Forums

That's a good idea. Hmm... well, I guess we'd have to do some brainstorming... It's just an idea, if the majority of people don't like it when it's a fully developed idea we can not do it.

also coming: a fix to food gen infinite loop in badosu balanced maps, larger forests in badosu balanced maps, foothills improvements.

India has quite a few ethnicities and kingdoms apart from the Mauryans.

I think people new to the game don't understand but will figure it out quickly enough. I like "Dyanamic" the best, but why not a tooltip that offers a minimal explanation? Dynamic or Random doesn't really say anything to a new player. Neither does "Skirmish". Having "Skirmish" as a map type is really pointless, imo. A tooltip that offers a minimal explanation would be good, or just having the explanation appended in the right pane where "Map Type: Random/Skirmish" is displayed.

Could do some ptol vs roman naval campaign, like the battle of Actium

In part of a multi-mission campaign, you can have some section of it be very similar to a 1v1 vs ai, like a scenario. That is a nice bridge to how civs are played in multiplayer. Also, on bridging to multiplayer, its good for some campaign missions to explain how mechanics and balance works (like naval units, damage types, auras). Then why not just use the civ as is? Why are new civs required? If some historical group is important, you don't have to represent it in totality (Ie protagonist can be ambushed by Thracian units on the way to Persia, even while we don't have a complete thracian civ). Well it completely changes the way 0ad works, so even if the ideas were excellent, having to start from scratch would mean a ton of balancing pains. The design is questionable: some civs can evolve with each phase, while others like the Han or Mauryans cannot? How do you balance that? If the Greeks can become athenians, spartans, thebans, corithians, and syracusans how on earth do you plan to play against them when any of their options can be completely different after a single phase-up? Let me explain the one click strategies part too: if strategy boils down to "I clicked syracusans but you clicked spartans, i win", this is very lame gameplay. In aoe4, casters talk less about build orders and more about which monuments players chose to beat the other. It makes it almost like a card game. Lastly, here is the worst part. Campaigns are a huge effort, i understand. But TONS of creativity is allowed! So why completely rework the multiplayer side, which depends on intricate balance and multi-layered civ design in order to supply a more rigid framework for campaigns? So, i still don't see why this system is required, unless choosing between Spartans and Athenians is an important part of a mission? <- which also makes no sense

This is the best option. But traditionally in these games, we understand what a random map is.