Leaderboard

I’m writing after reading a post in /r/truegaming about RTS : http://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/3961xs/what_happened_to_rts_games/ This will mostly be an “idea rambling” that I post here so that I can have a written trace somewhere but I do have some key points to make. I don't really expect a discussion though I'd gladly take part in one. The reddit thread discusses the reasons why we haven’t seen any new “true RTS” in the vein of e.g. AoE2 in the last circa 10 years. Except for the last, all the big reasons have been stuff we have already stumbled upon when discussing the future of 0 A.D.: It is very difficult to get an RTS rightAn average RTS is not “OK”, it’s actually “bad”, which means you must get it rightThe RTS community was actually divided between those that enjoyed the micromanagement, strategy and pressure (aka starcraft players), and those that relished more the overall macromanagement and/or basebuilding (those play Total War, city builders, Anno)MOBAs took the remaining RTS playersThe obvious problem here is that it is simply very difficult to make a good RTS that will strike the right chords for both the starcraft and the TW players. This requires having competitive MP and fun SP. Something that AoE2 had, and that for example AoE 3 failed (arguably SP simply wasn’t fun enough. Campaigns were subpar for the standards and the AI was bad). My main addition to these points would be that indeed the TW/citybuilder crowd would mostly play SP/casual MP, whereas the starcraft crowd took over actual MP and made it competitive. So basically unless you had a few friends to play in LAN, playing MP means bowing to the starcraft crowd in a classic RTS. I do believe 0 A.D. is on the good path to strike those two chords fine. We have a solid MP game, which can get fairly competitive (adjustments pending). SP is still very subpar, but the AI had gotten considerably better to the point that it might be time to start thinking outside the box a bit. Campaigns with triggers are now a possibility, and I have no doubt we’ll get interesting ones. Now, the problem is that none of this is really new. This isn’t a huge issue because we don’t really have concurrence, but still. The big thing that people want/wanted 0 A.D. to have is realistic ship movements and realistic formations combat. My personal opinion is that neither is achievable/really desirable given the current format. So the question stands: how can you keep the classic RTS formula yet still bring new stuff? Well, I do believe we have all the ingredients, except for one: map size. Imagine for a minute absolutely no gameplay changes to 0 A.D., but all maps are at least 20 times as big as a huge map right now; Suddenly unit travel time is no longer irrelevant. Suddenly attrition can be simulated in a way that makes sense. Suddenly strategic economic position becomes a real thing. Suddenly the base building aspect can become as important as the fighting. Suddenly trading makes sense, suddenly raiding becomes closer to the real thing. Ambushes matter. Territory control matters. And all units suddenly get more realistic. Now this would probably require some changes. The number of different resources might need to be bumped up a bit (perhaps with “raw/manufactured” variants of each material?). The “global stockpile” principle might need some adjustments, but I don’t think you’d need to go full Anno (perhaps with dropsites having “range” and some possibility for trading to move resources internally). Resources would be less accessible on the map, more scattered, so terrain control and scouting would become more important. Strategic positioning of your buildings would probably become much more important (note that this fits well with a system where buildings would be costlier, and possibly need individual upgrades) . One could probably introduce a “maintenance” cost but it’s not certain that this is a necessity. This means much slower games, more on the scale of EU3 or RTW. You’d start with a very simple base, discover your surroundings, and develop slowly into a full scale civ with multiple bases/towns, while still trying to crush your opponent. Rushing would basically be ruled out, but you probably still would be able to strike at vastly different times depending on your focus. An hour attack or a 8th hour attack would become the new strategy. Clickfest is almost automatically out. Yet it doesn't get boring because things would always be happening as you could vastly increase the number of actions before you have a complete city. As for combat, this would make formations finally relevant because the scales would be right, and for the rest you could keep current simplifications. I think this could be a very, very enticing game if done right. The fun of building a base and the fun of classic RTS warfare. It would shift the focus from “basically all military” to “50/50” and that would imo be a very good thing. As a final word of conclusion, I am not suggesting this is the direction 0 A.D. should take, if only because it would be quite a dramatic departure and I am about 100% sure that we could never make it work (it’d be forever too slow with the current engine). I'm saying if someone ever wants to restart an RTS from scratch, this is the way to go.

A classsic-style RTS achieve a balance of this in Battle for Middle Earth II. Ships did not turn on a dime, but movement wasn't 100% realistic. I think with ship movement, 0 A.D. pklayers just want something better than what is currently in the game. The ship movement in the game right now is just too clunky. And so many people keep making formations out to be more complex than they need to be. Simple powerful formations can work. It has been done, except there were no bonuses in BfME2. 0 A.D. would innovate on that. Formations can be streamline and reduced in number. Battle Line is standard for infantry and ranged units. Wedge is standard for melee cavalry. Column is automatic. Then use modifying buttons: Open Order, Close Order, Locked Shields (this is the phalanx). I do like your idea of making bigger maps and making exploring more important. Settling up forward bases or finding good spots for cities would be more important. And yeah, using a 'column' formation to speed up getting troops across the map would be more relevant. I think a separate git would be needed to test thing like this. More resources is intriquing, but maybe keep the same resources and make different ways of getting them, like large open pit metal or stone mines that can be captured.

I made it a bit easier to add new backgrounds, and you can decide which layers tile and which don't. Currently, you can add up to 5 layers for a background set, if you want more, it's easy to change. To add a background set, you just need to add two small files. See the files in http://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/gui/pregame/backgrounds . First, you have to make a .xml file in that directory, similar to http://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/gui/pregame/backgrounds/hellenes.xml , there you define a sprite for every image layer. Every sprite must have a unique name, and define what texture to be used. The first sprite is an example of a tiled sprite, the other two are non-tiled. Best is to at least make the background tiled, so that people with big screens get a nice view. Foregrounds can be tiled or non-tiled. A non-tiled sprite should always have a 2:1 image resolution. Else there will be some strange stretching. Then, after the sprites are defined, you need to add a simple JS file, similar to http://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/gui/pregame/backgrounds/hellenes.js . That JS file defines the order of the layers (the background should be placed at the top). You also define whether that layer is tiled and which sprite to use for the layer. The offset defines the layer motion as a function of time and the screen width. The Math.cos function makes it oscillate to the left and right (note that for tiled layers, you don't need oscillation, and you can just keep scrolling to one side). An offset of 0 would make the image centred on the screen. The constants are there to define the speed of oscillation, the width of the oscillation, and the average offset to the screen centre. I hope this makes it easy enough to add backgrounds in a way the artist (and not the programmer) likes. EDIT: if you add backgrounds, and you want to test them, it's obviously annoying if they appear only randomly. The best way to stop loading other backgrounds is by giving the other JS files a different extension (f.e. "*.js.backup"). That way, they won't be read.

Hello guys! I'm opening this topic to give a better vision of my suggestions, to the 0ad community, and to discuss them the most we can, if some of you'd like to. To people who would redirect me in the suggestions thread, be aware that i've already posted some post there, but, considering the amount of suggestions i have, and the mass of suggestions arriving almost everyday on the official suggestion thread, creating a special one looked more interesting to me. Some ameliorations to improve the game : About settings and tools: 1) Creating a tool which point an area on the mini map I heard that next alpha won't allow you to see your ally's view as long as you won't take an age 2 technology, also without a pointing tool, this feature looks weird to me. It would be usefull to show where are the opponents, where opponents are building their Civic Center, etc... 2)Random teams : as a setting, to select before starting a match, as for pop cap or cheats. This random team choice is implemented in Age Of Empire 3. It allows to have teams made randomly, whatever players' skill is. This stuff is usefull when you don't know the skill of the players in your room, or when you don't know how to make team at all, whatever the reason is. I guess an interesting stuff to add to this setting, is selecting the number of team you want, and the number of players in each team. Also, you can have 2v2v2, or 3v1, or 2v2, or 2v4, made totally randomly. Also, each player would choose his civilisation and his « colour » (by the place he has in the room), and the teams would only be clear (for the players) at the beginning of the game, or during the map is loading, by adding a kind of « these are the random teams guys ! Enjoy ! », to the loading map page. 3)Handicap : as a setting, to select before starting a match, as for pop cap or cheats. This handicap setting would consist in increasing or decreasing different « gaming rates » of a player. These « gaming rate » might be all important rate, as unit production time, gathering rate, etc... For example, A plays vs B. A has an handicap of -50%. B has 0% handicap. Also, A will gather ressources 50% slower than B, etc etc... This handicap setting would allow all players to play together, whatever their skill is. This handicap would also balance games. After discussing this Handicap settings with some players, the remark that giving more starting ressources to a player could also be a way to balance the game. However, whatever these starting ressources are, a good player will be able to have a better eco, more army (or whatever you want) after some time, so it wouldn't necessarly be a good solution. Also, handicap setting might be an interesting stuff. 4) Patrol button : a button placed near other functionnal buttons, as « delete » or « garisonning ». This button would first be usefull to keep a territory under control, and also being usefull to keep units kinda protected. Indeed, instead of placing your army on a position, it is better to give it the order to patrol from a point A, really close to a point B. Thanks to this, units patrolling wont be attracted, or attack opponent unit they can see. At the moment, by posting units on a position, they'll attack opponents they see, and because of this, you can loose some units for nothing. This patrol button would be an interesting stuff, IMO. About technologies: 5)Create a technology to be able to put your units in formation. As many alpha 17 players regret the fact that formations are back, and dont use them, it might be interesting to have a technology that you can take at your barrack at the first phaze, to be able to put your units in formations. This technology would be accompanied with a formation bonus, to legitimate the resources investment in this technology. This technology might be called « military discipline » 6)Create a first phaze technology for wooden towers, which increases their range (same technology as for 2n phaze defense tower). This would reduce the overpowerness of archers who are almost unbeatable at the first phaze, considering they outrange every units/every buildings. 7) Create a technology for fortresses, which would increase their range. IMO, fortresses should shoot further than towers, but for now, towers shoot further... Is this intended? If yes, why ? About trade: 8) Trade efficiency I heard from some 0ad players that at a certain point( trade lenght+tech), traders are more efficient than units directly gathering resources on the different spots, what i checked myself, and saw this is true. Is this intended ? If yes, why ? Also, my suggestion is reduce trade efficiency 9) Being able to create a trade road In the rare games i use trading, i'd like to be able to create a road trade. Also, IMO, being able to click some points of the /minimapmap that your traders will join , between the 2 markets/docks, might be interesting, more especially to avoid your traders to pass in an area where your opponent is. If this already exist, can somebody tell me how to use this feature? 10) Different map shapes Considering that at the moment, trading is more efficient than direct ressources gathering, IMO it might be interesting to have different map shapes. I'm more especially thinking about square and rectangle shapes. Indeed, with the circle current map shape, the longer trade you can have is a diameter, so it can be difficult to have the territory needed. With square or rectangle map shapes, it would be easier to have a big trade road. Also, destroying your opponent trade line would be more strategic, considering it could be hidden behind his base. I already know there are some maps of that kind, but i would enjoy to see more I won't adress here game balancing ideas, would be really too² long. Thanks for reading T_

The wiki is open for everyone. So if you can document it (perhaps with a link to an example), that would be great. As I have never tested this feature, and the public mod has no examples of it, I find it hard to add documentation.

The Xi Xia are awesome indeed! But as I said the primary reason I'd go for the Jin is because they conquered Northern Song Territory, thus makes the most sense as a reform tech. However, I think a way we can get them both represented is instead of reform tech we split 'China' into sub factions in the same way the Greeks are in the vanilla game. So we can have Song, Jin and western Xia, all sharing generic assets like architecture and basic units, but also having distinctive special units and wonders. That will mean more work though, so I don't know how the CoM will react!

Jin would be the obvious choice really. They were simply bigger and had a bigger population of Han Chinese, and occupied much of former Song territory but still co-existed with the Song, though violently, so the continuity makes sense. The Liao got destroyed quite early in this time frame, and the Xi Xia I feel are just not as big. The Mongols should obviously be a separate faction!