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, 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.

In D3736#162741, @Nescio wrote:

The reason I added it to the forge is because it's a town phase technology and it affects all types of archers. For comparison, the steel working technology (increasing the attack damage of all swordsmen) is also researched at the forge.
The archery tradition technology is at the civic centre only because it's a village-phase technology.

Since continue being affected by general techs like forge, then i'm ok with that. My concern is how much increased health makes the camel rush stronger for pto, at counter point makes kush camels more interesting.

This is a necessary change to make archers less op, especially at the beginning of the game. I agree with the addition of technology in contrast, my only doubt is where the tech is. I don't know if the forge is the ideal place for that. particularly I like the forge only for techs that involve more types of units together, not just one in particular, in this case I prefer it to be in the cc. Maybe other ícon?

I think you forgot the tech.

For me the health of the wall towers are not very relevant for this patch and should be done in another one if necessary. The patch is complete and correct and an improvement to the gameplay.

With the possible increase in gain from 20% to 25% (D3703), I would be satisfied with only metal reduction. I do not think it is necessary to change other resources, the problem really is the metal.

In D3599#162673, @Nescio wrote:

Even more health? Each rank already adds 25%, which means basic elephants have 400, advanced 500, elite 625.

As it is not possible to do this correctly now, we can add more health by rank, +50 health per new archer/rank.

Removed the 20% discount on the cost of technologies. The patch proposed by @valirant D3675 should already give a reasonable discount.
Decreased the amount of construction for city phase from 3 to 2 + prytaneion. D3686 decrease to 3, so it seems more reasonable to decrease to two.

Heroes moved to phase 3 again.
New Prytaneion aura.
Phase tech moved to prytaneion.
Phase up techs cost less resources and search faster.

In D3599#162552, @Edwarf wrote:

Hello,

Can i give you my opinion ?

Elephant archer is a long range unit, slow, fat and clumsy.
They can't be massed, they take too much space, they block each other, it's hard for them to get to the enemy when some already started to shoot.
They can't be micro properly because they are slow an clumsy.
This unit is reachable late on the game which mean the scenario 1 unit vs 1 elephant archer will almost never appears.
It is not working as a single unit army compsition, other unit are mandatory in order to make this unit viable.
Melee unit shoud be used to tank damage.

Current elephant archer proposition :
Stats : 7 pierce damage 400Hp 1/1/10 (Hack/Pierce/Crush) resistance
Cost : 200 wood 50 food 2 population

The most important caracteristic for this units is its damage.
if you can manage to protect your ranged units with melee units, 2 simple archer are better and cheaper than an elephant archer.
In my opinion the 2 population cost is too much for this stats change.

I have 3 propositions for this unit :

1- Keep the current proposition but reduce the population cost to 1.

2- Keep the current proposition but add 1 arrow shooted per rank. It is an expensive investment that can be worthy if you can keep your elephant alive.

3- Make it a melee unit with some hack/pierce damage, with no ranks but can be garrisonned with archers (3 max) giving them range bonus like A24 outpost.

In D3699#162438, @Nescio wrote:

New mercenary technologies can be added later. Currently it's not even clear how much this patch would alter balance.

In D3727#162385, @Freagarach wrote:

How about phasing up form the Prytaneion? (And obviously the notes from above.)

In practical tests I did, the new aura looks worse than the old one. It does not seem to push the enemy edge as desired.

The patch looks complete and correct. It is more consistent and easier to understand than the current scenario. For me a clear improvement.

In D3664#162025, @ValihrAnt wrote:

I think all cavalry in general need a slight speed increase. While at it, though, I believe archer cavalry should be a little bit slower than javelin cavalry. Nothing major but like a 0.5 speed difference.

In D3666#160446, @Freagarach wrote:

That forum post seems to be converging into building an embassy unlocking those units in the barracks?

In D3666#160508, @Nescio wrote:

While I'm in favour of removing the number limit, I wonder whether a building distance requirement should be added instead (cf. army camp, military colony), considering mercenary camps can be built in neutral territory too.

Just add a description.

With technologies, a fully garrisoned small tower could fire 6 arrows, a large tower 9, an Iberian tower 14. With this patch the small tower gets a hard maximum of 3, as you requested earlier. The garrison capacity could be lowered instead, but I don't think it's a good idea to do both.

In D3671#161592, @Freagarach wrote:

So why don't we do that tech in this patch? (Increased firing rate and decreased spread.)

I would really like to add a new archer techonology to these civilizations, the proposal by @wowgetoffyourcellphone of +10% firing rate and +10% accuracy is a good one, I wouldn't risk a faster rank tech for ranged units now.

Up.
Decreases the cost of buildings by 20% --> 25%.
Wood and stone cost 300 --> 250.

I really like this. Ok, is less realistic but for gameplay it is better, gives the towers greater importance and also makes less op turtle maps.

To be honest I had no economic difficulties with wood or food with these technologies, the difficulty unit is really metal. The demand for metal in a24 is higher, so I am happy to reduce the cost of metal, but I don't know about the other resources.

These are the original values proposed by me, so I am fine with this revert if necessary.

For consistency, should the limit of garrison units in the sentry tower decrease to 2? This would affect the capture for sure.
To make the rush a little more viable in the beginning, wouldn't it be interesting to give the civic center arrow default 1? This would make future technologies more interesting as well.

In D3698#161181, @chrstgtr wrote:

I like this. But I think it still a bit too expensive. A 20% discount would mean you need to make 2 CCs to recoup the total amount of invested res (although these wouldn't be the same res). It's pretty rare that one player makes two extra CCs. Also, by keeping it in the CC players would have to sacrifice their pop boom in order to research

Possible modifications to make it a little more likely to be used given the above considerations:

(1) Make it cheaper. Something like 100w/200s or 100 w/100s might make sense
(2) move it to a different building so CC unit train time isn't reduced by researching the tech
(3) apply the construction cost decrease to all buildings. This would make it a "invest now to boom later" tech, which would also make the researcher more vulnerable to rushes since it would take away CC unit production train time
(4) if possible, make the tech also apply to allies' CCs. This would make it more worthwhile from a cost input perspective since it is more likely that 2 CCs would be built on a team than by 1 player, would introduce an element of team coordination/strategy, and would be an interesting way for one player to sacrifice some of their own growth to boost allies.

I would prefer (3) but (1) also makes a lot of sense to me. And, option (4) could make for an entirely new TG dynamic.

In D3698#161145, @Nescio wrote:

Why civic structures?

For me, health like 375/425/475 would be the most interesting. Values similar to what we have today.
I think it is unnecessary changes of the cost of popupalation just because it is a little higher or lower, I think this brings possible future problems.
Capacity I would also maintain the same, being more robust and larger does not mean more internal space. I find an unnecessary change.
The cost of wood and the speed I like is different.

Well, I think the patch proposal is fair. I am accepting it believing that we will look more carefully at merchant ships, improving their commercial gain. I don't usually accept or reject a patch based on others, I like to do it individually, and that patch is correct and fair.

What I would really like to see is to take the bonus for garrison, and increase the real gain a little bit. Decreasing your size a bit would be great.

> I would like to have the approval of an experienced player as well, what does @borg- think?