Walls Accessible To Units

[k776]

runner007 is what I've come to know as a copy bot. He joins, he copies other peoples posts (so not his own original content) and then pastes it as his own. If you search up threads, you'll usually find the original post by the non-spammer who posted it. I've now banned him, and deleted all his posts.

So, back on topic now....

[JuliusColtranePille]

As units would be unable to pass underneath the soldiers garrisonned on the wall, there'd be no need to add 3D co-ordinates for location purposes; as long as the graphics engine is aware that they're garissoned on a wall, and need to be rendered at a different point in space. And path finding could be simply along a straight line between one end of the wall section and another.

Selecting a unit on a wall and telling it to move to another section could work by walking it to the end in the direction of movement, de-garrison it, re-garrison it in the next wall and so on until. Selecting a unit on a wall and telling it to move anywhere else on the terrain would simply de-garrison it and give it move orders. (You could perhaps using the path-finding algorithm at this point to determine which side of the wall it should be de-garissoned on.

im totally with you Sayyan.

possibly the units on walls thing is a feature that could be added late but it would improve the gameplay and optics a lot.

sieges would at least look a lot more intriguing. i know there's a huge difference between the stronghold games and a rts such as 0 a.d.

but i think siege and defensive of a stronghold have always been rather uninteresting actions in the AoE-games due to the lack of such gameplay-features mentioned above (e.g. installing a scorpion on important parts of the wall, etc. ...)

and no... i dont want to cry for the siege-ledders

[theShadow]

scorpion?

[feneur]

scorpion?

Haha, but no More like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpio_(dart-thrower) And the ability to put siege weapons and archers on buildings is at least something we're hoping for, more than that is not too likely to be included in the first part.

[JuliusColtranePille]

Haha, but no More like this: http://en.wikipedia...._(dart-thrower) And the ability to put siege weapons and archers on buildings is at least something we're hoping for, more than that is not too likely to be included in the first part.

this sounds brilliant. totally suffices for the first part

[Zerbob]

Has anything been decided concerning the two different types of walls ?

I think some big city walls, expensive (stone, ore, and wood) and long to build (and possibly walkable), and some sort of big fences quick to build and cheap (wood only) would be nice. The latter could be destroyed by infantry, while it would take ages to destroy the former without siege weapons.

Some civs could only have access to the smaller kind of wall (the britons ? some nomadic part II civ ? the gauls (and probably the iberians) actually had big stone walls around their oppida, the fortresses where they gathered in time of war, like the rohirrim btw. Though they fiought naked and cut their enemies'heads, the celts were much more sophisticated than most people think ; they were traders as well as fighters).

I think it would be nice to put archers and scorpio-like units on walls : just one on each part of the wall, that can't move, it shouldn't be too complicated (contrary to melee units and siege towers). They would gain extra armor and line of sight, but could be attacked by enemy ranged units (main difference between towers and walls).

Another idea : there could be two kinds of towers, as well, civ towers, and outposts (just a mirador). The romans could have better "quick" walls and towers, while the greeks and eastern civs focus more on "slow" fortifications, the celts and iberians are in-between, and the yet-to-come barbaric civs can't make "slow" walls.