past. I have no strong opinion on this specifically.

Yes, but the combination of more armour, health, and, crucially, a third more trade gain for merchant ships justify their higher costs.

The patch is better than the current situation, but I still don't feel satisfied.

Following the idea of the patch, outpost could be just a neutral building, cannot be captured, just destroyed or garrison. Can only be built in neutral territory.

I really like this

Values by @Nescio

Rebase.

I do not understand too. the pikemen were a vulnerable unit from a ranged attacks, but an armored unit attacking vs melee. I think it's fair to decrease your piercing armor and increase your attack slightly.

In D2972#129834, @Nescio wrote:

2/3 is a good number for you?

2+3 is better than 1+3, though I'd prefer 2+4, 2+5, or 2+6, which would still result in a damage per second less than that of spearmen (4 vs 5.5).

Still armour 10/10?

Yes, that's what's characteristic of pikemen in 0 A.D.

2/3 is a good number for you?
Still armour 10/10?

In D2972#129774, @Nescio wrote:

Increasing the hack attack to 2 and decreasing the pierce from 3 to 2.

Given that pikemen already have by far the lowest damage per second of any soldier, I'm not sure the pierce damage reduction is an improvement, why not simply increase the damage, e.g. 2 hack + 4 pierce? (2 + 4) / 2 = 3 is still a lot less than the next weakest unit, i.e. spearmen: (3 + 2.5) / 1 = 5.5.

In D2815#129693, @Stan wrote:

That unit exists and has been updated recently in mods. If you want it I can add it to vanilla

New values is better.

The problem of lack of swordsmen is easily solved by decreasing the spearman pierce attack and increasing the hack for example.

up.

In D2966#129329, @Nescio wrote:

What about new town or city phase techs gives 5% health but +5% food cost?

If a technology is really effective, like +25%, then I think a cost increase is justified (e.g. D2856). For a generic technology, I'd caution against, though.
Given that citizen soldiers already get free health increases each phase advance (see D2845), I'm unconvinced adding another cavalry health technology is desirable.
How about adding a town phase "Horse Breeding" technology that reduces Cavalry training time by 10%?

Rebase.

In D2966#129325, @Nescio wrote:

Just take out the penalty. Don't add health. Maybe raise the cost to 300 food + 100 metal?

In D2955#129308, @Nescio wrote:

Up without techs.

Thank you.
Did you consider giving all cavalry types different speeds? E.g. archer > javelineer > axeman > swordsman > spearman. And perhaps health in the opposite direction (i.e. faster units are killed quicker)?
That said, I have no strong opinions on this patch either way. Nonetheless, I think @ValihrAnt's opinion is important in this case, because of D2585, as mentioned earlier.

In D2966#129307, @Nescio wrote:

Thanks, I like this. One question though, why does the technology increase the food cost of cavalry? I don't think this is really necessary; movement speed does matter, but I'd say is less important than e.g. health.

Up without techs.

Separating the templates is a good thing for the future where we can have techonologies and specific auras, but like D2900 I don't like the fact that they are not affected by technologies or auras. Camels are considered cavalry, as are elephants and chariots (they are drawn by horses).

@wraitii look here pls

I think don't need review just commit

I was doing this path right now, lul.

I like the idea of the patch, but I'm not sure about Iber / Brit / Gaul.

I can agree with that. It's a bit confusing as it is now and really + 10 pop makes almost no difference. I have nothing against it either, if "stackable" is taken out, hardly anyone converts it into a wonder.

Up.

In D2933#128226, @badosu wrote:

Apart from health/loyalty regeneration I don't think outposts are too much broken.

I like the health/armor decrease and the possibility to research a tech to make outposts resilient, one interesting thing is that outposts garrisoned have higher DPS than a Sentry tower with 1 garrison.

New values by @Nescio

@Nescio i need make this patch on new revision?

Rebase.

In D2916#127898, @Nescio wrote:

arc patch D2916`

It depends on how vulnerable @badosu referss.
Anyway, for me, values below 25 can be a problem, even with buff in D2494.

This patch gives different goals to stonethrower and boltshooter.

@wraitii this values are good to you?
@badosu opnion?

In D2760#127709, @Freagarach wrote:

I like the aesthetics of this. @balancing (@Feldfeld, @borg-, @badosu, @ValihrAnt)?

In D2411#127707, @wraitii wrote:

cc @borg- you want this I believe.

I think "matchLimit" might be more explicit? Not sure.

@borg- update on that?

In D2939#127681, @badosu wrote:

Just remember to bring back this tech if we ever reduce the heroes health as seems to be probably happening.

Yes pls.
So much generic tech and not used.

To be clear, this technology is not new, this patch just makes it more explicit what it does.

I prefer something specific for anti siege, like +5 crush armor. This still maintains the ability of melee units to take down towers.
Tower watch can be changed to +1 garrison capacity. Make more sense than simply increase arrows.
+ 1 capacity make tower hardly convertion, i like this.

It may be interesting to keep the standard 10 armor hack. Just a Idea, but we can add technogy could increase the garrison capacity to two and we can make an aura that increases the vision capacity for each garnished unit. Vision tech can be removed and decay technology can eliminates the conversion into neutral territory for gaia.

There were three questions, so no to which part(s)?

In D2508#127441, @wraitii wrote:

@borg- what do you think? Do you prefer Restricted classes ? Or making them "not" preferred classes?

In D2917#127196, @Nescio wrote:

What happens if another civ captures a cart house? Can it upgrade it to a cart apartment? Is that desirable?

In D2866#127352, @Nescio wrote:

I don't like the new value of the healer,

It could be altered, if you think that's better. Is it too low? Or too high? If the latter, how about 15 (same as trader)? Maybe slave and worker elephant too?

About increasing the loot, I still disagree.
All the technologies like blacksmith make the units more difficult to kill, so I don't see any logic to increase the loot just for this.
The rest is good and I like it.

I don't agree with this patch.

This patch alone does not solve the spam problem, but is a clear improviment.
Gives champion elephant a fairer number.
I don't like the new value of the healer, but anyway they are within the planning for a general balance.

In D2721#127255, @Nescio wrote:

Many thanks! Seriously, you just made my day!

In D2853#127239, @wraitii wrote:

This makes the Hero Elephant an absurdly good siege unit.

In D2899#127236, @Nescio wrote:

To be clear, while I dislike the approach, I'm not opposed to seeing this patch implemented, if others really want it. It does not make things worse and is a small and simple change, at least for the short term.
However, the proper solution would be balancing the health, armour, and attack stats (most importantly, damage per second) of each individual unit type, and then give each appropiate cost and experience values based on that. That's a lot more work, though, and probably needs several patches and plenty of play-testing.

In D2899#127232, @Nescio wrote:

It does not solve the real issue, it just masks it.

In D2899#127232, @Nescio wrote:

It does not solve the real issue, it just masks it.

I didn't get any bugs, but I'm not sure I tested it enough.

In D2505#121819, @Nescio wrote:

Are there other structures (e.g. corral, pyramids, Stonehenge) that should get this same vision change?

Well, it seems to me that the standard for rts games is the circle, there must be a good reason for that (I think). I don't know how much it affects gameplay.