Leaderboard

Messana Inside the map (It's already finished, minor details were done, but its subject to changes)

Hey everyone, Several years ago I was considering creating a sci-fi RTS here in 0AD. Due to my other project taking up too much time, I sort of set it off to the side. After getting fed up with the Medieval 2 engine I'm considering porting that big project, Hyrule Total War to 0 A.D. now. I've started some preliminary work, porting a few of the static buildings over from Medieval 2 into 0AD: I just have a few questions before I make the decision: I thank anyone for their replies, and I hope I can come back to 0AD soon.

Reading various topics and comments after quite a long absence I got the impression that the gameplay, or at least people discussing it, still has/have little clue on where it's heading, while not strangely, as preferences vary, people often have radically different visions on where it should head. Please correct and update me where I'm wrong, since I'm sure I can't/didn't catch up with everything. What I'll (more or less) repeat is that you can't have everything fit in the same gameplay type and that no idea is universally great without context. At some point, preferably sooner rather than later, it would be nice to make bold choices on which should be the core features and then build the rest of the game around them. I'll go on with a few such possible choices. They are not meant to be taken at face value and kickstart the glorious "I want this in/I want this out" thing. I've also been very guilty of it in the past and will probably be again in the future, but this thread is started with the intent to have myself informed on the current state of gameplay development and see if I can contribute with my general point or in more specific ways. A major choice that would be better if addressed before continuing to debate on which features to throw in or out, is if we want a classic/oldschool RTS or something different, like increased focus on tactics and/or political/cultural simulation (in gameplay terms, not just visuals). In the first case we could have an awesome AOE clone, or something slightly more "modern" without phases and with structures as tech requirements or (insert whatever suitable). But loading it with much more than what "successful" RTS do, say, total war-ish battles, on top of the classic formula and the number of current additions, is a bad idea that won't work , due to an overwhelming mix of economic and tactical micro. In the second case, we could enhance combat, largely or fully automate the economy, add special function techs/policies, customizable cities... e.t.c. and have our fully real time total war or 4x/grand strategy game. I'd love to have all styles in one, and each separately, and various intermediates, and something really great and innovative that I can't personally imagine. But it can't happen all in one. Let's give the core game a cohesive focus and leave the rest to mods. Which in turn would multiply and give enjoyment for various tastes, being made for a successful free game, nomatter it's "genre" (if we ever reach that state with the real world in a healthy shape, but that's another story:p). Another thing to consider might be dumbing down the scale. Reducing unit speeds, line of sight, population cap - maybe even reducing map sizes, streamlining the forrests for better pathing. Better have less scale than (often major) lag "until fixed" which goes on for years and has repulsed who knows how many people. A classic RTS can work fine with 200 or even 100 pop. The game could be designed around that. If desire on having a grander scale is dominant or arises strong in the future while the code has improved, or if battalion combat ends up a core feature, so be it. Balance is really far from being acceptable anyway (in part due to the lack of a clear gameplay vision) and readjusting stats for the years to come should be taken for granted. For now or for good I can see this scaling down as a blessing to the game. Finally I'd like to add a couple of things on visual cohesion (while expressing joy for the new art assets I just saw, especially the new ranges, stables etc). Structure numbers and unit numbers (along with variants) are getting increasingly high, with differences often hard to spot at a distance or by people not really familiar with every game imagery, both things bad for gameplay. It would be nice to have actors of the same class easily recognizable as what they are by shape, size etc. I won't go as far as suggesting redesigns, which would be a crazy amount of work, but starting with whatever is new from now on would be something. But I will go as far as suggesting reduced actor/prop variants of a unit for example, when the shape or color uniformity breaks too much. I'll stop here to avoid missing the point, adding that if i sound harsh at bits I don't mean to degrade anyone, on the contrary the work done so far is great, it's only missing some extra focus.

Hello, I am new in this forum and want to say a german "Hallo!" ^^ ...so please don't be too confused, because of my grammar. I really love this game and convered multible friend of mine to play it too. I come to the point, the battle and counter system is bad, worser than it has to be. Many older versions have nice elements which are delete now. Especially some siege weapons need some love in my opinion. I am no complete noob in balancing, some months ago I was part of the balancing Team of Company of Heroes 2. I was searching some problems and made a small fix for rams because why... ...can attack organics. I remove the ability (like in a16) In progress, I want to make it possible to attack through one line of infantry, so it isn't so easy to block them. So you have to conquer it, or destroy it. ...are fast as hell. I set speed from 0,9 to 0,6 ...can't be conquerd. I made it possible (like in a16) ...are counterd best by sword cavalry. In progress, maybe more... e.g.: In my opinion cavalry should become a negative bonus versus rams and siege towers. Infantry should be the counter. These things are more than confusing because it would be easy to bring them in line without chaaging to much. I want to discuss this small changes with you!

Welcome to the community FlorencePants we all have Homer moments and checking error logs and such is just one more Enjoy the Choice

This happens on many maps, I'll some fix after feature freeze to most maps (testing different distances)

Templates typically inherit from others; open any xml template and have a look at the second line, all the information you need is there: <Entity parent="*"> Unless a new value is specified in a template, the child has the same values as its parents. Basically all unit templates form a tree; e.g.: template_unit.xml template_unit_cavalry.xml template_unit_cavalry_ranged.xml template_unit_cavalry_ranged_javelinist.xml units/athen_cavalry_javelinist_b.xml units/athen_cavalry_javelinist_a.xml units/athen_cavalry_javelinist_e.xml

“Aegyptos” is a chimaera; correct it to “Aigyptos” (Greek spelling) or “Aegyptus” (Latin spelling); or just keep “Egypt” (English spelling).

I'll keep repeating myself, but such suggestions would only fit in if the rest of the gameplay is build around advanced combat mechanics and not the classic RTS style. That said, the idea of merging things like ammunition, stamina, morale etc is an interesting one from a gameplay perspective, in order not to overwealm players with many changing stats to manage for each unit. On the other hand it might be a bit hard give it a good name and not having it appear unrealistic. Edit: On second thought something like "supplies" could work. Similarly, the terrain ideas would need many game mechanics (and map design) to change.

Another quick update - I have some sketches ready! Will be posting them very soon. Thanks for the patience Omri

The encyclppedia..? we hace something similar but need more information.

Sounds like a good idea, but we would need someone writing them. Till then: there is a tutorial for basic economic things. Guess what feature is coming for the next alpha (which will be released soon)

Indeed, my approach, believe it or not, despite allowing for massive battles would only actually have the player controlling maybe 20-30 actual combat entities. Entities being the operative word here, since each of these "entities" represents a battalion of 20-24 soldiers. Add in about 25-30 citizens and maybe 30 or 40 slaves and other support units, and you're only maintaining 100 actual entities in the game. Meanwhile, you actually get the feel for real ancient combat through the use of large armies in battalions, formations, charges, and all the rest. Absolutely! I've reduced unit speed and more importantly reduced vision range considerably in DE. This would carry into any gameplay proposal as well. I agree this is a huge huge problem for the game's current mosh pit combat, and probably one of the many reasons that AOE games have such similar looking units. With my proposed battalion system this particular problem is all but eliminated. You mention Warcraft 3, which is basically a hybrid RTS-RPG. A battalion system is essentially this. Each battalion is like a unit from WC3. You pick the class of battalion, which has different bonuses and penalties and abilities. You can upgrade each battalion to be different, much like its own character. Imagine a "battalion" of 5 elephants. This is akin to a character that you can improve with better armor, better weapons, towers, pikes/archers, even a squad of support soldiers [a real thing that happened; war elephants almost always had escort troops], officers ["zooiarkhoi"], noisemakers [bells around their necks, scares enemy cavalry]. You can do similar things with a battalion of Celtic warriors [naked-> clothed-> armored; karnyx; noble officer; etc.]. A battalion of Companion Cavalry. A battalion of Roman Hastati. A battalion of Greek Hoplites. A battalion of Persian Chariots. etc. Weapon-switching becomes easier with battalions. Stances [reduced to 3] and formation [reduced in number as well] control becomes easier. All those cool things about ancient combat becomes easier. Economics. You can still have multiple resources, but perhaps streamline how you assign gatherers to harvest those resources. Imagine this: Build a Storehouse next to some trees. Click one button once, and that storehouse trains 10 slaves who immediately start gathering the nearby trees once complete. Slaves* are your primary gatherers, while your Citizens are your builders and traders**.

I'll expand a little on my way of thinking around this. Also if what stan said holds true and the team is lacking in this field, I'm open to discussion on how I could help. While working on my (now stagnated) mod and other projects and reading more history/playing more strategy games, (from Classic RTS to Field of Glory II, Hegemony, Civ, Stelaris, CK2...) for enjoyment and/or scanning them for ideas, I've come across some issues. What to aim for, what to keep and what to discard? The more ideas I come across, the more I want to steal, edit, fit with other or draw inspiration from. To me it's a natural process of opening your mind on whatever subject, becoming curious and interested, ovewealmed and confused at the same time. If you are to deliver a complete (or anything close to that) creation, you need to focus on something. Avoid a good portion of the possible ways in order to go somewhere. While the eternal search is far more fascinating and honest, and I mostly tend to go that way in real life at the cost of many things, it's not a very functional habbit for game design. Especially when you don't have one contributor but many, causing the confusion to skyrocket. I've mostly used two extreme opposites as suggestions on where to lead 0 A.D. gameplay. RTS formula vs a mix of enhanced tactics and grand strategy*. I'm in noway claiming to understand the entire range of possibilities, nor that any kind of intermediate gameplay would be undesirable. But reading opinions, from years ago to today, by both team and community members, it often comes across as many people influence the games curse towards a mix of AOK economy (almost cloned to be the current one in game) and Total War style combat. Try fighting a total war battle while managing an age of kings base (while having the two linked for reinforcements, but that's not possible). Even if you can with great personal success and pleasure, would you suggest that the average player should have to cope with it? If we want more tactical combat, we need to simplify the economy accordingly (not neccessarily a bad idea, given it could solve issues with hunting, tree placement etc). Or let's stick with Classic gameplay and skip devoting a lot of work on implementing extra combat mechanics (or being scared of having to, among other colossal tasks). Or find a happy medium, but decide on something:). On the scale and game pace thing, do we really need to have quantity over performance and gameplay quality? WC 3 is one of the most successful games of the genre. It uses 100 pop (in practice more like 30-40 since units cost pop accordingly to their power). The same game even after years of professional polish will lag badly on custom scenarios with hundreds of units. But the core game, supporting what it can, runs fine. I'm not saying lets go for 30 or 100 max units per player. It might be too immersion breaking. But we could have less than 300, at least until performance is greatly improved. Also, high unit speed and huge vision break immersion and make scouting too easy, while incohesive actors for simular units/structures make bits of the game confusing/unappealing (I'm all for realism where it fits, but for example we don't need 5 different cloth colors for the same unit type messing with teamcolor). *Tactics as increased battlefield focus. Grand Strategy as focus on the great scene of things, say empire building, culture, politics, etc.

I think the general vision for the longest time had been: Age of Empires 2 + citizen soldiers + territories Boom done. But many see some gameplay problems with that as well as a huge missed opportunity to build something more interesting. Hence all the broken mods and bloodbath gameplay threads. In the end I think just voting on each feature individually as had been done in the past misses some of what Prodigal and Thorfinn are talking about, which is coherence. Imho best way would be to have a small number of self contained gameplay proposals that are widely regarded to be coherent and fresh. When you have these 3 or 4 self contained proposals then you can choose one and tweak from there. Experience has taught us that debating individual features ad nauseam is folly. Each feature has to fit within a whole for a complete and coherent experience. So choose an overarching theme or idea, like: "0 A.D. aims to give the player the satisfying experience building and maintaining an ancient empire, through resource harvesting, city building, and conquest through iconic ancient combat." Gather up a handful of gameplay proposals which more or less fulfill your thematic statement, and choose the one which you think most carries out the potential of the premise.

A

Not finished. Missing: Triggers.Details. First update: Second update: Now playable in game. Constantinople_Midnigth_Assault.zip