Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wowgetoffyourcellphone

Adding new factions to the game

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Moving the current "hawk" to Golden Eagle

Here you go: D2254.

[EDIT]: From Wikimedia Commons:

Spoiler

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/RaptorialSilhouettes.svg/593px-RaptorialSilhouettes.svg.png

The “golden eagle” (Aquila chrysaetos) is actually really dark:

Spoiler

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Orel_skaln%C3%AD_2.jpg

Edited by Nescio
birds-of-prey comparison; golden eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 9:44 AM, Nescio said:

If I recall correctly, AoK only has one or two unique units and technologies per civilization, but no unique structures, or am I mistaken?

But the problem is the same. Do you really think that the Aztec and the Mayans built windmills and treadwheel crane? Do you think they built siege workshops? Do you think that the unique tech of the Aztecs, Garland Wars, is historically accurate to give a +4 attack bonus to the infantry?

These problems with historical accuracies is inherent to the core gameplay of the game. This is the same with 0AD, barracks are not something very common in ancient times.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Genava55 said:

These problems with historical accuracies is inherent to the core gameplay of the game. This is the same with 0AD, barracks are not something very common in ancient times.

 

It's called a gameplay convention

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's called a gameplay convention

Which is mostly copy-pasted from AoE in our case. Which is itself a convention not based on historical facts but on a legacy from Dune II and Warcraft 1. I am not saying it is bad, this is a practical design that stood the test of time, but it is important to highlight the background of this convention.

My point is that looking exclusively to the unique buildings/tech/units of the game to nitpick what is correct or not is equivalent to focusing on the tree hiding the forest. I am impatient to see the day when a nomadic faction will be added to the game. It will challenge both the coherence of this convention and the historical accuracy.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Which is mostly copy-pasted from AoE in our case. Which is itself a convention not based on historical facts but on a legacy from Dune II and Warcraft 1. I am not saying it is bad, this is a practical design that stood the test of time, but it is important to highlight the background of this convention.

We do not have a choice, they are the basis of the rts design, we would get lost looking for realistic buildings in addition to their realistic proportions.

Resultado de imagen para lego/age of empires

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

We do not have a choice, they are the basis of the rts design, we would get lost looking for realistic buildings in addition to their realistic proportions.

I am not questioning the whole thing. There is totally the necessity to tweak the reality to put it in a game. I am questioning the use of a strict template in which each factions must fit in, a template that is very restrictive in comparison from other RTS games. This template never have been thought to fit most of the ancient cultures.

There was a huge dose of cynicism when I said that the game needed a lot of factions to bring diversity.

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's say that we create a Faction that does have Barracks. That would...

  1. Go against familiarity
    "Where's my Barracks!? This civ doesn't have it? Then how am I supposed to get an army going? How am I supposed to play this thing?"
    It depends from player to player, but I'm one of those could certainly get used to it . So, it's not much of a problem... for me at least.
  2. Breaks Balance - You have to justify how your faction is going to play without Barracks. Is it intended to be a Support Faction that's filled with Support Units (Traders and Healers), or something else?

Right now, we have the Macedonians as an example. They lack Swordsmen Historically that's being challenged by the forumers here (Macedonians DO have Swordsmen). But let's just assume that it doesn't. You have to balance that faction accordingly, or at least justify gameplay-wise why you're not going to allow any Sword-type units for the Macedonians.

Now that Nomadic (i.e. Barracks-less) Factions are being considered, how would they fit in the game if they're gonna be picked by a player?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sphyrth said:

So let's say that we create a Faction that does have Barracks. That would...

  1. Go against familiarity
    "Where's my Barracks!? This civ doesn't have it? Then how am I supposed to get an army going? How am I supposed to play this thing?"
    It depends from player to player, but I'm one of those could certainly get used to it . So, it's not much of a problem... for me at least.
  2. Breaks Balance - You have to justify how your faction is going to play without Barracks. Is it intended to be a Support Faction that's filled with Support Units (Traders and Healers), or something else?

Right now, we have the Macedonians as an example. They lack Swordsmen Historically that's being challenged by the forumers here (Macedonians DO have Swordsmen). But let's just assume that it doesn't. You have to balance that faction accordingly, or at least justify gameplay-wise why you're not going to allow any Sword-type units for the Macedonians.

Now that Nomadic (i.e. Barracks-less) Factions are being considered, how would they fit in the game if they're gonna be picked by a player?

Actual the convention is very strict because each building = one specific function (or a very few). This is a legacy of AoE with each faction being a clone from the others. But the convention and the template applied are not mandatory to follow this logic of 1 building = 1 function. The template could be based only on functions directly and be more adaptive to the particularities of each culture. For example a basic military production function and a basic defensive structure at the stage 1 could result to barracks and towers for the Greeks and to an unique building for the Celts like a fortified farm doing the job of both a barrack and a tower (this is just an idea to illustrate my point, not necessarily the right thing to do).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

I am not questioning the whole thing. There is totally the necessity to tweak the reality to put it in a game. I am questioning the use of a strict template in which each factions must fit in, a template that is very restrictive in comparison from other RTS games. This template never have been thought to fit most of the ancient cultures.

There was a huge dose of cynicism when I said that the game needed a lot of factions to bring diversity.

It's a reminder to newcomers to see that everything is coldly calculated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Right now, we have the Macedonians as an example. They lack Swordsmen Historically that's being challenged by the forumers here (Macedonians DO have Swordsmen).

Did they? Battalions of Greco-Macedonian swordsmen? I think not. They did hire mercenaries though. Elite units will have switched to sword when attacking a fortified position or something, sure (makes sense), but that wasn't their primary armament elsewhere as in pitched battles. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't we close to reaching some sort of consensus that Thracian Black Cloaks make a lot more sense in the Macedonian roster than in the Athenian one? With the Thracian rhomphaia the Macedonians will be just as capable as any other civ and people might actually start playing with them. More historical accuracy and better gameplay. It's like, literally a win-win. 

*Not saying that Black Cloaks should be removed from the Athenians (but perhaps a slight increase in cost to reflect their distance to Thrace?)  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Weren't we close to reaching some sort of consensus that Thracian Black Cloaks make a lot more sense in the Macedonian roster than in the Athenian one? With the Thracian rhomphaia the Macedonians will be just as capable as any other civ and people might actually start playing with them. More historical accuracy and better gameplay. It's like, literally a win-win. 

*Not saying that Black Cloaks should be removed from the Athenians (but perhaps a slight increase in cost to reflect their distance to Thrace?)  

Even art references say that.

Resultado de imagen para thracian mercenaries  macedonian

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Weren't we close to reaching some sort of consensus that Thracian Black Cloaks make a lot more sense in the Macedonian roster than in the Athenian one? With the Thracian rhomphaia the Macedonians will be just as capable as any other civ and people might actually start playing with them. More historical accuracy and better gameplay. It's like, literally a win-win. 

*Not saying that Black Cloaks should be removed from the Athenians (but perhaps a slight increase in cost to reflect their distance to Thrace?)  

Right, if these are who you're referring to, then yes, I agree wholeheartedly. And yes, I think the "Royal Stoa" units for Spartans/Athenians should be completely rethought or (preferably) removed completely. 

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

*Not saying that Black Cloaks should be removed from the Athenians (but perhaps a slight increase in cost to reflect their distance to Thrace?)  

Alcibiades used Iberians mercenaries, even when he was still serving Athens, it could be a replacement although a bit exceptional. Or the Thracians mercenaries could be simply generic swordsmen with sika-like sword.

Spoiler

image.png.b3212cad7481e2e6a9defcae3f2cb1a2.png

 

3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Did they? Battalions of Greco-Macedonian swordsmen? I think not

Neither the Spartans then, if this reasoning is valid (which it is).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Neither the Spartans then, if this reasoning is valid (which it is).

Agreed m8. I understand the inclination to add cool new stuff, but it has to make sense of course. :) I always wished the Stoa had some civic or economic benefit instead of being a military building. (See DE for a different take in the Stoa; not that EA should do the same thing, but it is something different) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole matter of whether civilisations used swordsmen or not is a bit of a non-issue to me.  Spartans and Athenians fielded swordsmen.  They just happened to use spears, which have better reach as primary weapons.  Yes the Romans did use swordsmen, but of course that was due to their having javelins instead of thrusting spears (the triarii being the exception).  With that in mind, I'd say that trying to give distinct functions to infantry that only used one weapon or both seems odd to begin with.  If anything, they should be only slightly nuanced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

The whole matter of whether civilisations used swordsmen or not is a bit of a non-issue to me.  Spartans and Athenians fielded swordsmen.  They just happened to use spears, which have better reach as primary weapons.  Yes the Romans did use swordsmen, but of course that was due to their having javelins instead of thrusting spears (the triarii being the exception).  With that in mind, I'd say that trying to give distinct functions to infantry that only used one weapon or both seems odd to begin with.  If anything, they should be only slightly nuanced. 

I don't know about that... While the Greeks did indeed use swords as a back up weapon, their primary melee form of combat was the shield wall, or phalanx, which utilized spears and armor to their maximum extent until the Macedonians and their pike phalanx. Both variants, the classical and Macedonian fashions, were much different than a typical sword formation. There is not much nuance between a 20 foot pike and a xiphos, or a 9 foot dory and a xiphos for that matter. They are starkly different weapons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, we can very easily historically justify giving almost every civ swordsmen in some capacity, either as regular troops or as mercenaries or as champions. So it's not really a problem. If we had battalions, we could make it possible for battalions of hoplites to be able to switch between swords and spears easily, for different attack stats and uses. Maybe that kind of thing is what you want. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so Swordsmen and balance for all Factions is generally established. I wanna get back to the Barracks topic.

Out of curiosity, which of the current Factions were historically Barrack-less? And what are the possible workarounds if ever those were removed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For avoid the constantly doubt about swords.

Hint: Implement ammo just like @Angen did, give every unit some ammo (Even meele) Give secondary attack for every unit using GetBestAttackAgainst IIRC just like he did also, 

Ran out of javelins? Got your sword. Ran out of Pilum? Use Your Gladius. 

Use ammo for spears as "durability" of the spear. Each attack consumes a charge of the spear, if spear ammo goes to 0 it "Breaks", so now the hoplite will have to rely on his faithfull kipos or xiphos.

And implement some ammo refinishment aura to Blacksmith and maybe as an upgrade use something like aoe 3 fabrics. if you select this it would produce only food/wood/metal. so this building isn't just an useless Tech building. Wich also gave me an idea about libraries about their tech cost technology. This should be removed and add an aura to the building to make this building surronding buildings tech cost less, And replace storehouse techs from being global and just once, to an upgrade of the storehouse giving an aura around to nearby gathering entities, lets be honest, a soldier wouldn't carry a pickaxe, an axe, a shovel each time he goes to fight unless hes a republican legionary.

The idea is to make the buildings more buildable as a city and not just as a base.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I wished to make about swords is that there isn't much an inherent advantage to using them over spears, and the game should reflect that.  I think that a marginally faster movement speed could be fair, but even that doesn't make too much practical sense.  Factions should not have to be reliant on a sword unit.  Altogether I like the ideas Alexandermb mentioned for ammo.

In regards to which faction was barrack-less, the easier question to pose is which ones weren't.  Sparta had men living in their common barracks, but for other factions it mainly was a matter of levying troops (The Romans, Athenians, etc,... all maintained this kind of military).  That doesn't mean that men did not have areas where they could do martial training.  Much of the gymnasium was dedicated to athletic pursuits of a very military character.  I think that the primary problem is that the term barracks is used when troops were rarely quartered (Such a thing would typically imply a professional force).  If we want to keep the structure, we just need to think of a more appropriate name for classification.  

The Seluecids and Ptolemies were one of a few factions that did maintain a semi-professional force, establishing military colonies that were maintained by the soldiers in peacetime; this probably is the closest we could come to a barracks despite a 'kleruch' typically implying an entire settlement, not a dedicated barracks.  

At the end of the day, the barracks is a decent abstraction of something that would otherwise require more difficult or different systems to learn in order to make the game feel more representative of the social structures of that time.  Regardless of that, if there is to be a change, we should make sure to attempt to make it both simple enough for RTS purposes to justify the added historical intuitiveness.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alexandermb said:

For avoid the constantly doubt about swords.

Hint: Implement ammo just like @Angen did, give every unit some ammo (Even meele) Give secondary attack for every unit using GetBestAttackAgainst IIRC just like he did also, 

Ran out of javelins? Got your sword. Ran out of Pilum? Use Your Gladius. 

Use ammo for spears as "durability" of the spear. Each attack consumes a charge of the spear, if spear ammo goes to 0 it "Breaks", so now the hoplite will have to rely on his faithfull kipos or xiphos.

And implement some ammo refinishment aura to Blacksmith and maybe as an upgrade use something like aoe 3 fabrics. if you select this it would produce only food/wood/metal. so this building isn't just an useless Tech building. Wich also gave me an idea about libraries about their tech cost technology. This should be removed and add an aura to the building to make this building surronding buildings tech cost less, And replace storehouse techs from being global and just once, to an upgrade of the storehouse giving an aura around to nearby gathering entities, lets be honest, a soldier wouldn't carry a pickaxe, an axe, a shovel each time he goes to fight unless hes a republican legionary.

The idea is to make the buildings more buildable as a city and not just as a base.

Or wait for @bb_ to implement #252 and no need for hacks :)

  • Like 1

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...