Jump to content
Wijitmaker

Suggestions for 0 A.D.

Recommended Posts

Guys you noticed, since 13 Alpha or 14 the UnitAi have problem with behavior don't attack to enemy, happens to me yesterday in Corinthian Isthmus is normal have Agressive stances a velite can respond to fire to a long range Persian unit.

And some cavalry sometimes the units ignore the attacks don't perform the counterattack .

And when you build some times a blocks of several houses the units only only finish one. And same with wall, only build a Turrents or only build a segment but don't work in the turrets.

And why stand ground with a unit range don't attacks, en defense is the problem( not always)

And late two for to upload the garrison units and why it's not anymore ejecting one per one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some suggestions; I don't know whether or not some of them may have already been kicked around, but anyway, here goes:

1. Enable each hero to be trained only once - in real life people can't normally be "resurrected", and players would be compelled to use their hero judiciously if they knew he wasn't expendable.

2. Enable trade with both allied AND neutral players - again, true to life; I don't believe a player should have to be outright allies with another player in order to enjoy economic benefits; if a player is operating as "isolationist" in a particular game I think he should have the freedom to engage in trade with other civs without the obligation of military aid that an alliance would entail. Perhaps being allies with a player could grant someone a trade bonus, but I'd prefer not to bar non-allies from trading altogether.

3. Grant siege towers and rams decreased speed but much greater armor - As things stand now, the siege tower acts as a mobile "offense" tower super-weapon, discharging arrows while scooting around the battlefield, and it can move almost as quickly as some infantry units (slightly unbelievable, to say the least). Rams, on the other hand, are too easily defeated by arrows. Basically, I'd like the rams to move a little slower than their present rate of speed, the siege towers somewhat slower, and I'd like the rams to have much more armor, and the siege towers somewhat more than at present.

4. Grant archers and slingers increased range - These units' maximum shooting ranges are almost within the LOS of some enemy melee troops; I feel that ranged units should be given a greater effective distance to give them a better chance of getting some hits in before being rushed by enemy infantry.

5. Speaking of archers - when several or more archers are in proximity to one another, their tendency (at least in my experience) is to all volley fire together at ONE target among many, a vastly ineffective way of damaging an enemy formation when time is of the essence. Is there a way to stop this behavior? I think it would be better if each archer aims at the nearest available enemy within his own range (or the nearest enemy that he is "bonused" against, if that has been implemented yet).

6. Add a human figure to the Persian camel trader model (like the way the Gallic and Briton donkey traders are portrayed) - Camel units without at least one human in front for guidance/leadership/direction look odd. Perhaps the following idea isn't practical any time soon, but what if after training, say, 5 camel units from the Persian market, they had to be placed in a group via the Ctrl key to enable trading capabilities, at which point the 5-unit caravan would go into a single file formation, and a human figure would be generated at the front of the line alongside the foremost camel.

Edited by Zophim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards two your second suggestion, it already works that way, to the point one can also trade between one's own markets and docks, and even enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As regard to the fifth suggestion, I'd like a stance option available to archer formations (some civs only!, and pure archer formation?): "Pin them down" or "Area Interdiction" where a whole area is aimed with raining arrows.

  • The archer would be as vulnerable as if ordered "Stand your ground" (I figure it takes time to abort this stance and start moving again as a formation).
  • This stance would be available only to advanced?, elite and champion archer units. I figure that non eligible units in the formation wouldn't participate to the computing.
  • The selection of this stance (or formation type?) would change the cursor into a target and the player would move this target in a roughly sectoral area defined by a min and max distance, and an angle counted from the direction the formation faces.The max distance would be lesser than the normal max distance. The area is not customizable, only placeable, although it would be a bit larger the larger the formation is. (The benefit from a large archer formation would be the "rain" density however.)
  • Then, each archer would shoot N arrows consecutively (animations) and the total arrow number (known in advance by the engine) would be evenly affected a coordinate set in the sectoral zone. Or better, it would define an impact density, the same for the whole targeted area.
  • After a mean delay (arrow flying to the target), each enemy (and allied) unit is checked against the impact density, possibly scoring more than one hit. Larger units have more chances to be hit (cavalry, siege). Special formations protect well against these volleys (and even tight formations should provide a slight protective bonus). The computing being a special case one, it would be possible to alter the piercing armor of all the units in the area (that would be normally used against aimed arrows) and then compensate it with a formation bonus. Other said, one can figure that a shielded unit not able to effectively use its shield against raining arrows (because engaged in mêlée, not trained, not in formation, etc.) would have a lower piercing armor for that computing only.
  • After N individual shots or N volleys, the formation is dismissed or changes to "Stand your ground", and cannot use "Pin them down" again before a cool-down timer has expired. I don't know how to prevent a player from immediately re-ordering this attack. Maybe a temporary flag on each archer unit could prevent it to be grouped again or if grouped, to be counted in the impact density computing?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make wall towers less powerful imo. They're superior to normal towers with way way way more effective HP and the same attack. I would think reducing the attack and or garrison number would be a good place to start as it pushes it more towards a movement inhibiter and separates them from towers more. Alternatively towers could be buffed, but defensive buildings are already on the stronger side so nerfing wall-towers/walls seems more sensible to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make wall towers less powerful imo. They're superior to normal towers with way way way more effective HP and the same attack. I would think reducing the attack and or garrison number would be a good place to start as it pushes it more towards a movement inhibiter and separates them from towers more. Alternatively towers could be buffed, but defensive buildings are already on the stronger side so nerfing wall-towers/walls seems more sensible to me.

That is something we should do something about. The other big advantage of wall towers is that they build very quickly. However, the Crenelations upgrade doesn’t affect wall towers, so in practice they end up firing fewer arrows. Still, they’re a bit too powerful for the cost and build time.

My plan to solve this is threefold:

  1. To require that a wall tower has at least one length of wall adjacent to it. This means that knocking down walls would be easier, and wall towers couldn’t be abused and built on their own as high-HP defense towers like they can currently.
  2. Change how many arrows each garrisoned soldier adds; you could still garrison 5 units but it would only add another arrow for every two units garrisoned.
  3. Unless the Night’s Watch tech is researched, non-garrisoned wall towers shouldn’t fire any arrows. Thus, they’d be harmless until units are in them.

The first one compensates for the low cost and short build time but high HP by making large sections of wall easier to take down, and the last two encourage wall towers to have a more defensive use of creating chokepoints and keeping enemy units out of your city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't quite understand the first point. The middle section of between the towers needs to be a certain length before walls may be placed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about making wall-towers weak (in term of attack/arrows) and upgrade it by placing a watch tower atop? (That way the watch towers need to be remodeled though to make it fit in a wall)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't quite understand the first point. The middle section of between the towers needs to be a certain length before walls may be placed?

No, just that you can't place towers without middle section (or if you destroy all connected middle sections, the towers are taken down too).

Btw, alpha123, I have some code ready to query the wall pieces connected to a tower, or the towers connected to a wall piece. It's not on trac, as it's ugly. But you could use it to get some hints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this. Wall Towers don't show up unless as a joint between two long wall segments. Otherwise, say between two medium wall segments, you just get a connector, not a tower.

+1 This sounds best to me, especially since I would imagine it might be difficult to build walls in some places without being able to place short walls reliably, but it would be good to avoid allowing players to place wall towers almost right next to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike the idea from an expectancy and communication perspective, however, it does seem to be the best way to tackle it.

An another note, I think the embassies need a little more differentiation. The Italic and Gallic are almost identical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know where to put this so feel free to move it if its ill placed.

A bit of an inconsistency with the civilian/champion unit divide. Civilian persian chariots are stronger than british champion chariots in almost every respect. Realistically this might not be something that needs to be altered since balance needs to be looked at holistically as well. However, if there is need to nerf persian or buff Britons this is probably a good place to start. My feeling is that Britons are currently a bit too weak (but then again I lack any data) so I thought I'd bring this up. Personally the population is the thing I'd change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this. Wall Towers don't show up unless as a joint between two long wall segments. Otherwise, say between two medium wall segments, you just get a connector, not a tower.

+1 This sounds best to me, especially since I would imagine it might be difficult to build walls in some places without being able to place short walls reliably, but it would be good to avoid allowing players to place wall towers almost right next to each other.

Why do you want to restrict wall towers close to each other?

For me walls/wall towers already have a bad price/value rating due to the lag of range.

I feel defense towers/fortresses are more effective.

Besides: Not placing towers between short/medium walls will

- Make the original wall idea obsolete (considering length relations and so we could directly make a new concept that might work better).

- Will cause problems (like pinnacles rising into the parapet walk) due to the design of walls.

Edited by FeXoR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know where to put this so feel free to move it if its ill placed.

A bit of an inconsistency with the civilian/champion unit divide. Civilian persian chariots are stronger than british champion chariots in almost every respect. Realistically this might not be something that needs to be altered since balance needs to be looked at holistically as well. However, if there is need to nerf persian or buff Britons this is probably a good place to start. My feeling is that Britons are currently a bit too weak (but then again I lack any data) so I thought I'd bring this up. Personally the population is the thing I'd change.

I can't remember the stats/prices now but it makes sense to me that a heavy scythed chariot should be stronger than a simple one. Could make the Briton one more cost effective to validate it as a champion though.

However, as I've said again chariots are a bit strange for me currently. In the game's timeframe they were more of an outdated leftover from older times, and in almost all battles in the era they behaved poorly. I wouldn't have them rank up with new horses and different cart skeleton appearing out of thin air, nor as champion units since they weren't effective enough to justify it. One-rank unit like the spartan skyrites, with high trample damage (second only to elephants) but very easy to run amok would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO Champoin units should stronger but less cost effective (have a lower cost/combat value ratio - in case I confuse terms).

That way it's good to have many civil soldiers and a few champions - and that's the way it was AFAIK.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO Champoin units should stronger but less cost effective (have a lower cost/combat value ratio - in case I confuse terms).

That way it's good to have many civil soldiers and a few champions - and that's the way it was AFAIK.

It could very easily depend on the unit, for more variety. Also, having many champions (which usually are more expensive) also restricts your economy as you have less gatherers, so already each choice has pros and cons. Making them less cost effective as well wouldn't fit in well imo. Neither makes perfect sense historically. Some ancient armies were largely professional or based on cores of elite troops rather than a huge army of militia with a few elites. Some elite units were more cost effective than average troops, scoring victories vs seemlingly impossible odds, while other ones were not and got overwhelmed by lesser units. So the choice should be up to the player instead of almost forcing them to have mostly citizen soldiers and there could also be a variety of cost effectiveness as a balancing/historical flavor factor.

Anyway I suggested improved cost effectiveness rather than balanced one for the Briton chariot, to keep it weaker than scythed ones as it should, while worth as a champion at the same time. AOE 2 has some champions weaker but cheaper than normal units and it works.

Edited by Prodigal Son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prodigal Son: Yes, true. Thought more of less military based/organized civilizations like Celts.

We'll have to look closer how balancing works out in the end.

Because not only the (many) factions have to be balanced but the different units in one faction compared to each other as well.

With the many core concepts (civil soldiers vs champions (vs. civil cavalry only able to hunt so unique, too), enhanced damage vs., damage/armor type) it will be hard to balance those factions while keeping them feel different.

Edited by FeXoR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you want to restrict wall towers close to each other?

For me walls/wall towers already have a bad price/value rating due to the lag of range.

I feel defense towers/fortresses are more effective.

Besides: Not placing towers between short/medium walls will

- Make the original wall idea obsolete (considering length relations and so we could directly make a new concept that might work better).

- Will cause problems (like pinnacles rising into the parapet walk) due to the design of walls.

I think they still want a structure to hide the seems (a connector), but it should be garissonable, or shoot arrows. I think having two sorts of towers (one real tower, and one mere connector) would be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they still want a structure to hide the seems (a connector), but it should be garissonable, or shoot arrows. I think having two sorts of towers (one real tower, and one mere connector) would be possible.

Yes, that will be OK for visuals.

I still don't understand why this is whanted from a balancing point of view.

The cost of (closed) walls (at least on most maps) is much higher than the cost of the siege units to raze them.

Since both sides need units in case of a siege to win the sige walls hardy seam overpowered in general.

They might counter some tactics effectively though but that's what they're for as far as I understand it.

Edited by FeXoR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really about the effect of closed walls. If walls are used like they are supposed to be used, there's no problem.

The real problem arises from people who only want the wall towers, and use them as defense towers instead. They don't have a minimum range (and it's hard to give one without limiting the length of walls), they shouldn't be attackable by regular soldiers, they have a bigger armour, they cost less, ...

The plan is to, in some way, bonus the usage of walls like they should be used. With suggestions s.a. non-shooting connectors when you're not using long wall pieces, not letting towers stand allone, ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, now I'm on the track.

What about replacing all wall towers with the connector (independent on the appending wall parts length) and make them upgradeable to wall towers (like long wall parts to gates).

This way the wall on it's own can be cheap while wall towers could be as expensive as defense towers.

Then the player can decide what he wants - but for a price.

I don't like minimum range but in case of buildings and if it's historically accurate it seams sensible. It should be longer then a siege ram but shorter then a siege tower IMO (if this value exists).

The maximum range, however, should be higher then that if a normal unit because of the higher position.

Making wall towers more expensive would enable us to balance this.

A drawback of this concept is more micromanagement though.

Edited by FeXoR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, now I'm on the track.

What about replacing all wall towers with the connector (independent on the appending wall parts length) and make them upgradeable to wall towers (like long wall parts to gates).

This way the wall on it's own can be cheap while wall towers could be as expensive as defense towers.

Then the player can decide what he wants - but for a price.

I don't like minimum range but in case of buildings and if it's historically accurate it seams sensible. It should be longer then a siege ram but shorter then a siege tower IMO (if this value exists).

The maximum range, however, should be higher then that if a normal unit because of the higher position.

Making wall towers more expensive would enable us to balance this.

A drawback of this concept is more micromanagement though.

I like this idea more tbh. What is happening is more clear than having some towers shoot and other not. It would be ideal if there is some visual differentiation between the two. Not sure if its possible to have this yet. IIRC there was some code that needs to be done before something like this can be achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hollth:

It more Mythos_Ruler's idea with my thoughts added.

Concerning the work:

- The "wall connector" has to be modeled for every wall style (nut sure how much work)

- The code needed to replace the entity should be very similar to the "wall to gate" upgrade (simple)

- In wall placement methods the wall tower would have to be replaced with the "wall connector" (trivial)

So I can't see any real problems here.

It would be nice to have an upgrade animations, though (instead of instant entity replacement).

Edited by FeXoR

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.


×
×
  • Create New...