Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Members
  • Content Count

    866
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  1. For once I would like a map that was designed to look like a Bob Ross.
  2. You do not go far enough! The tyranny of the sword must be overthrown by the objectively more popular and effective weapon. We shall not rest until the reverse is done! Spears remove half of a ram's health in a single strike while a sword does a paltry one damage.
  3. Maybe for some of the less workable maps, they could still be accessible in the game by choosing the map 'Megarandom,' which has some of the wackiest possible options in it.
  4. Well, as I and others more or less unanimously agreed in a topic I started, trying to differentiate between sword and spear units to begin with is a kind of problematic approach.
  5. They do do that, but the reason that WFG chose to give spearmen pierce attack to begin with was because well... most of the time spears pierce. It's a case of making a thing intuitive on paper that is much less so in relation to the game. The reason I prefer melee, ranged, and siege is that there is little doubt about how these work, which I consider grounds enough to make it an objectively better improvement. Granted, hack, pierce, and crush are fine and perhaps good enough to not warrant bothering with a change, but it's because of these terms that the problem existed to begin with for va
  6. Agreed. In a topic I wrote entitled 'The Problem with Sword/Spear Units' I basically outlined the fact that differentiating between these two types of soldiers merely based on their weapons has little basis in history and hardly even functions well from a gameplay standpoint since spear units are by and large ineffective cavalry counters. Essentially the underlying logic of why spear units are bad versus rams and buildings is because they use a pierce attack, which rams have a good deal of armour versus. This of course is meant to be an intuitive choice but leads to this strange outco
  7. We need 8-bit sound effects too then and only use 256 colours...
  8. Is permanent deforestation after a grove has been depleted possible with this mechanic?
  9. I suppose I should have clarified more. The Oracle of Delphi supposedly stated that a wall of wood would save Athens, which Themistocles interpreted as a proper navy. Granted, Wooden Walls could be misleading, but it definitely is more thematic. Honestly the choice is a matter of taste.
  10. As a minor point in how I would change the name of one of the abilities of Themistocles, I would have Naval Architect be replaced by "Wooden Walls," a reference to the supposed Oracle of Delphi. In the case of the Piraeus Fortifications, it seems a bit odd to increase the hitpoints. Themistocles was famous for stopping Sparta from halting construction of the Athenian walls, a point in which speed was key. If anything, I would increase the speed of construction.
  11. That's a rather evasive title for an article that is basically just throwing a bunch of flak at EA. Eye-opening all the same.
  12. There is at least one other way to represent women who lived in male-dominated societies (Granted, all were more or less that.), excluding more exceptional cases such as Sparta and the Celtic tribes. Have them as actors in houses, sitting doing some task like weaving.
  13. I already said a good deal of what I thought on the matter in my topic, The Role of Women in 0 A.D. back last year. Here's the link. A few ways in which I saw increased potential representation for women that would be the following: Vestal Virgins could be a trainable healing unit for Rome. Also it seems that women were the priestesses for Athen's cult of Athena, and a handful Athenian women who were citizens apparently were merchants.
  14. The ability to lame resources could definitely be problematic, but provided that there are significant nerfs to palisade stats outside friendly territory, that could be regarded as a non-issue. Is there something I might otherwise be missing?
  15. Not to sound skeptical, but just at a glance it seems a bit odd to me that there would be that noticeable of a difference in average pike lengths between two successor states. Would you mind providing any source that backs that up?
  16. Mainly what I am getting at is unnecessary differentiation. Trying to shoehorn stuff, like sword versus spear, in a way that doesn't even work from a gameplay perspective let alone a historical one is meaningless. I agree that there should be different types of spear cavalry, but effort shouldn't be on trying to wedge them into a particular tactical niche beyond what makes sense. I don't wish to imply that you are trying to say that; in fact I would say that your patch work have helped the game immensely.
  17. Just to let my opinion on the battalion idea be heard since I might have come off as a skeptic to it, I think that it is a great way of streamlining an otherwise micro-intensive genre and would fully support its use in the main game. Despite that fact, I think that having some of the aspects such as flanking could and should be represented even without that kind of feature. Since its beginning 0 A.D. has embraced the idea of proper tactics being in place instead of a mosh pit style of fighting represented in many RTS games, and I want to push towards that goal as best as possible... by just
  18. @ChronA: I think a god deal of what you have is well thought out. But... The hugest issue I see is that you are putting out a system that seems a bit needlessly complex. In fairness, the same can be said for 0 A.D. and many RTS games. As I see it, there doesn't need to be an emphasis on differentiating armament for the most part. This is a general idea of Thorfinn's Shallow Minded approach to the concept: Heavy infantry: Strengths: heavy armour, frontal attacks. Weaknesses: Small Stamina, bad line of sight, vulnerable to flanking manoeuvres, and kiting.
  19. At the moment, units are arbitrarily divided into sword and spear melee categories. I would argue that this distinction is bad for the following reasons: Few soldiers equipped exclusively swords, which were primarily a side arm. The representation of sword units being a counter to spear units is ludicrous for our purposes during the ancient times. Instead, disciplined all infantry formations should always be able to withstand frontal cavalry assaults. Any differentiation between spear and sword wielding is similarly arbitrary. The spearman, a unit type that is countered b
  20. While I have played a bit of multiplayer, I never tried competing on a high level and almost definitely made subpar choices when it came to strategy, and I was hoping that some of the higher level players would share their playstyles, whether it be about a single faction or just general rule of thumb. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...