User Details
- User Since
- Feb 17 2017, 7:33 PM (318 w, 2 d)
Jan 9 2023
Seema good but historically accucary?
Aug 2 2022
When you open a discussion on the forum you have to be prepared to hear all kinds of opinions, ideas and suggestions. Each person wants 0 a.d to take the course he prefers. There will always be people with a view opposite to yours who tried to oppose the idea, but if there is no valid argument then you have nothing to worry about. Anyway the patch is going well here.
Aug 1 2022
Jul 30 2022
Well, about the values I don't think op, but I would be happier with an aura to fatten the animals, like I did in my mod.
Jul 29 2022
- Auras removed
- +1 hack armor
- Remove metal cost, half the cost of metal goes to food and half to wood
Jul 27 2022
I particularly think that for p2 it's ok as it is now, sometimes it's even hard to notice just looking at the minimap. The problem in my opinion is in phase 3. However, giving less gains to phase 3 than phase 2 sounds strange.
Anyway, I don't see any problems with the current patch.
Jul 19 2022
ok, i'm finishing the sparta patch and today i updated this one.
Jul 13 2022
Jul 10 2022
This version of patch is not to differentiate, it's just a patch to make the unit a little better. We have default on units, changing the movement speed just for that ax unit makes no sense even though i agree that the movement speed should be greater than sword. if there isn't something historically related to this increase, then I don't think it's correct.
Not yet for me, it still doesn't make sense to increase repeat time attack.
Jul 3 2022
Certainly better than the current one.
I like some changes, mainly from archers <> crossbowmen.
Jul 2 2022
Up @Freagarach changes.
Jul 1 2022
Jun 30 2022
I need to redo this patch. What @chrstgtr said makes sense. I find it more interesting to increase the cost of wood rather than food.
Also, I think the movement speed aura is enough, we don't need two auras, what do you think?
Jun 28 2022
Changes by @Stan
Fix Bug found by @real_tabasco_sauce (barracks can train archer champion)
Add vision and territory influence for ice house since can build only own territory (same as economic storehouse/farmstead)
Remove territory decay enemy since can build only own territory
Jun 27 2022
Ice house must allow garrison infantry and cavalry?
Jun 26 2022
Fix WARNING: Researcher without ProductionQueue found: 2776 by @marder
Upload new portrait on summary
Jun 25 2022
Jun 24 2022
Yes it looks good now. I'm just not sure if the attack buff is enough, either way it's necessary.
I'm more inclined to accept this patch over the other. I think it's simpler and can also fix the current problem. Ax Cavalry should be stronger against buildings. Currently he can fight some units, but he's not very effective in big fights, and I think that's not wrong, he must have his weak point too. How about just increasing your crush damage to 2.8 or 3.0? It becomes much more effective against buildings and something better against units as well.
Jun 22 2022
The changes seem good to me.
What about crossbow cavalry p3?
If affects cavalry so stable need able to research this tech too
Jun 21 2022
I don't like how it looks now, it seems more generic and less realistic.
Why metal loot if dont cost metal?
Jun 20 2022
I full agree @marder
I have other opnion. Very strong but high price.
Yes, start with crossbow is unique and fun.
For sure 50% is an extremely unbalanced value. 20% is a fair value, but next to technology it can be op, so I would keep 15% for technology and 15% for aura.
Looks like fun. Overall, the unit scares me less than fanatics. I think some sneak attacks on buildings should be interesting, but I still think ax is a unit that needs to be reworked.
I don't think it's interesting to switch from technology to aura. This is a unique technology and we need more of that kind of technology in the game. I think 15% is a fair value.
I think it's fair.
Jun 19 2022
Not better just add limit of trained mercs?
Jun 3 2022
honestly I think the patch changes unnecessary things. I think that changing the ax cavalry to phase one, and lowering cost, would be enough to have a "special" unit. Its low cost would make it a unit capable of being trained quickly and in large quantities, being able to be very effective in small fights especially in phase 1. Maybe it would increase its crush damage a little, so that it would be more effective against buildings, and maybe also a higher capture rate.
Jun 1 2022
I didn't really understand the changes only in the _e template. Will he lose armor reaching elite? Armor and velocity change cannot be done in unit_cavalry_melee_axeman.xml template? Why is it necessary to train in elite?
At the moment only Persia uses this type of cavalry but probably other civilizations will, so it makes more sense.
Getting cavalry moving at that speed makes it basically uncountable. Spearman cavalry cannot chase.
Dec 30 2021
Sep 23 2021
Further reducing the need for expansion which you already see as an issue? Also Roman and Kush already have this build outside of borders feature, so not unique in any way, just reducing the uniqueness of those already having such.
I believe the higher hp are historically correct for being bigger ships, however if this is affecting the balance I suggest reducing the movement speed a little (also historically correct), adapting to their larger size and weight (also because they can carry more people). The lower movement speed adds historical value and should solve some or all of the problem, as well as avoiding making civilizations even more equal.
Sep 17 2021
Sep 16 2021
To be honest I don't think every civilization needs to have a generic economics bonus.
Sep 2 2021
With a mahout I see no problems.
Aug 27 2021
I like to include corrals in the bonus, I'm just not sure about the values. The Kushita kingdom was incredibly rich. I don't know if it's possible (@wraitii), but it would be a very interesting bonus if the kushites player starts the game with 25% more resources than other civilizations.
I think the most appropriate is "Fields -50% resource cost".
@wraitii some opnion here?
Jun 1 2021
I think it's unrealistic, but following the idea of the patch, isn't it more interesting to just lower the elephant's pierce shield?
May 11 2021
Definitely not a good idea.
I do not think it is necessary to use a technology to increase vision. Vision range aura should work much better and be more useful. The rest of the patch is required. The current situation was not well accepted by the players.
Apr 8 2021
Apr 7 2021
Apr 6 2021
Apr 2 2021
+5 pierce armor > +50% health
Range increased from 80 to 100.
Apr 1 2021
"none" can be an interesting addition.
"Deathmatch" must have the values proposed by "Millionaire".
it's an improvement.
Yes, I agree that historically a higher ange or crush damage is wrong. However, I don't want to be just an archer with another look.
Increase health and range can be quite interesting. If we keep the current range then I think we should increase the damage.
Mar 31 2021
I'm not sure if 70 is enough for archers with archery tradition for example.
I think these little diversifications between chariots, camels and horses are unnecessary.
I would be happy if we had a unification between infantry and cavalry. I think 75 is a reasonable number for everyone, although elephant and siege weapons may have different values.
Fine by me,, I never saw anyone build this amount of tower or fortress in MP.
Well i think unrealistic that women have the same mining power as men for example, but for gameplay it can be interesting to have the same collection rate for all resources, perhaps this would encourage players to take more attacks during the game, as women can supply the economy now. We would also come to CCs with men farming instead of just women. what should be better to defend.
Idk, maybe 40, but i think is not a good number for this patch, so..
Two reasons why I agree with that.
I like to standardize the number, but I do not agree with the choice of 80. They are very important units economically, increasing your vision makes it very difficult harassing.
I have never been in favor of different speeds for common units, for me ranged/melee must have the same speed, varying only in some cases. Anyway, it is a more pleasant situation that D3735 about camel rush.
It's good for consistency.
Although I want to see hack damage as well. Should be better in another patch, since changes in health are necessary.
Mar 29 2021
The rush/harras is very difficult in a24, but on the other hand with pacth it can be very easy. Balanced should work better, instead of 0 default arrow, I would choose 1 and keep <Capturable / RegenRate> 5, so we would have a total of 4 default arrows with the 3 technologies, greater than the current number. Instead of Capturable / RegenRate, we could have another more interesting bonus, like shorter training time for soldiers in the CC, increase cc range attack, etc...
Mar 27 2021
No problem with these changes.
What do you think of the defense structures having hack 20? I think that soldiers should be better able to damage these structures, not just depend on siege or special units.
I think it's fair, but two possible problems:
tooltip by @Nescio
I would actually prefer putting it in an Arab mercenary camp. To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence for the Ptolemies fielding camel archers. That's a different discussion, though.
Wouldn't that bring it too close to forge technologies, though? (Those increase attack damage by 15% each.)
See D2854.