Greendogo

Community Members
  • Content count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Greendogo

  • Rank
    Discens

Recent Profile Visitors

120 profile views
  1. When beginning wall placement it would be good to allow the player to begin placement in a "red zone", that is, allow the placement to begin in a location that a wall could not actually be placed, and then as the player moves the mouse to the end point the wall placement should begin at the first point between the potential end point and the beginning point placed in the "red zone". As it is now, the wall placement requires too much time to begin, where the player is forced to carefully line up the beginning of their wall with the end of a "red zone" so as to ensure there is no leak through which a unit could pass through. If there are two "red zones" (such as two non-passable cliffs) that a player would like to wall off, it would be nice to quickly click in the middle of one of these "red zones" and then click in the ending "red zone" and have the engine figure out where the wall is actually going to begin in the same way that it figures out where the wall should actually end.
  2. Knowing that going in may very well change my perception of game-play. I'll definitely keep it in mind!
  3. Ah, well I thought it was trying to be a different type of game; my mistake. You're right, I was hoping for something more along the lines of AoE (lately, I've been on a Age of Mythology binge). However, this "Classic" gameplay mode sounds just right for someone like me! Thanks for informing me about its probable future existence! @Mythos_Ruler: How would you describe the planned gameplay of 0 a.d. once all the future features are added? Like the style of the game or how you'd describe it to someone else.
  4. I have to agree with the OP about territories. I wouldn't go so far as "disaster", because it could be interesting for a change, if you play a lot without them. However, non-territory mode should be active by default, because territories are weird. Territories are only a hassle for the player. I see a lot of good ideas being implemented and worked on here at 0 a.d. Unfortunately, I see a lot of ideas making it into the game that just hinder gameplay (such as territories or branching research options). Not every interesting idea is one that will make the game "fun" and fast paced. What is the point of having the ability to build dump spots if you can't build them far away from a CC? The CC already functions as a dump spot, so you're just adding redundancy. It also makes it harder to attack far away resources and makes game-play more monotonous. It also prevents rushing with barracks at the enemy's doorstep. You have to build everything in your own little bubble and make them crawl across the map. Anyway, I hope enough people complain about it to change your minds. Can you tell I hate territories?
  5. Perhaps you guys could make a mod that adds home cities.
  6. Who are you referring to Mythos_Ruler? I'm assuming buggy123, since he's the only one in favor of HCs. I thought you might have been confused that I wanted them in, because I offered an idea on how to implement them that wouldn't bug me and then you posted right after....
  7. Then how about this as a compromise: We get a HC, however you only have to worry about upgrading them during campaign (single player or multiplayer campaign). During standard games (such as a death match) against computers and/or other people, the HC is either disabled or fully maxed out with all options for things such as troop reinforcements available for the civ you choose for that game. This way any perceived disadvantage from not playing enough is eliminated. A multiplayer campaign could still have home cities because your cities would all be starting out at the same "level". As the campaign progresses you get to carry over HC advances from scenario to scenario.
  8. Ah, sorry, I got the words "Spearman" and "Skirmisher" confused... I was thinking of the Spearman from AoE II. AoE III was where the Skirmishers came in, and then there was also the Halberdier in both games.
  9. Home cities were very awkward imo. It was good for a single player game, but when it came to multiplayer games, it didn't impress me much. About the countering system - since AOEIII had rifles as one of the primary weapon types, I hope that, since 0 A.D. is between 500 BC and 500 AD, that it is kept closer to the counter system in AOEI and AOEII. Skirmishers in AoEII (they carried spears, not guns) were good against all forms of cavalry, which made sense. Spears + Horses/Camels/Elephants = dead animals. Silver, I also agree with your play-style. I enjoy playing a game where to win you must saturate the map quickly and attempt to "capture" the most resources and use them against your opponents, while simultaneously choking them of supplies. It is equally fun to know what units must be used against the enemy in order to take advantage of unit counters. To me, it is much more entertaining to practice smart city planning and balance the economy with combat, than it is to play a game based solely on combat. <off-topic rant> So far the developers seem to be making a pretty good game and if I had any serious complaints it would be the limited resources per game and the use of provinces/territories. These types of game-play mechanics can be fun, but in my humble opinion, they will be less fun than their opposites. I hope the developers either scrap the idea of using provinces/territories and engineer some way for organic resources (animals/trees) to respawn/grow, or make these types of gameplay mechanics optional. To me, it sounds like provinces/territories will limit your ability to collect resources from someplace unless you 'own' it. This sounds an awful lot like the pre-placed 'settlements' from AoM (which were terribly limiting). It is a way to make a RTS game, sure, but it isn't the best way, it isn't organic. It's predictable and spiritually depleting. There is no life in an RTS when the land is cut up into chunks, it just feels like a step backwards to me. </off-topic rant> I'm going to go stare at the screenshot section and make myself feel better.
  10. Vista and XP. Will run Windows 7 when it is out.
  11. Alrighty. But the general idea is to be able to have the game run on lower end computers, right? I guess it would be too big of a deal to let the player decide what the cap should be during game setup, because it would effect all kinds of stuff like AI and unit balancing. So would it be realistic to expect to be able to mod that kind of thing? An increased population cap and a larger map size?
  12. I was wondering how much the minimum requirements would need to be increased in order to increase the population cap from 150 to something like 300 or beyond. Any ideas anyone?