Certainly better than the current one.

I like some changes, mainly from archers <> crossbowmen.

Up @Freagarach changes.

In D4724#200881, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

Maybe one last change could be to lock the move speed hero's aura to a range of 60 meters, instead of global.

I need to redo this patch. What chester 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?

In D4724#200858, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4724#200857, @borg- wrote:

Ice house must allow garrison infantry and cavalry?

Historically travelers entered, but as it can only be built in their own territory now, I don't know if it's interesting to keep infantry and cavalry.

I think it's better off not garrisoned. Otherwise, they could be used as an escape route for cavalry, and they would be harder to capture.

About the patch overall, @borg-, I am inclined to accept everything except the immortals. I am still certain they are overpowered, mathematically. Perhaps they should be removed from the patch and balanced separately via a mod?

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
Remove territory decay enemy since can build only own territory

Ice house must allow garrison infantry and cavalry?

In D4724#200819, @Stan wrote:

Hey @borg-
Thanks for the patch.

The patch should be generated from higher, e.g in the 0ad folder not in the 0ad/binaries/data/mods/public/ folder, else it will break the CI.

Can you fix the indentation? We use two spaces for indentation in XML, not tabs.
− instead of -

Fix WARNING: Researcher without ProductionQueue found: 2776 by @marder
Upload new portrait on summary

In D4724#200800, @marder wrote:

In D4724#200724, @borg- wrote:

@marder I'm not getting any errors or alerts. I also looked at the logs and didn't find anything.

do you use the a26 rc or svn for testing? anyways, you need to add the <ProductionQueue/>. See for example: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4392

Yes it looks good now. I'm just not sure if the attack boost 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.

In D4713#200561, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4713#200551, @borg- wrote:

In D4713#200441, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4713#200338, @Stan wrote:

Might ask @AIEND specifically.

AIEND seems to support the following lineup, which is not very different:
p1: crossbow, spear, swordcav
p2: archer, Ji (halberdier), swordsman, spearcav, archer cav
p3: champions: infantry crossbow, infantry spearman, cavalry spearman, chariot archer.

For me it's perfect, the only thing i would add is crossbow cavalry. It's a different and unique unit, so why remove it without at least testing it on an alpha first? I think just a few tweaks are enough to make this unit viable.

It's a really awkward unit, at least from team game I played. The range difference between infantry crossbow and cavalry crossbows (at least for CS) made no sense. Also, conceptually a crossbow cavalry unit is confusing: how does one load a crossbow while on horseback?
However, apparently very skilled soldiers could in fact load a heavier crossbow while on horseback. Because of this, I think if a crossbow cav should return, it should be the champion crossbow cav.

The changes seem good to me.

In D4713#200441, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4713#200338, @Stan wrote:

Might ask @AIEND specifically.

AIEND seems to support the following lineup, which is not very different:
p1: crossbow, spear, swordcav
p2: archer, Ji (halberdier), swordsman, spearcav, archer cav
p3: champions: infantry crossbow, infantry spearman, cavalry spearman, chariot archer.

What about crossbow cavalry p3?

In D4721#200520, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

In D4721#200518, @borg- wrote:

If affects cavalry so stable need able to research this tech too

In https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4713, crossbow cavalry are removed anyways.

If affects cavalry so stable need able to research this tech too

I don't like how it looks now, it seems more generic and less realistic.

Why metal loot if dont cost metal?

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 20% is a fair value.

I think it's fair.

Not better just add limit of trained mercs?

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.

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.

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.

In D4273#181983, @ValihrAnt wrote:

Britons/gauls must be a rush civ, so there may be a bonus for that, like, brit can build fortress and barracks on neutral territory for example.

For a rush civ, an early economy bonus is the most important thing. I don't see any value that being able to build a barrack in neutral gives early on. It's why the Mauryas and Ptolemies like to play extended early aggression much more than other civs.

To be honest I don't think every civilization needs to have a generic economics bonus.

In D4249#180592, @Freagarach wrote:

Should they also be able to lay foundations then?

With a mahout I see no problems.

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.

In D4233#179884, @chrstgtr wrote:

I would make the fields free. That by itself wasn’t super OP when ptol had it (it was the free storehouses and farmhouses that were the main eco benefit). Otherwise this is really just a benefit of being able to save a couple hundred wood and being able to build your first farm a couple seconds earlier.

Otherwise, I like the idea.

@ValihrAnt @Feldfeld @wraitii

I think the most appropriate is "Fields -50% resource cost".

@wraitii some opnion here?

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?

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.

In D3738#165100, @wowgetoffyourcellphone wrote:

Honestly, while Athenian hoplites weren't bad soldiers (probably pretty decent for their time), they didn't fare very well when matched against other Greek hoplites from Thebes or Sparta. I'd rather this "Fourth Rank" idea go to the Roman Swordsman. The fourth rank being either the Extraordinarius, or (much cooler) a new Republican Centurion unit.

+5 pierce armor > +50% health
Range increased from 80 to 100.

"none" can be an interesting addition.
"Deathmatch" must have the values proposed by "Millionaire".

it's an improvement.

In D3743#164562, @Nescio wrote:

The issue is how to differentiate crossbowmen without making them more effective than archers, which would unbalance the game.

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.

In D3743#164553, @Nescio wrote:

Actually handheld crossbows could be used by the besieged and the besiegers alike, just like artillery. And like artillery, modern estimates of maximum and effective range vary greatly. Sure, a crossbow is a more powerful weapon than a longbow and large artillery more powerful than small artillery, however, more powerful weapons were generally used to shoot heavier projectiles, which had a greater impact (i.e. base damage in 0 A.D.), and heavier missiles have a shorter range than lighter ones, obviously.

Increase health and range can be quite interesting. If we keep the current range then I think we should increase the damage.

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.

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...

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.

In D3675#163003, @Nescio wrote:

As for this patch specifically, I would prefer it to be focused on a subset of technologies. Or if it must apply to every technology, then how about a time reduction instead of a resource discount?

In D3688#162979, @Nescio wrote:

The lower experience requirement affects all ranks, not just advanced.

In D3738#162963, @Nescio wrote:

Maybe increase their <Promotion/RequiredXp>?

Idea started by @wowgetoffyourcellphone at https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/36934-civ-differentiation-athens/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-421616

Was it? It's not in the linked forum post.
See also https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3688#160875

In D3688#162978, @Nescio wrote:

The Greek word ὁπλίτης (hoplitēs) means ‘heavy-armed foot soldier’ (i.e. melee infantry in 0 A.D. terminology) and could be and actually was used to describe Macedonian phalangites, Persian kardakes, or Roman legionaries as well. Moreover, the traditional hoplite wasn't uniquely Greek either, Carthaginians, Etruscans, and various Italic peoples fought in the same way. Furthermore, only the wealthy fought as hoplites, since a full panoply (arms) was rather expensive.

I thought of a wider range than archers, like 72/74. Historically it was a defensive unit, behind the walls, so I think that a wider range is good in this sense, mainly because it will be a slower unit, proposed by this patch.

Maybe some changes on range attack?

In D3738#163001, @ValihrAnt wrote:

This would mean that the hoplites can become champions before phase 2 right? What about it being a technology in the Gymnasium?

In D3688#162979, @Nescio wrote:

The lower experience requirement affects all ranks, not just advanced. And the lower training time is essentially an economic bonus (as you already pointed out yourself).
Why exactly did you chose these modifications? And did you consider alternatives (e.g. higher health)?

I didn't find anything about cretan archers, does it make sense that this unit should be trained only in docks and triremes or should it be moved to barracks?

The values proposed in this patch are the values that were ideal for me. The main idea is that you can keep more soldiers fighting/training and less collecting.
The patch is correct and complete.

In D3735#162747, @Nescio wrote:

It can be done, though I'm unsure it's necessary. Their lower movement speed makes them less useful, as does the fact they don't benefit from cavalry-specific technologies.

Other camel attributes can be differentiated too (e.g. cost), if necessary.