Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Thorfinn the Shallow Minded last won the day on November 12 2015

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

210 Excellent

1 Follower

About Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Skiing, sledding, eating, playing violin, piano, and trumpet; playing board games; reading history; making clay figures; painting; and drawing

Recent Profile Visitors

1,046 profile views
  1. Gameplay features A24

    I'd like corrals to work as they were initially designed and/or scrapping the annoying, micro-intensive animal training mechanic. A lot of the foundations for capturing sheep and other neutral animals are already in place.
  2. Two handed animations

    Definitely the animations have good visceral look to them. Trees be warned!
  3. Fighting techniques references

    One point that you might want to change is the way that the attack is done. Generally in sword fighting (at least from a HEMA perspective) you want to lead with the sword then follow through with the foot. The following, done by a sword and buckler practitioner, shows the general point I am aiming at.
  4. Two handed animations

    There is some good work to be had here, but your animations currently seem a bit on the unnatural side. The basis for manoeuvring an axe in battle should be from cutting wood, which uses similar principles. In the video series about axemen, the side swipe to demonstrate attacking from the other side was unrealistic. It did not give the axeman much reach, and the attack was slow. This is perfectly natural, however, since the stuntman was aiming to not hurt the otherwise unprotected person. For a note on the one attack done on the axeman's non-dominant side, one of the issues is that the right hand reaches the left hand long before the attack has properly initiated. This means that the grip is experiencing a lot of torque, and since the centripetal force of the axe has not come into play to balance it out, the motion seems extremely unnatural. One animation that could be added for further variety is stabbing with the toe of the axe, a move that is mentioned in various Norse sagas. Keep up the good work!
  5. Greek Helmets

    For Spartans specifically it would be an appropriate type of helmet due to geography and Spartan conservatism.
  6. Feudal Wars

    Some of you might remember this being announced and subsequently cancelled. Well, it's back up. Altogether, it's a pretty fun game, focussing on macro-level playing. I'd recommend checking it out since it's free and browser-based at it's website: https://feudalwars.net
  7. [Proposal]: 3 And A Half Possible Foundations For 0 A.D. Gameplay

    A lot of the reasons for the regrouping is because of the pathfinder. If it is reworked to accommodate formations, that would be the best solution.
  8. [Proposal]: 3 And A Half Possible Foundations For 0 A.D. Gameplay

    Just to respond to some of the criticisms of the system I proposed, I would say that it is as sensible as other alternatives. If it were to be realistic, citizens swapping to the soldier role should go back to their home and rally at a given location. To compare to other options, the idea of using the gatherer>ulfsark mechanic is no better. Weapons and armour appear out of nowhere for that. Also, there is no way of switching back. For that matter, villagers magically summon axes, mining picks, etc. In the case of the timed ability from Warcraft 3, weapons and armour again appear out of nowhere. In the system I proposed, it is not that different. The big change is mainly in that it takes time to switch between roles. If this idea still sounds frustratingly exploitable, I think that it is within reason to have some malus applied to citizen soldiers when they are outside of friendly territory (Technology could possibly change that in the mid-game.). To summarise, 'packing' seems to me to be a sensible marriage between realism and gameplay and should be considered since in many cases for civilisations of 0 A.D., they had no standing army, and it took time to mobilise their forces. There might be some ways it could be improved, yet it is a legitimate option in my opinion.
  9. [Proposal]: 3 And A Half Possible Foundations For 0 A.D. Gameplay

    So I just wanted to give some clarifying comments on how the proposed 'packing' system should work for citizen soldiers. First, if a player does not scout properly and is rushed having no information about it, should they be punished? Yes. However, the extent of the punishment depends on their reactions. Perhaps some units could be damaged, but the assumption behind that system was that a battalion system would be used. If this was implemented, there would not be too much unnecessary micro the player would have to do. The battalion could be damaged, yet since this is the early game and units would not be able to easily one shot other units, the cost would not be extreme. Also since villages are incapable of fielding significant numbers of horsemen, a cavalry rush should not be a concern during this phase. Compared to the timed system or just a quick conversion, I would contend that this would be a fair balance between realism and gameplay; it would also encourage players to actively scout and create interesting strategic situations. A mechanic I would compare it to is the packing and unpacking of siege weapons. There are frustrations when a trebuchet is not well defended, but in the end, it is considered a reasonable mechanic. One point that seems to be misunderstood is the idea of mercenaries. I am well aware of how mercenaries are currently put in the game, and I would contend that it is not a proper system. Mercenaries were hired to fight, and maybe build rudimentary defences. Carthage, as I see it, would be able to train local mercenaries that would have no economic capabilities at the onset of the game. The general point I am making is that yes, citizen soldiers in their current form should not be used, but it would be possible (albeit harder) to balance if they existed in a different form even if other civilisations do not have them.
  10. [Proposal]: 3 And A Half Possible Foundations For 0 A.D. Gameplay

    Actually it shouldn't. If a civilisation lacks citizen soldiers, they should have an alternative unit dedicated to military purposes in the early game. For Carthage for instance, this could be a local mercenary. The idea would be that they would generally field quality over quantity. As for the packing idea, maybe it might make some good trade offs, but realise that in the early game or most RTS games, the purpose of raiding is twofold: to disrupt the economy of the enemy and to kill units. Each second they spend not collecting resources is a gain for the raider, and every defending unit's death is to the attacker's advantage. Yes, loot is a point of it, but the primary purpose to begin with is simply to force idle time (Economic units not doing their said task.) The packing could take a fair amount of time. As reference: That silliness aside, obviously it shouldn't take too much time, but it would penalise players who do not properly scout and give the attackers a window in which no one is defending. Obviously, this case is for more complex suits of armour and makes the assumption that that a person would not work in heavy armour while carrying their weapons. You said that it would be too penalising, but it should penalise players whose soldiers have been caught with their pants down.
  11. [Proposal]: 3 And A Half Possible Foundations For 0 A.D. Gameplay

    Actually, when incorporating citizen soldiers, it would just be important to distinguish them. To argue that every citizen was equal would be wrong, and those that did not have the time to train would be significantly worse than others, being more like citizens who were given weapons at the moment (Take velites or the Athenian slinger.). As you get to more powerful (from a combat standpoint) citizen soldiers, they would perform all economic tasks much less efficiently. Obviously too, the trade off of building these units is that they usually cost a lot compared to training women or slave units. Also, there is the 'packing' attribute I mentioned earlier. Civilisations with no citizen soldiers could enjoy their own advantages like better economies and generally more powerful military units.
  12. [Proposal]: 3 And A Half Possible Foundations For 0 A.D. Gameplay

    I would personally advocate for historical accuracy being the basis for the continued existence or discontinuation of citizen soldiers. The truth is that this type of phenomenon did occur in history, but I dislike the way it is found in 0 A.D. Working while armed is absurd. If a player wants a citizen changed to a soldier, they should have a "packing" effect like siege weapons in which they change from one role to the other. This would make raiding much more possible as there would be a window of attack. Should all civilisations have it? No. Cultures such as Carthage, which primarily relied on mercenaries, and ones like the successor states had professional armies, should have a completely different system. In later stages of the game things could change for these cultures, but the core design should be around them not having these and vice versa for citizen soldier civilisations (*cough* Marian Reforms). The important thing about having a flexible unit like a citizen soldier is giving the civilisations that have them a trade off so that that feature is not exploited. If people think that militia were ineffective, I would remind them that the Roman military machine during the Republic operated that way. Another point to make is that there could be ways to level up soldiers. On the topic of Rome, assuming that battalions are used, a group of citizens would first be mobilised as just velites. By drilling them, they could be hastati, followed by princeps, and lastly triarii.
  13. [Proposal]: 3 And A Half Possible Foundations For 0 A.D. Gameplay

    Obviously though, there are compromises that can be made for the game. If battalions were introduced, a lot of the existing systems could still be in game but simply with more automation. Individual trees could be replaced by forest patches you assign a crew of workers to harvest from. All sources could be infinite, with the limitation primarily being the gather rate. Resources could be potentially permanently exhausted by assigning additional crews to harvest them at a faster rate, but that practice would have to be used with caution. Pathfinding could be simplified to make formation travel much simpler just by making the obstructions clear. In general though, I think that you have made good analyses of the sub-genres of RTS 0 A.D. could draw on.
  14. [Proposal]: Clearly (Re)define The Core Gameplay

    One thing that has to be considered that is important is that while adding features that come of as cool is nice, a streamlined intuitive system is necessary for an RTS when people have a limited timeframe to make decisions. If we want to have battles that are rewarding to micromanage, it is necessary to automate other types of systems. That is what made games such as Call of Duty so great to play; players, in focussing on the battles could boost their economy since their basis of supply was built entirely around how much territory they controlled. Age of Mythology also, in making its game, realised that adding favour as a resource required another resource to be cut from the system.
  15. [Proposal]: Clearly (Re)define The Core Gameplay

    All the same, basic overarching design decisions can be made by the team; specifics would have to probably be left to one person, but a general vision is worth exploring.