All Activity

An epic battle against a Hard Roman AI. I won't spoil much SeleVSRome_Hard.zip

You don’t need too much Econ to beat any AI on single player up to the most aggressive and hardest ones. As most recommended just play slow, and raid them. Only if you’re playing MP you need to manage a lot of things.

If you post them here i might be able to help you find them

buenos días o tardes; -Aquí la actualización de la maravilla sueva: (En unos días estará disponible en el mod Endovélico) Disculpen las molestias*

I am not sure you are? It is possible to make nothing but women and champs. If you work out a good build order for that, it might even be quite strong, since you only really need 40 champs to win against a full cs army (130 units). There is not much more the game can do to make them feel that way, though. I mean, if you choose to use them as your only army, you can (and many do, I agree with you on that), but its not a very good idea, since they are a lot weaker than champs. I mean, I can choose to only make villagers in AoE and use them as my army, the game doesnt "prohibit" that, but i will lose. likely, if your enemy makes champs and you dont, you will lose.

Meh I think it can be done pretty nicely with good impacts on how the game is played. So it’s certainly worth trying out. When I get an SSD and time, I’ll set up something in a com mod version. I'm sure it will have balancing consequences.

we are working on that in historical too. Maybe share on server how some of the civs practice it differently?

Implementing a feature based on slavery could make a lot of differences. Firstly, it would be much more realistic and historical. Secondly, it would bring more differences between civilisations because they didn't practice slavery in the same way. Thirdly, slaves could be much more efficient at harvesting resources. The citizen soldier would therefore be more versatile and more defensive.

Change is not inherently bad. It's just bad execution. There is clearly room for improvement in the implementation of territory and capture features. Changing the default is understandable.

While I'm in the minority that believes the change was good, attacking buildings without siege or a good number of elephants is currently a waste of time (in vanilla version, not Community mod).

Age of Empires has always had many excellent mods. The only constraint is that the definitive edition now receives numerous updates, which discourages modders.

Honestly, it was probably one of the clumsiest and most immature changes ever made. Currently it is a hidden feature most new players won't see and understand. The information is buried in the manual and the list of hotkeys. Clearly, it should have a button in the UI. Don't forget that you're in a bubble and that other people don't follow all your discussions all the time.

While logically sound, this is not really reflected in the gameplay and the current meta. Most of the time, you're just spamming mass CS until you or your enemy wins. Also, let's not forget about the CS cavalry. AoE is not open-source. It is also rather bland with every civilization feeling the same. I'm talking mostly about AoE2 here. AoE3 and 4 are not my cup of tea. They are not treated as such. Often, they are your only army, even in the late game. I'm forced to train soldiers, even though I don't need to. Soldiers cost both wood and food, but I need wood for stuff at the start. When the AI suicides his army, he suicides his eco, as well. Etc. Will do.

The content of Public must be balanced, fair and stable for multiplayer games, both 1v1 and team games situations. The MP lobby is the biggest stakeholder of balancing, as they are the most sensible to and dependent on fair balancing. Any small perturbation can ruin an alpha's gameplay. On the other hand, single players can just rig the game settings to whatever they like . If they want some change, just make a mod. It's impossible to distribute a mod to everyone in the lobby. Even community mod and historical mod are still not popularised despite the advertising efforts. It's safe to say that most players will be stuck to whatever the alpha has by default.

And what do you want from those "30 people", other than that they should kiss the feet of you and the other 10 people that complain about the core gameplay? Hehe. But no, please keep giving feedback on everything you see that could be improved (but stay civil in the discussion. This game has as much of a mp fanbase as a sp one).

Why? If this is not just an opinion you wanted to share with us, but an argument, you have to convince others that this is true. I mean, the current system makes sense logically; every man that can work as a lumberjack or miner can also be called to fight in war. Those conscripts would not be the best fighters, but they would be plentiful. Professional fighters on the other hand cost lots of money, but are a lot stronger. Those would be mercenaries and nobility/bodyguards/temple guards. Ingame, the second category is represented by champs. Ok, that was my cent about the logic part... but how about gameplay? In his original post, @Deicide4u mentioned that the cs concept was which I interpreted as the first argument, even though it is (merely?) an argument of personal opinion. I am not sure how many people that come from AoE have this opinion (I myself dont), but if you like the way AoE did it, why not stay in AoE? (And I dont mean to tell you to leave, we all love to have more people here, but sometimes certain games just arent made for certain people). It was continued on with which is presented as a desirable goal without argumentation, while simultaneously already being the case; champs and mercs are fighting units, cs are just poor citizens you told to get a sword and fight in your war. As a third point, we have the feeling that 0ad starts too quick; and this point, I actually agree with, but its just a design choice/preference issue. Many players love the fact that a 1v1 round of 0ad only takes between 5 and 20 minutes. (while a 1v1 in AoE can easily take up to an hour) Lastly, I want to ask a question; Why is it a problem if "booming equals turtling"? This is only really an issue if you accept the notion that there needs to be 3 types of strategies (booming, rushing and turtling), which have to be differentiateable and counter each other. But why would 0ad have to follow this notion? What exactly is the problem with the gameplay right now? (in your eyes) I already commented a bit on the way I see it, but I will reiterate; which is true, but doesnt mean you lose the fight, if you catch your opponent by surprise or use stronger units (mercs, naked fanatics, cavalry), or just have better upgrades since you went p2 sooner. here I unfortunately chose the word "soldier" to refer to a citizen (cause they are citizens foremost and soldiers secundarily). But I still dont see this as a problem; as @Deicide4u pointed out, you dont want to give the player a unit thats too versatile right from the start.

A wise man once said: He was right. Fine. I might try this one day.

No. This is exactly what makes 0ad different and we would like to keep it that way. Many of your ideas are trivial to achieve with mods which you can make yourself in 10 minutes.

I want you to picture yourself 2000 years ago, you are chopping wood in the forest, and an enmey soldiers comes up to you. What do you do? A keep chopping wood B run and cry for help C piss your pants D fight back E ALL of the above

Why? it is very useful because it allows players to focus on micro instead of checking training at home If we return to the times before autotrain, people will spend way too much attention in building eco and not as much rushing/early engagements. Furthermore, many semi decent players will suddenly become total noobs. Autotrain makes the learning curve of the game less steep so that out player base can grow. In any case, you just don't use the feature yourself

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. You shouldn't be allowed to both boom and grow in military strength at the same time by training one type of unit. You either train an economic unit, or you train a military unit.

why not? is that how civilizations evolved?

The main point is this: You shouldn't be allowed to both boom and grow in military strength at the same time.

yes there are basically 4 types of "male" units that can eco/fight. You have your regular CS, same gather rates as vanilla (except a few new civ bonuses) Then you have your Levied citizens (Perioikoi for sparta fall into this category even though they were citizens, they have a different label but same stats) 5% faster gather rates -10% dmg and -1.5 of hack/pierce resistance. Then you have your serfs (mostly just stone throwers) They gather 10% faster but do -15% less dmg and -5 range and 10% less accurate. Lastly you have Helots (Slaves, really only sparta at moment and rome has a p3 swordslave) they are 15% faster gather, but -20% less dmg, -5 range, 20% less accurate, less health.... Just opens up more ideas/strategies etc.

IMHO, auto-queue should go.