Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zeeky_Bombard

How micro intensive will 0ad be?

Recommended Posts

I know a fair deal about micro (I've played Dune 2, where the gatherers don't resume gathering after dropping off resources ;) ), and was interested as to how many painkillers we will have to take in an average game of 0ad.

I have always wanted a game where stuff you'd do anyway is done for you. For example, modern RTS have gatherers that resume gathering after dropping off resources. A famous one, C&C:G, has all units inside a transport die when the transport is destroyed. That is what I don't like, there's no thinking involved, just "OMG my trannspoter lol is dieing ZOMG click fester make yunits go OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!111", which I think has no place in a strategy game.

I realise that there will always be micro as long had you attach RT to the S, but most of it, is I see it, is pointless to have in a game. How much unecessary action will have to be taken to survive in the competitive world of 0ad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, a lot of people find micromanagement the most addicting thing in RTS games... It's difficult to please Greeks and Trojans, as we say in Portugal.

Edited by Undo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most tedious micro, we hope, will be lessened for you. For instance, if a bunch of units construct a storehouse, they'll immediately begin attacking the nearest resource. Farms will reseed as long as you have a unit there to harvest it. Standard RTS features will be implemented. Units will keep going after resources until no more are within LOS, etc. However, micro such as you described (units within an APC get wasted if the APC gets wasted) is realistic and needed within the realm of RTS. In 0 A.D., the player will need to micro his units effectively in the thick of battle in order to emerge victorious. Not only will there be a web of paper>rock>scissor counters, but there will be formations available to the player, each with specific bonuses and weaknesses, necessitating additional battlefield micromanagement prowess. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the thing I mean with the transport example is that there is no point in not having the units exit, meaning it is just a few more meaningless clicks that could be automated.

Realism can still be preserved by having the units panic and pile out of the transport when it is at, say, 10% health.

Or, if the transport is at 15% health and something does enough damage to one-hit it, the units could pile out before the attack lands.

Again, it's just like attacking an enemy in range, there is no point ever (except maybe in the campaign, like that mission in AOE2 with the Dome of the Rock) in not doing it.

Things like flanking an enemy or deciding to retreat are more tactical, and that is supposed to be the point of an RTS - making decisions fast, not playing at 100 APM.

Edited by Zeeky_Bombard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in warcraft, when your transport died your units fell out but dazed (essentially crippled for the next 10 minutes). if your transport died over water, THEN your units died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree units should die if a transport is over water. It was your own decision to send it over water and there are, of course, risks.

The point I was making however, was that it is stupid for uits to die when their land-based transport is destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point I was making however, was that it is stupid for uits to die when their land-based transport is destroyed.

I disagree. I always thought it was stupid in the cartoon "G. I. Joe" how tank crews and helicopter pilots always "abandoned ship" before their vehicles were hit by missile fire. Very unrealistic. However, your point is moot, as we don't have any kind of APC or its equivalent in our game. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I would have imagined you could garrison archers on a platform atop a War Elephant or something...

But in that case, it would be good for them to die - have some sort of ladder that takes a few seconds to set up or something, so that if the elephant suffered heavy damage (got to 15% or so) you could set up the ladder to evacuate as I suggested, but the elephant would move slower with it dragging along the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Land transports? wtf? Elephants are OK, but what else???? Besides, unless you're Legolas, falling off a rampaging elephant is going to waste you. You'd be as good as dead anyway, even if the elephant didn't get you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War had a cool feature where if a ship sunk, most of the units aboard would float in the water. But the feature was way too much, IMHO, as the units ended up dying anyway before they could swim ashore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War had a cool feature where if a ship sunk, most of the units aboard would float in the water. But the feature was way too much, IMHO, as the units ended up dying anyway before they could swim ashore.
but you gotta admit, its depressingly entertaining. I think that would be pretty cool imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...