DarcReaver

Gameplay guideline

139 posts in this topic

The blacksmith tech cant be tiered like they were in Aoe2 games. Since 0AD is taking place in a single time period.

Even AoE3 had to use single tier techs in arsenal. Because the techs have to make sense, cant make them in tiers just for sake of it.

 

So I feel Blacksmith should have single techs each for - Infantry armor, Cav armor, and different weapon upgrades. With accompanying increase in unit cost. This could indicate that a working armory/blacksmith in city allows better equipments for the army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

58 minutes ago, drsingh said:

The blacksmith tech cant be tiered like they were in Aoe2 games. Since 0AD is taking place in a single time period.

Even AoE3 had to use single tier techs in arsenal. Because the techs have to make sense, cant make them in tiers just for sake of it.

 

So I feel Blacksmith should have single techs each for - Infantry armor, Cav armor, and different weapon upgrades. With accompanying increase in unit cost. This could indicate that a working armory/blacksmith in city allows better equipments for the army.

I agree that weapon techs shouldn't be paired with city progression. Instead, unit training should revolve around training levels, similar to like you suggested. Basic, advanced, elite etc. to fit that larger cities were able to field higher qualitiy trained troops.

However, There could be additional techs, that don't increase the unit's combat efficiency directly, but makes training them more economic by reducing metal/iron costs for certain unit types. Those could be tied to "advancing" the blacksmith itself. I have something in mind like "capacity increase" or "metallurgy" improvements which allowed in ancient times to produce metal/weapons faster. Additionally, some civs could feature unique techs that allow them to research weapon types that were iconic for the civ, like "Sarissa" for Mace civ to name an example. Or certain types of special steel or whatever.

Edited by DarcReaver
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, an interesting  aoeish way regarding uniqueness of civs would be something like, in cavalry area, having 2 techs: one improve speed and another HP. Most civs should have available only one of them, bending to fast but more fragile, or slower and sturdier cav. Cavalry civs could have both. As example.

 

Would try to write my general gameplay proposal if there's some idea that can be borrowed or criticized (in my own topic). If it helps a little, i'm happy. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still messing around with setting up the economy system - resources, their respective roles and how they interact with each other...

Haven't found a way to keep them all while not overcomplicating stuff. It's really hard to do.
Many thoughts but nothing that really "combines" them into something unique. I was actually considering to have "earlygame" and lategame resources split up (which would be something like earlygame: food wood iron" and lategame "stone silver" ... But not sure yet.

As of unique teching ways: I'm preparing a document launch on the military outline of Greek civs, if you have suggestions I'll gladly pick them up as I'm not 100% sure how to deal with everything yet aswell. Might become something like "best-of-all"...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Regarding blacksmith tiering:

 

If you keep the phases as they are now, then if you decouple the blacksmith from these phases, you may introduce unnecessary complexity, or confusion, but certainly a tear in the concept of the game. If you have phases, then they must mean something. Unless... unless... The phases just happen automatically. For instance, if you build 10 buildings, then boom, you get upgraded to the next phase automatically, with a nice aural flourish and graphical animation. That way, the phasing is directly, more directly, tied to the number of buildings you are building rather than to the phasing tech itself. Building enough buildings becomes the bottleneck instead of the phase tech cost. So, you may still have a phase tech icon in the UI, but costs nothing and it's auto-researched when the prereqs are met.

 

So, returning to the Blacksmith, it can still have tiers of techs, but what you can do is present these tiers as blacksmith experience. I can imagine teching up your blacksmith from apprentice blacksmith to blacksmith to master blacksmith to royal blacksmith, each level unlocking more techs. Maybe make these tiers have prereqs like "Requires any 3 blacksmith techs" or something like this, in order to gain this "experience", see, and unlock the next tier.

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Regarding blacksmith tiering:

 

If you keep the phases as they are now, then if you decouple the blacksmith from these phases, you may introduce unnecessary complexity, or confusion, but certainly a tear in the concept of the game. If you have phases, then they must mean something. Unless... unless... The phases just happen automatically. For instance, if you build 10 buildings, then boom, you get upgraded to the next phase automatically, with a nice aural flourish and graphical animation. That way, the phasing is directly, more directly, tied to the number of buildings you are building rather than to the phasing tech itself. Building enough buildings becomes the bottleneck instead of the phase tech cost. So, you may still have a phase tech icon in the UI, but costs nothing and it's auto-researched when the prereqs are met.

 

So, returning to the Blacksmith, it can still have tiers of techs, but what you can do is present these tiers as blacksmith experience. I can imagine teching up your blacksmith from apprentice blacksmith to blacksmith to master blacksmith to royal blacksmith, each level unlocking more techs. Maybe make these tiers have prereqs like "Requires any 3 blacksmith techs" or something like this, in order to gain this "experience", see, and unlock the next tier.

I really like both of those ideas. Especially the auto phasing based on building count. It never really made sense to spend resources to advance in phase. Going from a village to a town should just be based on how many or what kind of structures that you have. I think it was just a holdover of the ages from AoK.

The blacksmith levels sound very interesting.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 16/03/2017 at 2:02 AM, Hannibal_Barca said:

0 A.D. features each civilization at it's prime.

DarcReaver "Which is? *drumroll* Iron Age mostly I suppose?"

Yep, makes sense, so that would include the germanic tribes at their iron age peak well before the germanic - norse split and Roman incursions. However that's the Pre-Roman Iron Age (5th/4th–1st centuries BCE). New archaeology and very interesting.  
It would include Israel, Hittites, Scythians, Who else? 

If the Han are thrown in eventually then so should their great rivals were the Xiongnu, but tactically and technologically they are similar to the Scythians. 
From 500 BC to 500 AD in many cases the units you can talk about for a given civilisation in this kind of game are more or less the same. Technologies come and go but in some cases reinvention. 

Still doesn't help with the game play problems DarcReaver's cited.  Crazy new inventions needed. 
The AI is owning me at very easy setting! Waaaaa :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/03/2017 at 6:52 AM, drsingh said:

The blacksmith tech cant be tiered like they were in Aoe2 games. Since 0AD is taking place in a single time period.

Even AoE3 had to use single tier techs in arsenal. Because the techs have to make sense, cant make them in tiers just for sake of it.

 

So I feel Blacksmith should have single techs each for - Infantry armor, Cav armor, and different weapon upgrades. With accompanying increase in unit cost. This could indicate that a working armory/blacksmith in city allows better equipments for the army.

The challenge then is to differentiate the civilisations. Right now with the exception of a few elephants and the celts naked guy, all the armies are a little too similar and in some cases the AI owns you before you have time to do anything interesting with the blacksmith anyway. Diversity is the mother of complexity. You can't get one without risking the other; ie. over complexity.  

PS I'm most of the way though the art and modelling guides. Nice writing.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/03/2017 at 8:32 AM, DarcReaver said:

I'm still messing around with setting up the economy system - resources, their respective roles and how they interact with each other...

Haven't found a way to keep them all while not overcomplicating stuff. It's really hard to do.
Many thoughts but nothing that really "combines" them into something unique. I was actually considering to have "earlygame" and lategame resources split up (which would be something like earlygame: food wood iron" and lategame "stone silver" ... But not sure yet.

As of unique teching ways: I'm preparing a document launch on the military outline of Greek civs, if you have suggestions I'll gladly pick them up as I'm not 100% sure how to deal with everything yet aswell. Might become something like "best-of-all"...

Would this mean that wood and Stone would give you different quantities of the same building materials. wood giving a bit and stone giving a whole lot.  We have a clear wood to stone progression in the walls and towers that would be broken if stone disappears. 
You've said it's been argued that going beyond 5 or 6 resources are hard to track. I doubt the person writing that originally was counting population. Do you have a reference? 

I suspect that food, wood, stone, iron, silver and population will work ok because population is a different type of resource. And if we are making battalions we will need higher early pops anyway.  It would not be one pop per battalion. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

  Citizens – they do no longer start with their weapons, instead they only work as male collectors. They collect food, wood, metal and stone faster than women, and they can hunt with spears or bows. They have the option to be “called to arms” to receive their weapons but lose their ability to collect resources (in case of Atheneans: Citizens turn into Hoplites). The upgrade is permanent. 

Alternative: Citizens “call to arms” is a timed ability. When activated Citizens run towards the Civic Center (or Blacksmith) and receive their weapons. When leaving the city boundaries or after a certain time they drop their weapons and become gatherers again.

That bad idea, I'm imagining the units doing this very far both sites, when they return , the civilians are dead.

batter automatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

That bad idea, I'm imagining the units doing this very far both sites, when they return , the civilians are dead.

batter automatic.

So, apply this mechanic to outposts aswell, problem fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

So, apply this mechanic to outposts aswell, problem fixed.

Need be hardly tested, have sense because is realism. You need almost each building to have sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Need be hardly tested, have sense because is realism. You need almost each building to have sense.

Only spots where gatherers are. Much sense and realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now