Gameplay Pattern?

[sphyrth]

Being new to this, I would really like how 0 A.D.'s current gameplay pattern sort of looks like. I recently got a comment from Youtube arguing that the game is just "Build an army, then send them to fight".

Now, I would go on and argue that it's not THAT empty or it's still in Alpha, but I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt. So far, the arguments I've seen are "The game is empty because..."

1. Just eXplore and eXterminate
2. Just populate and gather
3. Just rush
4. (summing up the 3 above) Use little/no strategy.

And by the gameplay visions set forth in this section, I still can't see what is the envisioned gameplay pattern actually is. Can someone give me an easy-to-digest version of what the gameplay pattern should be?

[jonbaer]

I used to think this way but there are some elements I focus on ...

1. Random maps - identifying chokepoints and working around (and with) them

2. Establishing a solid market and trade / barters / tributes

3. The right alliances (when the map is revealed)

4. Some naval strategy (blockades)

5. Early siege defenses (and counters) 

[Feldfeld]

It is also important to have a good army composition, and in team game you better be coordinated with your allies.

Currently, some very random maps impose to improvise and find a good strategy to win.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Feldfeld

[Servo]

I've seen lots of YouTube 0 AD videos and they are almost the same. I think there are no good or pro player videos. And as stated by the poster it's just gather, build armies and do an ultimate battle or 2. I play AI but mind you it's more interesting and fun and kinda more actions militarily if you encite them. 

In multiplayer games pro players are those who have less idle units/time. It's good to have a real battle like with massive armies but most good/pro players imo based on say AoE2, RoN, or any RTS games not just build/gather  once they have enough units they raid, explore or patrol, etc. it's like when you have capable armies available you have to use it, military micro applied to avoid losses in the early stages while constantly building up forces for final assault which would come sooner in the final stages.

Some things I noticed are:

1. Not all factions have archers that could at least let all players do some annoying raids or defend remote area raids.  Ptolemies which I think not yet fully loaded would one day dominate because of these early long range cavalry archer.  

2. CC that fires arrows without garrison would discourage players on doing small skirmishes deeper inside enemy areas. 

3. Early units are very cheap and coupled with lots of resources available early makes the gamer to just keep building and gathering. Expensive units and low resources could make the players think more strategic and selective as to what is best for his faction.

If I will sum up based on the YouTube I watch almost half or even more of the amount of time you will only see gather/build. You think viewers would appreciate the game?

 

[sphyrth]

Here's another aspect I'm going to jab at: There are no real significant differences among the factions.

Everybody can rush. Everybody can build armies and fight. No faction really specializes in any of that.

For example, even with their walls the Iberians can still be raided almost as easily as any other faction.
The Mauryan Worker Elephant? I don't see a lot of players using the advantage of "faster builder" and the "saving wood because for the Mobile Dropsite".
Carthage's Embassies, Faster CC Build and Stronger Walls? I don't see them having practical advantages.

Now I've become a bitter old whiner again. My fallback argument is always "It's still in Alpha."

[Servo]

I recently watched Incog's games though I guess he was playing some rookie (IMO). He was emphasizing efficiency though there were idle units but his game is quite fluid with so much raiding thereby neutralizing his opponent very early. He does not depend on champions or waiting for the champions to be available. 

I think it's very interesting to have him play with the best like as others mentioned Borg. It will be very attractive to viewers. A game that has full of actions. 

[Zeta1127]

I always try to take advantage of unique things, like the Mauryan Worker Elephant and the Carthaginian Embassies and Colonization unique tech. I pretty much exclusively use the Mauryan Worker Elephant, after an initial Farmstead and Storehouse for research, especially for woodcutting, though I often forget about the assist with constructing buildings. I always try to not build more than five Houses before I research Colonization, so I can take full advantage of the technology for building Houses and Temples.

[Feldfeld]

3 hours ago, sphyrth said:

Here's another aspect I'm going to jab at: There are no real significant differences among the factions.

Everybody can rush. Everybody can build armies and fight. No faction really specializes in any of that.

For example, even with their walls the Iberians can still be raided almost as easily as any other faction.
The Mauryan Worker Elephant? I don't see a lot of players using the advantage of "faster builder" and the "saving wood because for the Mobile Dropsite".
Carthage's Embassies, Faster CC Build and Stronger Walls? I don't see them having practical advantages.

Now I've become a bitter old whiner again. My fallback argument is always "It's still in Alpha."

Yes there are ...

"Everybody can rush. Everybody can build armies and fight. No faction really specializes in any of that"

For the rush, the factions that specialize in that in early game are roman and macedonian, because spear cavalry are available right are the start of the game, and they kill women way faster than skirmisher cavalry (though they lose to them if they fight at equal numbers). Especially romans since their starting cav are also spear cav, when macedonian starts with skirmisher cav.

"Everybody can build armies and fight"  Yes, but what would do a faction that can't build armies and can't figth ? ... That being said, i'll give an other example of differences among civilizations. Currently, I think that late game is dominated by macedonian and spartans because their spear champions are really strong. So we now have champion fights dominated by these civilizations... I can give other examples if needed.

"For example, even with their walls the Iberians can still be raided almost as easily as any other faction" Hmm, I doubt that because i think that the iberians, if they want security, should go out and take their wood only when they have a good enough mass of citizen soldiers to counter cav, but i never tried it myself. The walls mainly defend their food income from raids. Also, an other difference in fations : iberians actually have the strongest defense structures in the game (not considering carthage's walls  because walls are forbidden in good games...).

The Mauryan worker elephant :

Currently, in early game, yes, they are used to saving wood because of mobile dropsite, and build houses.Though, later in the game they start to require more micro, and are hence only used to gather ressources out of a player's territory. In late game, not only they need micro to be used effectively, but they take also 1 pop that can be precious in low pop games (150, though becoming 165 for mauryans due to their bonuses).So i think they currently give an advantage, and i forgot to speak about hunting using the worker elephant.

Carthage's Embassies :

It is true that they are currently not used a lot, but they will likely be in next alpha due to buff of mercenaries, it will encourages people to use mrecenaries and it will likely be a good argument for carthage.

 

It is also true that the community can't see good player's games/playing due to lack of both replays/videos. Maybe i'll try to remediate that myself but it is some investment...

[Zeta1127]

I never play low pop games, and don't train more than like five Worker Elephants anyway, so I think they are a pretty good trade off between mobility and micro. I mean how often does one really build new Farmsteads or Storehouses, Farmsteads aren't needed in mass, for Stone and Metal Worker Elephants are fairly efficient other than being too slow to keep up with workers when moving to a new resource node, and for Wood moving a Worker Elephant replaces building a new Storehouse.

I love walls, but even as a solo player against AI, I have a hard time making effective use of walls, mainly due to the difficulties with snapping to terrain. I haven't played Random maps much in recent alphas, usually favoring Skirmish these days, so the Iberian walls aren't as much of a factor for me, though I do like their rather varied unit roster and excellent Defense Towers.

I believe the Carthaginian Embassies could use some attention, because the build limit on them severely limits the options for using mercenaries. If it wasn't for me insisting that a limit of one favored training time reduction over cost reduction back when there were technologies for mercenaries, then we would probably still have a limit of one instead of two, which I am now starting to think might still be too limiting. I have made the embassy limit work for me, because I just prefer the Iberian Mercenaries due to the fact they provide access to more units and the core for a ranged army, since Swordsmen are more fragile than Spearmen.