Jump to content
Wijitmaker

Suggestions for 0 A.D.

Recommended Posts

On 3/17/2019 at 1:49 AM, Azura717 said:

This game is amazing, I've been looking for something like this for awhile now. I love city builder RTS games and I've been looking for a game that has anything to do with Egypt and this fits me perfectly. I do want to know though if you'll be expanding on the building aspect of it? like Id really like to fill my kingdom with different structures or statues and pyramids, obelisks, even adding roads would be awesome, because right now it kinda feels empty with just the same few structures

try Aristeia is almost abandoned but have some buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 There are few problem that I want to discuss:- 

1.    We knew that Darius, Alexander or Romans all were successful because of their superior infantry. But, in 0ad gameplay we can constantly observe that skirmishers and slingers are the determining force rather than infantry. If someone make 30 skirmishers and employs them to kill 30 spearmen or swordsmen then he/she will loss only a few troops whereas the infantry side may lose all of his/her troops. But in reality it won't happens. I think the main problem of ranged unit lies in the idea of unlimited ammunition. A skirmishers can throw javelins constantly. But he needs to refill his supply after sometimes. But it won't happens. Maybe a 3 seconds gap would be sufficient for refilling. I think it can be solved by limiting the number of projectiles for skirmishers, slingers and archers according to their damage.

2.    Secondly, a pikeman and skirmishers working speed is same but not their walking speeds which has a large impact on economy. We know that pikemen are slow unit in warfare but when it comes to working he is equally capable of working as fast as a skirmisher. So, I would prefer a common walking speed during doing some job for both of them. Maybe there would be some arming time(i.e. 2-3 seconds). During that time he would have a reduced armour, health and attack. As we know no one carries weapon during working.

3.    Thirdly it was widely discussed topic, whether ram needs man power to move or not. I think it needs. Maybe a ram should costs 2 population. But it needs additional 3 men to move it on. On the other hand elephant have a crush damage but it won't applicable for fortress. But a herd of elephants can destroy it. So, I think a elephant would cost 5 population and it have a health of 750. But on the other hand a ram should be only a siege rather attacking units and can be captured.

    That's all.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, i'm having difficulty understanding the armor. As in which version of damage and armor is used. I haven't played in a while so I must ask, is there three types of damage and three types of armor, or is there only one damage and one armor that reduced said damage? If its the latter, how does that work for gameplay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019 at 4:35 PM, Diptangshu said:

 There are few problem that I want to discuss:- 

1.    We knew that Darius, Alexander or Romans all were successful because of their superior infantry. But, in 0ad gameplay we can constantly observe that skirmishers and slingers are the determining force rather than infantry. If someone make 30 skirmishers and employs them to kill 30 spearmen or swordsmen then he/she will loss only a few troops whereas the infantry side may lose all of his/her troops. But in reality it won't happens. I think the main problem of ranged unit lies in the idea of unlimited ammunition. A skirmishers can throw javelins constantly. But he needs to refill his supply after sometimes. But it won't happens. Maybe a 3 seconds gap would be sufficient for refilling. I think it can be solved by limiting the number of projectiles for skirmishers, slingers and archers according to their damage.

2.    Secondly, a pikeman and skirmishers working speed is same but not their walking speeds which has a large impact on economy. We know that pikemen are slow unit in warfare but when it comes to working he is equally capable of working as fast as a skirmisher. So, I would prefer a common walking speed during doing some job for both of them. Maybe there would be some arming time(i.e. 2-3 seconds). During that time he would have a reduced armour, health and attack. As we know no one carries weapon during working.

3.    Thirdly it was widely discussed topic, whether ram needs man power to move or not. I think it needs. Maybe a ram should costs 2 population. But it needs additional 3 men to move it on. On the other hand elephant have a crush damage but it won't applicable for fortress. But a herd of elephants can destroy it. So, I think a elephant would cost 5 population and it have a health of 750. But on the other hand a ram should be only a siege rather attacking units and can be captured.

    That's all.

I like your second point, but about the first i have a different idea. I think the problem lies in ranged units having no counter, which makes them easily stackable and cheap. What I mean by this is, cavalry would be the natural counter to ranged units (and pretty much any infantry except pikes and a prolonged fight outside charging), the problem I see is, cavalry costs normally 100 food while infantry only 50 plus cavalry can only hunt, leaving their use mainly for early attacks and gathering food really fast at the early stages. I think some kind of reduction to their cost (like, an upgrade that diminish their cost at a particular stage of the game or a building that lets you farm horses) would make them a potential threat, making a balanced army the best option. Also, there should be an option to dismount them and collect other resources like normal male citizens. The second thought i have about ranged units in 0 ad is, that slingers should be a counter to skirmishers by their superior range and skirmishers not being heavily armored but what normally happens is that slingers start shooting a little early but when skirmishers arrive they deal massive damage. And archers are even worse, more range means little in an open field fight.

Edited by anonimitazo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 12:38 PM, Ozerol Notna said:

is there three types of damage and three types of armor

Yes. Slingers for example do crush damage, which also makes them useful against buildings since they have less crush armor.

 

0AD-dmg-arm.jpg.4f22c284251b0668236a63d4a014790b.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2019 at 11:26 PM, Gurken Khan said:

Yes. Slingers for example do crush damage, which also makes them useful against buildings since they have less crush armor.

 

0AD-dmg-arm.jpg.4f22c284251b0668236a63d4a014790b.jpg

Well that's pretty dumb. Do you think there'd be a way to seperate damage types based on units? Like having pierce dealt by infantry do less damage to a ship than a ballista?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ozerol Notna said:

Well that's pretty dumb. Do you think there'd be a way to seperate damage types based on units? Like having pierce dealt by infantry do less damage to a ship than a ballista? 

Not sure what exactly you find dumb. For your question, I just looked at the Athenians and their bolt shooters have higher pierce armor than their triremes, so currently it's just the other way round than what you asked; since some units for example have 3x damage against horses I guess theoretically units could also get 0.5 against ships. But I don't know the technical limitations, e.g. of the templates. Maybe @Stan`would know more or who to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ozerol Notna said:

Well that's pretty dumb. Do you think there'd be a way to seperate damage types based on units? Like having pierce dealt by infantry do less damage to a ship than a ballista?

If you want to handle more cases, you have to use an object (or something like that) instead of a single number for attack bonuses.

It's a bit heavy for the benefit but well that's easy to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been playing a lot of practice games at Ptolomies and one thing I don't understand is the starting camel archers ineffectiveness at killing hunt - I have seen contestants on naked and afraid kill African wildlife with home made bows in one shot - and yet just now I had my camel archer try to kill a Giraffe and after like 14 strikes with an arrow the animal is like still at half health - this seems like a really unfair disadvantage for Ptolomies.  All hunt should go down as easily for everyone faction or you are putting some civs at a distinct early game disadvantage.  And anyway, an animal cannot withstand dozens of arrows, that is very unrealistic IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 10:36 PM, Gurken Khan said:

Not sure what exactly you find dumb. For your question, I just looked at the Athenians and their bolt shooters have higher pierce armor than their triremes, so currently it's just the other way round than what you asked; since some units for example have 3x damage against horses I guess theoretically units could also get 0.5 against ships. But I don't know the technical limitations, e.g. of the templates. Maybe @Stan`would know more or who to ask.

What I find dumb is that a man hurling a rock is able to demolish structures. If he was a troll throwing boulders I'd accept it, if he was slinging at a hut or a tent I'd also accept it, but throwing stones at a wooden house or gate to tear it down just feels wrong. 

I was suggesting something along the lines of adding unit templates to damage types so that it goes up or down according to the receiver.

Example:

"Unit" receives a 15 strong attack of "whatever" damage from "Some Enemy", but because "Some Enemy"s attack was classified an "Infantry" despite "Some Enemy" being a cavalry, then "Unit" receives less damage. One the other hand, "That Guy" deals the same amount of "whatever" damage but the attack has the "Siege" tag even though "That Guy" is a "Whosit" unit, therefore the "Siege" type is applied to the damage causing "Unit" to take "Siege" damage which he has no resistance to in-spite of the source not coming from a "Siege" unit.

Of Course, this could be way too much work to implement so I understand if its not added in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ozerol Notna said:

What I find dumb is that a man hurling a rock is able to demolish structures. If he was a troll throwing boulders I'd accept it, if he was slinging at a hut or a tent I'd also accept it, but throwing stones at a wooden house or gate to tear it down just feels wrong. 

Yeah, slingers destroying fortresses seems a little silly to me as well, and kind of defeats the purpose of siege with slinger-civs. You can just mass slingers and use them as your siege...

Spoiler

Full disclosure, I just had my backside handed to me in a MP match where my opponents took out my fortresses with massed slingers... 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 5:03 AM, Sundiata said:

Yeah, slingers destroying fortresses seems a little silly to me as well, and kind of defeats the purpose of siege with slinger-civs. You can just mass slingers and use them as your siege...

  Hide contents

Full disclosure, I just had my backside handed to me in a MP match where my opponents took out my fortresses with massed slingers... 

 

they can take any structure, I tested the borg's mod and ai spam  skirmish cavalry and rams. but no more slingers.

Edited by Lion.Kanzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion the ability for women to be tasked to build military buildings should be removed.  You should not be able to lay a foundation with a male then task women to build the military building, wall, tower, or palisade, unless of course it is a Spartan woman.  The meta is going to soon become one of the starting men will lay a foundation for a rax and the women will build it - I'm pretty sure this is an unintended consequence, please remove this ability from women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or just remove the stupid restriction. If a women can build a Civic Center, why can't she build a barracks?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

Or just remove the stupid restriction. If a women can build a Civic Center, why can't she build a barracks?

she can. but she can't place it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, (-_-) said:

Or just remove the stupid restriction. If a women can build a Civic Center, why can't she build a barracks?

Spartan women are allowed to construct towers and palisades as a unique tech to the Spartans - therefore, in order to maintain this unique tech, all other women should not be allowed to do this.  The ability of men to lay the foundations but women to build is in my view an unintended consequence that should be removed in order to preserve the unique tech of Spartan women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 4:03 AM, Sundiata said:

Yeah, slingers destroying fortresses seems a little silly to me as well, and kind of defeats the purpose of siege with slinger-civs. You can just mass slingers and use them as your siege...

  Reveal hidden contents

Full disclosure, I just had my backside handed to me in a MP match where my opponents took out my fortresses with massed slingers... 

 

Massed slingers are the number one problem with 0ad right now - this needs to be addressed ASAP.  I'm pretty sure there was never an intention that an army of slingers would rule this game.

In 1v1 competitive play, I am finding little reason to make spears at the start - startup typically consists of women with ranged infantry as workers.  The ranges men walk faster than spears, so there is a huge economic benefit to making them.  Spears in Age 1 need to somehow become more important to make, because they are supposed to be the bread and butter of most armies from this time period.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, StopKillingMe said:

Spartan women are allowed to construct towers and palisades as a unique tech to the Spartans - therefore, in order to maintain this unique tech, all other women should not be allowed to do this.  The ability of men to lay the foundations but women to build is in my view an unintended consequence that should be removed in order to preserve the unique tech of Spartan women.

That's one way to look at it. But my point still stands. It's as silly as slingers destroying buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thankforpie said:

add dragons and loot

 

59 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

we have loot. 

 

57 minutes ago, thankforpie said:

underdeveloped yes

We need some kind of animation or notification up at the top that shows the loot being added to the treasury.

7 minutes ago, (-_-) said:

We have a dragon unit too lol. Search for it in Atlas.

Could definitely be improved. lol Maybe inspired by Drogon from Game of Thrones.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, (-_-) said:

That's one way to look at it. But my point still stands. It's as silly as slingers destroying buildings.

This is my point about changing things that are core to the game - if you allow women to build everything you void a Spartan civ special tech.  That's why changing out core functionality is a slippery slope and can't be done lightly.  I will give you an example:

  • History: Baguada means 'guerrilla'; an irregular combatant. Skirmishers, raiders, pirates, etc., would fit under such a designation. Such men were extremely common in Celtic armies. While positions were best held by dedicated spearmen standing in an ordered line and wall, the duty of softening an enemy, and even breaking weaker enemy positions, such as militia, would go to men carrying huge numbers of additional javelins. So many javelins did Celts bring with them, they were said in at least one instance in Galatia to 'charge following a black shadow so great sunlight is emptied from the sky', a poetic description of the enormous number of missiles they would put into the air preceding their main attack.
  • History: Sling bullets are found in enormous numbers in Celtic sites, made of lead, though clay bullets would also have been used. Slings figure prominently in Celtic myth, and were not associated with any sense of shame. To the contrary, the great skill needed to use a sling well was highly rewarded and favored, so they found much more use in Celtic society for a ranged weapon than bows, outside of specific tribes. The god Lugos, in Irish myth Lug, is associated closely with many weapons, among them his sling. Slings were the primary weapon of Celtic hunters as well. In battle, men with slings would mainly be of the middle class, so better equipped than most slingers in other societies for melee. However, the heavy lead bullets so common to them makes their range shorter than average, compensated for by the puncture power of well-made bullets.

So using this as an example, the effectiveness of the Brit Slinger Rush is based on a historical precedent.  So balancing slingers needs to be done in a subtle manner, not in a way that essentially removes the slinger from the battle field as an effective strat for Celts.

So the effect of slingers on buildings should maybe be addressed, but not their effectiveness in an actual battle as the objective.

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...