Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lion.Kanzen

Mercenary camps and Neutral buildings.

Recommended Posts

And thats a bad thing? :search:

It is if the fun/micro-management ratio is worse then the rest of the game. But that's ofc. a matter of taste.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think something like the WC III system is great for mercenaries. The structure is invulnerable, non-capturable, you just need nearby units to activate the hiring (it's like a neutral shop where you can instantly purchase units). Makes sense since mercenaries go where the gold is, they don't have an owner. (If we want more realism we could make it destroyable, so one player could choose to purge the mercenary camp, but attacking it would mean the available units inside spawning as gaia to fight him).

Then on hiring, again WC III style, each unit has a different replenishment rate, number of maximum availability in the camp, and even a starting delay (so you can't hire elephants to rush within the second minute of the game), depending on the units strength. So it works like, once the starting delay time of a unit has passed, the first unit of that type is available for you to hire it. Then, when it's replenishment time has passed, the unit is available for hiring again, but only in numbers up to it's maximum availability, no matter how much time has passed. Warcraft has max available numbers from 1 to 3 for each mercenary, but it has a pop cap of 100, so we could have something like triple that number.

Another idea that came to mind, if mercenary camps are implemented, is moving several mercenary factional units to it and replace them with with some native unit in the civ's rooster. For example, Macedon has several unused cavalry units that that could replace the Thessalians if we move them to the mercenary camp, and Thessalians fought for other factions as well anyway.

Yeah I agree, you know more than me in W3. I like that about population but it's important restrict some units like Elephant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.

Adventages of control a MC.

Acces to cheap units.

Access to Elite Units in early stage.

Access a class forbidden for your civ/faction

You don't need train units, they are ready for action.

Disadvantages

-elite can be much expensive.

- elite have much room in this extra population limit.

- needs regenerated the used units especially Elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice writeup Lion.

That's not true. There were regions were mercenaries gathered awaiting to be hired, for example Cape Tainaron in ancient Greece, (south of Sparta).

Thanks for clarifying. Then couldn't we do this with 'mini cultures'? They have only a small economy and many warriors. If you are manage to hire them, they stay loyal until they lose trust in your success and defect.

I actually proposed instant hiring, not training:)

You are right! I must have tomatoes on my eyes! ;)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should keep it very simple. Keep in mind that every time you introduce a new feature, you are adding more management for the player to take care of. (y)

And a lot lines of troll code XD ( always i with say that) .----that was a joke----

Yeah but this can be alternative, the users can ignore them if they can play with them is like collect treasures System. May be the best treasures need creepers

Edited by Lion.Kanzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice writeup Lion.Thanks for clarifying. Then couldn't we do this with 'mini cultures'? They have only a small economy and many warriors. If you are manage to hire them, they stay loyal until they lose trust in your success and defect.You are right! I must have tomatoes on my eyes! ;)

Yeah we need the players temptation. Medium player -"Instantly units? I really want them"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice writeup Lion.

Thanks for clarifying. Then couldn't we do this with 'mini cultures'? They have only a small economy and many warriors. If you are manage to hire them, they stay loyal until they lose trust in your success and defect.

You are right! I must have tomatoes on my eyes! ;)

Something like mini-civs was in the works (or at least in the plans), no clue of mercenaries will replace it as something simpler or both will work together someday.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shouldn't be angry with Michael, he's our master at least and very active with the artwork in the SVN currently .. and perhaps even only doesn't want us to be disappointed if all our ideas fail (what many people might think). :/

And a lot lines of troll code XD ( always i with say that) .----that was a joke----

True for me too .. I always write too much too. And edit over and over - could be seen as trolling too.

Something like mini-civs was in the works (or at least in the plans), no clue of mercenaries will replace it as something simpler or both will work together someday.

I read about it and it's why I think it would integrate quite nicely. And no complication too. Just add those mini-tribes and we have our mercenaries in a realistic way (we then might have nomadic mini-civs and you one-hut + a few fields tribes too - two problems solved with one solution: mini-cultures).

Still we could add mercenary training camps just like army entrenchment camp for the Romans is like, no? Placeable everywhere (like roman entrenchment camp & intelligence towers are already). There we could place the technologies to research and some extra candies.

And it would be an interesting target for being captured for enemies.

Instantly units? I really want them ... forget the price.

.. "oh I'm bankrupt. Why? Can't my tribe accept I'm a military leader only. Why do they complain they starve?" ;)

No no.. I get your point. It's a good point actually. This way, we could even add to send some camouflaged "mercenaries" that offer being hired .. but in reality are spies (that we sent to them).

Just the real thing. Good we've written it down for later to remember ..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one suggestion i made quite some time ago concerning "minifactions" (based on civs technically already present in the game but don't have their own factions, such as the Thracians) who could/would be present on certain maps and available either for destruction or alliance and allow the player that allies with them to have access to their units. this would extend to naval units as well, so, for example, on largely naval maps the Iberians would use their own transports but be able to ally with a non-player group (such as the Phoenicians) to gain access to some warships, the alternative being that, on a given map, they would ally with a player that DOES have warships and split the difference: for example, the Iberians ally with the Athenians against the Romans and Persians on a naval map, with the Athenians covering for their naval needs while the Iberians help defend the Athenians on land, particularly with their walls and towers since (iirc) the Iberians are the most defensive playable civ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one suggestion i made quite some time ago concerning "minifactions" (based on civs technically already present in the game but don't have their own factions, such as the Thracians) who could/would be present on certain maps and available either for destruction or alliance and allow the player that allies with them to have access to their units. this would extend to naval units as well, so, for example, on largely naval maps the Iberians would use their own transports but be able to ally with a non-player group (such as the Phoenicians) to gain access to some warships, the alternative being that, on a given map, they would ally with a player that DOES have warships and split the difference: for example, the Iberians ally with the Athenians against the Romans and Persians on a naval map, with the Athenians covering for their naval needs while the Iberians help defend the Athenians on land, particularly with their walls and towers since (iirc) the Iberians are the most defensive playable civ

Minifaction system: tribes in maps actor that are neutral with buildings and a mini village. [large scale and maps]

Mercenary camp system: uses minifaction and eyecandy units to get boost to maps. To maps like scenario skirmish.

Rebellion system : the decline a empire to converts in to minifaction controlled by the player. Like nation looking freedom.

Creeper system: treasure guardians.

Reinforcement system: not thinking at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creeper system: treasure guardians.

Can you elaborate more what you have in mind about the treasure guards? Sound interesting ..

Are you thinking of having pirates around (like Mythos already wished in a thread) that simply defend their treasures? Sometimes they cross the countrysides to enrichen themselves, while most of the time they float on the seven seas (until they meet a Roman Galley .. you know Goscinny et Uderzo :D ).

Ah now I get it. You mean digging with creeping? So a mining system .. or dynamic entrenchments? hmm. .. perhaps with Philips new pathfinder with 1x1 resolution this is possible by dynamic changes to the heightmap?

Rebellion system : the decline of an empire that converts it into a minifaction controlled by the player. Like nation looking [for] freedom.

For the playable civs the transformation from mini-civ to real civ and the other way round would be non-existent if there are still buildings available that allow reproduction and expansion of the civ that split away from a rebellion.

Or because this is all that is left after the rebellion was crushed - a rebellion is not even required to have taken place at all: Imagine you conquer foreign territories but decide to leave the remaining few buildings and civilians alive.

As long as there is some territory left we would have a mini-civ then. Maybe they have to repair their buildings permanently if there is no territory left. My little brother Findus and me we once had 40 females left .. but no more territory keeping building after even the blacksmith was crushed. (but still had a market, two houses and a mercenary camp left that allowed to continue production as we had heaps of resources left).

So if I hadn't made a terrible tactical mistake then we perhaps still had had the chance to turn the tide. Actually only moments before that hopeless situation we had almost all of our previously occupied territory re-conquered that we lost to Aegis's assaults in the meantime for the at least the forth time.

But I sent the 30 females from our rear-areas (in the meantime already conquered by Aegis) too close nearby enemy units and drew the attention on our last hope: the market which made it still possible to build new (store)houses. Also the decline of the buildings seemed to accelerate by time .. perhaps this was by the enemy units gaining in stregth but we didn't realise this attack until all was lost.

Okay, I think to have mini-civs repair their remaining buildings steadily is out of the question , so we have to stop or at least reduce the decline for those mini-civs. Or anyone knows how it's currently done with the Thracians?

Probably without at least one territory-gaining building we should really convert the declining civ/faction to be converted in a real mini-civ (without colors or however this works currently - have not looked at how it's done currently because I have to finish the hybrid AI first.).

Reinforcement system: not thinking at all.

Exactly. ;) In the Hybrid AI we forge for the Roman Republic Mod, there is no direct need to think about this. The general will request reinforcements from the senate/mayor. This will then be decided upon in the next council meeting, depending on how urgent it is. This 'leadership'/council then might call for reinforcements from allies themselves. So no need to worry about that.

Of course you can use ALT+D and activate to have full control finally relaying all such decisions to you alone (as requested e.g. by Romulus .. the cheated 'Emperor Mode' .. there is a more legal way to achieve the same result by getting elected consul or even dictator in wartimes but this is Roman Republic specific. We can think about how to generalise this later.).

If you yourself (the unit you currently focus on) have a military command then it's up to you to call for reinforcements of course. You may react on reinforcement calls of your subordinates ... or simply overrule those decisions (making their sympathy towards you sink of course, especially if your decision turns the subordinates and their soldiers into a fiasco).

Mercenary camp system: uses minifaction and eyecandy units to get boost to maps. To maps like scenario skirmish.

Here I would still opt for dividing twofold:
  • Mercenary camp (training mercenaries that have been recruited). Note: 0A.D. uses training for recruitment, I mean training in terms of strenghtening their stats, researching technology. Also I wish to only make the mercenaries available to the player once they have reached a mercenary camp. So no mercenary camp => no mercenaries can be recruited. There could be techs with the mercenary camps that allow for recruitment of different rank units. Or first only light-infantry, then need a tech to make it possible to recruit heavy infantry, another tech for cavallery... finally if it is researched how to recruit all basic unit mercenaries then elite mercenaries may be called upon. The good thing is that the enemy may pay mercenaries from the same mini-civ at a time, just depending on how bad the condition of the mini-civ is. That is if they need a lot of resources or not.
  • Recruitment of mercenaries itself from mini-civilisations, neutral factions, pirates (also mini-civ essentially? difference is only that they are nomadic .. just like nomads) ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you elaborate more what you have in mind about the treasure guards? Sound interesting ..

It's another feature in AoE3 and BFME2. Basically, there are random (or specific, if skirmish) "dens" where some treasure is hid. If a player defeats the guardians (Gaia owned defenders), then they get the treasure. The treasure varied a lot and its value was based on how many / how strong its defenders were. Some examples are: money, special tech (usually not available any other way), special mercenary soldier, tamed wild animal, etc. Nothing game changing, but it can add some variety.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's another feature in AoE3 and BFME2. Basically, there are random (or specific, if skirmish) "dens" where some treasure is hid. If a player defeats the guardians (Gaia owned defenders), then they get the treasure. The treasure varied a lot and its value was based on how many / how strong its defenders were. Some examples are: money, special tech (usually not available any other way), special mercenary soldier, tamed wild animal, etc. Nothing game changing, but it can add some variety.

creeps are calle in Warfraft 3. Yeah that have environment to maps like depredators and bandits , rebels , a bunch of outlaws guys XD it's funny defet them and stole their treasure. In AOE 3 even the treasure can be a special unit or eyecandy. Some units only wait be freedom. Haha. Is like the AOE I with Blind priest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a proposal.

Neutral buildings would be present on maps, and to capture them, the player should bring their health to zero. In this case, the building will change side and gain a little health. These buildings have a medium attack and are not defenseless. So it won't be possible to capture a lot of them in the beginning of the game. These can be captured by other players from you the very same way.

This will make neutral buildings independent of intended capturing mechanism (there are some people against the idea of capturing in general) and simplifies the system a bit.

Also, mercenary camps are only part of the potential of the neutral buildings. We can have trading posts (which act like markets but generate more income when part of a trade route), farm estates (which give a trickle of food), "villages" that increase the maximum population cap (which means you can have more than 300 population), buildings that have global auras, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a proposal.

Neutral buildings would be present on maps, and to capture them, the player should bring their health to zero. In this case, the building will change side and gain a little health. These buildings have a medium attack and are not defenseless. So it won't be possible to capture a lot of them in the beginning of the game. These can be captured by other players from you the very same way.

like Rise of Nations? Sounds similar

I love the trading post idea are good too, I don't sure if ensemble estudio so adding this for balancing their hard counter system.

Edited by Lion.Kanzen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like Rise of Nations? Sounds similar

I love the trading post idea are good too, I don't sure if ensemble estudio so adding this for balancing their hard counter system.

Trading posts in Aoe3 were used to quickly accumulate experience points which meant faster shipments. Shipments were basically stuff that you would get for free. Some shipments were things like +20% infantry attack or +20% cav attack. Other shipments were resource shipments, e.g. 700 wood or 700 coin could be sent. You could also send units, villagers, economic upgrades, mercenaries, ships, special buildings (factories and fortresses) and unique upgrades for every civ. Builds and strategies were focused around sending shipments.

Building a trade-post would allow for experience points to accumulate faster, so you could get more shipments faster. However 1 trading post used to cost 250w, which is a pretty significant investment in the early game. 2 trading posts would be 500 wood. This is even more expensive if you consider that wood gathered quite slowly. Some civs would benefit greatly from getting trade posts (Ottoman and Spain being the biggest iirc). Others would be better off using their villager gathering time to build other, more useful buildings.

Hard counter system had nothing to do with it at all. The hard counter system is essentially balanced in itself, since any decent player would go for a unit composition and not just a unit. Battles in aoe3 were fought with both players controlling 2 to 4 different unit types; even if the units were very unique, generally speaking the player with better micro won.

Trade posts in aoe3 were there to add strategic depth to the game. Also noteworthy is that you could upgrade the trade route your trade posts were on to be able to accumulate actual resources. This could be a substantial economic boost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we can adapt to gain resources or interchange for metal, may be use to control rare resources china interchange rare resource like Silk for Roman gold in the Silk Road in Asia even the archeology found roman coins in

India and China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, mercenary camps are only part of the potential of the neutral buildings. We can have trading posts (which act like markets but generate more income when part of a trade route), farm estates (which give a trickle of food), "villages" that increase the maximum population cap (which means you can have more than 300 population), buildings that have global auras, etc.

great.


@Spahbod:

What you proposed, was discussed on IRC into detail by wraitii, MythosRuler, sanderd, rada, ... all aspects were being discussed.

  • Introduction of loyalty attribute for units+ buildings.
  • loyalty trickle if inside own territory. (somewhat opposite to outpost's health decay, which would then be probably replaced by loyalty decay)
  • Units garrisoned in a building increase the loyalty trickle.
  • Converter units can convince other units + buildings to change side (once loyalty reaches 0, it starts over at 20% or 10% percent to avoid immediate recapture though I would love to not add this as the loyalty trickle boost by garrisoned units leads already to the same effect.).
  • garrisoned units die (or later become POW) once the building has changed side (when loyalty has reached 0).
  • Neutral buildings can start at 0.
  • Converting a building is safer for the attacking units, but takes takes a long time in comparison to capturing (storming with high losses). Think of besieging a city. You have the choice: Either destroy it quickly or besiege the enemy and tear them down by time (desperation).
  • Garrisoning units in a temple increases the territory wide loyalty trickle. => If your citizens pray a lot, then they get hope and hold out longer when being besieged by an enemy army.

3 Choices:

A building is

  • captured once all garrisoned units are dead or fled (assumes all garissoned units have a prop/turret representation).
  • converted (sacked by besieging) when loyalty is depleted.
  • destroyed when health reaches 0. This levelling of a building also takes a lot of time, but less than besieging (read: converting) a building. Levelling a building is impossible without siege units (infantry weapons have no effect, can be simulated defining high hack armor for the building). => The first hits should have big impact. Later it's getting harder and harder to damage it further.

The link between damaging a building and conversion/besieging is to be added later when introducing the morale attribute:

  1. Garrisoned units' morale will suffer when the building they are garrisoned in is damaged. (morale decay)
  2. The local loyalty trickle bonus that garrisoned units give (for this building only; unlike the global loyalty trickle that can be influence by units garrisoned in a temple), depends on the unit morale (a simple factor).

=> Damage a building to decrease morale to increase your chances to sack the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: what happens if there is a merc camp in one's territory? I think that an opponent should have a longer training time/more expensive units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question, we need find a way to territory no affect the control of a mercenary camp, only capturing placing buildings near like some neutral buildings in AOM , but can be nice restrict CC to avoid build to nearly. This feature will be one of last, when we talk about that we agreed with this because, they need some artist intervention for some units these aren't in game, but historical were mercenaries like Tarantine cavalry, or Illyrians mercenaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Delenda Est player capture merc camp like capturing a civic center. task units to go capture and they use capture animation. Mercs only take 5 second to train (0 second for Ptolemies).

u3zzsFh.png

(it have 1000 capture points; civic center have 3000)

Just need a <Undeletable /> flag and a <Unattackable /> flag for merc camp template.

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about that... You show to programmers and few artist in the team how look the animation that you are using, to me is the best, that we can get for now.

About camps... I will see when is implement other system, those are planned, because capturing like the mercenary camp were your foes is some little weird, but for testing now is good.

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...