Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Historians
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  1. 3 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

    The only way I could see this happening would be to give the sparta the option to train hoplites 1 at a time for 30 seconds each from the cc to prevent them from booming women while making hoplites for free, this way the 0 cost of hoplites would also be an opportunity cost of the CS and women that could not be trained in the meantime. This feature is one that would be either not strong enough and no one would ever use or too strong and it would be OP.

    Keep in mind that building the Syssiton itself is an expense; supposing that there was no batch training possible and Spartans had something like a sixty second training time, I would hardly call that a completely broken mechanic.  This could be coupled with their champions having reduced stats that improve with each subsequent phase.  Making them spawn from the Civic Centre would make the Syssiton a redundancy, an unideal outcome.

    My point is that Spartans should be able to viably have Spartans at the beginning of the game in a way that is not a massive opportunity cost.  Keep in mind that we are talking merely hypothetically, and calling such a mechanic either weak or overpowered is a false dichotomy without further experimentation.

    • Like 4
  2. I believe that I already outlined my opinion much earlier regarding a very obvious Spartan gimmick:

    Be able to train Spartans at phase 1.  Simply speaking Sparta without Spartans is stupid.  My proposal in a thread regarding ways to diversify champions included making making Spartan hoplites free as well, only offset by a lengthly recruitment time, two population, and a hard cap of one Syssiton in the Village Phase and +1 for each subsequent one.  Technologies would be able to change the characteristics of its citizenry over time, making each Phase give an option to represent the political elements affecting Spartans.

    • Like 3
  3. Crush, Hack, and Pierce attack types do not have to conform to reality.  Simply speaking there are plenty of abstractions as is.  Swordsmen for instance dealing hack damage in the case of the legionnaire makes little sense as the gladius functioned primarily as a stabbing weapon.  Likewise spearheads could oftentimes be used for cutting, as represented by medieval treatises on the matter.  The terms hack, pierce, and crush are merely lovingly face-lifted from Age of Mythology.  Yes, the terms generalise and are unoriginal, but they kind of work (outside of the fact that spearmen and pikemen suddenly become worse at demolishing buildings and destroying rams).

    • Like 1
  4. 21 minutes ago, maroder said:

    And yes imo spearman should also be able to reasonably counter cav.

    Again though, the conversation is always about equally numbered spears against cavalry.  If we have 15 spearmen against 10 advanced sword cavalry, how does the fight play out assuming no micro? (I genuinely don't know since I do not have the game installed due to lack of available space)  

    If I am not mistaken, mercenary cavalry cost a bit less, but I think the comparison is still fair.  

    More importantly, how do you think it should play out?

  5. Could somebody clarify the spearman versus sword cavalry matchup?  How does rank 1 versus 1 play out?  Obviously in most cases sword cavalry cost 150 resources, meaning that engaging against spearmen with a narrow win is already inefficient, yet at the same time spearmen are extremely slow, meaning that cavalry rarely have to take these unfavourable engagements.  It is that problem that I believe makes sword cavalry difficult; their counter to them has no easy way of getting close enough to force fights.  The question that we maybe should ask ourselves is if spearmen are not an adequate counter, what is?

  6. 21 hours ago, borg- said:

    Some victories ofc, but nothing that in my view justifies a bonus. They were feared on land not at sea like the Athenians for example, although a Persian financing technology for some warships would be very interesting.


    19 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Similar to Epigamia for Seleucids, Spartans could have a "Persian Patronage" tech that spawns X number of Triremes.

    Precisely.  I don't necessarily want a naval superpower Sparta, but I would like there to be some niche options available to the faction in which a sudden new flood of naval units could pave the way for a landing, where they could really shine.

    • Like 1
  7. I'm not going to address all of these points, but I would raise a few key questions.  Are you opposed to vaccines other than ones meant to deal with COVID-19?  When you talk about vaccines being poison have you looked at each and every one?  Have you consulted any medical experts prior to just writing them off as either gullible and ignorant or as wilfully spreading lies for their own self interest?  Something tells me that people with years of training followed by even more experience in their respective fields would serve to have some legitimacy in the subject.  

    • Like 1
  8. 20 hours ago, borg- said:

    5- Spartans lost tough naval battles in your history, why should there be any naval bonuses?

    On the contrary they had a number of great successes in the latter half of the Peloponnesian War in part due to the genius of Lysander, but another major way in which they were able to turn the tide was through the funding of Persia.  I could see there being a one time technology that would give x number of free ships to Sparta.

    • Like 3
  9. On 10/9/2021 at 2:21 AM, alre said:

    - I have read in history sources, that polearms were often weapons of choice of footed soldiers against knights, on 1v1 just as much as in mass, and even if massed soldiers can more easily stop a cavalry charge, I don't really see what difference does the weapon make in that

    The spear/polearm being specifically designed to combat cavalry is a bit of an RTS convention; simply by virtue of much better reach spears were used by and large by all infantry regardless of whether they were facing cavalry or not.  Whether a spearman would outperform a horseman one-on-one is a triviality in which matters of other equipment, training, etc,... complicate the matter.  

    On 10/9/2021 at 2:21 AM, alre said:

    - consider that in 0AD soldiers don't fight in formation (ranged units may do, but not melee) so it doesn't make much sense to me to grant them any bonus. It is true that formations had a role, historically, in combat too, but for that you'd need formations much more flexible than those we have, so that soldiers can stay in formation while fighting

    Even if the game does not embrace a battalion system, it would be nice for players to benefit from engaging in orderly formations.  Even making it possible if only suboptimal would be a nice change of pace.  I personally like to see my troops in proper battle lines, but the stand ground stance is annoyingly restrictive while the defensive stance goes too much in the other extreme.  

    • Like 1
  10. On 4/7/2021 at 2:44 PM, ChronA said:

    do not dispute that reducing the turn rate or persistence of formations would make them unusable in 0 AD as it currently exists. However that's only because 0 AD fails so miserably at simulating some of the basic dynamics of ancient warfare. Without those simulation improvements there is really no point in having formations. They don't meaningfully interact with any other game systems. (Contrast AoE2, where they are at least used for micro against splash damage sources.)

    That is an unfortunate aspect of the current gamestate.  In the past there were a few ways the original team though that they could be more useful.  These included making individual target random units in the formation in such a way that ranged units and melee could never focus fire a single unit.  Others included a number of buffs and debuffs.  Phalanx for instance made hoplites generally tougher at the expense of being slower.  Seeing just a few of these ideas in the game could perhaps make the mosh pit battles a less common occurrence.

    • Like 2
  11. A lot of people have been throwing flak at Biden, and while I would not say the withdrawal was the best parade out of a country, I find it unfair to push all of the blame on him.  Clearly he was acting on some intelligence, and the idea that the government would collapse in a number of weeks I would say blindsided much of the world, myself included. The New York Times has an interesting article on the matter that might be worth a read.  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/us/politics/afghanistan-intelligence-agencies.html

    Obviously he could have delayed the pullout considering the warning signs, but that would have been political suicide.  Keeping to the arranged time was arguably the best bad decision, but quite obviously mistakes were made by Biden and a large number of others.

    • Like 1
  12. On 22/8/2021 at 10:52 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    I would turn Skiritai into the "Eagle Warriors" from AOE2. Essentially really fast spearmen, good for raiding and flanking, but can get massacred by swordsmen and archers if they don't keep on the move.

    That I could generally get behind.  It could even open up the divergent upgrades, one that focusses on pierce armour and the other that ups their melee attack so that in one case they could have better survivability in raids or in attacking ranged units, or in the other case being a force to be reckoned with in a pitched battle.

    On 28/8/2021 at 9:15 PM, Marbod said:

    Even though i like this very much, the most obvious simple thing to diversify would be the ability of champions to gain experience.

    I attack you with new "trained" (called, bought) champions but you have still some who already seen 3 battles.

    I'm not sure if I would extend an option for champions to gain for all cases, but it could be cool to have one or two do so.  To paraphrase Syndrome, if all champions gain experience, no champions gain experience.  I guess that didn't really make much sense, but the point still stands.

  13. I edited the initial post to include a few suggestions I thought were good ideas along with a few additional thoughts and clarifications I thought of following the post.  Skiritae are kind of weird in that they are regarded as a champion unit but don't actually fulfil that role since they are citizen soldiers.  With this change Spartans would be the only faction with one champion (two if they had access to Spartan pikemen but I digress).  This would be an interesting difference from others.  As for Skiritae, them being super swordsmen is not really a proper approach to them; a more accurate one would be that they were one of the more mobile elements of the army that was generally higher quality than other non-citizens, and doing this would help show that in my opinion.

  14. 13 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

    I like most of these. Balancing gets tough. But this makes them closer to somewhere between a hero and a CS instead of just being a stronger CS. 

    Glad you do; giving any suggestions for changes or additions is obviously welcome.  As a clarifier, Spartan Hoplites would never be able to be batch trained.  That could quite obviously abuse their lack of any cost.  

    14 hours ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

    kataphracts: more armor

    hetairoi/agema: +speed, +small bonus vs infantry and reduced bonus vs cav.

    One of the things I tried to do when writing up a list of examples was to go beyond the mere defined role.  Think about Age of Empires II.  A berserk was like a champion but also regenerated.  Cataphracts were like knights but with a bonus versus infantry.  

    Kataphracts having more armour could maybe work if they have a speed reduction as well.

    Hetairoi having more speed and a bonus versus infantry could work as viable trade off for not performing as well against cavalry.  That said, I can't think of a historical justification for it, but not everything needs that.

  15. At the moment, aside from upgrades that exist for some civilisations, tests that I have made with champion units has revealed that they are for the most part completely identical.  This means that in a one on one fight, an un-upgraded spartan fighting an immortal will always result in a tie.  I am not criticising this vein of logic; it makes balancing easier by having identical stats for different classes, yet at the same time it seems like a lost opportunity.  Champions should have defining features to them that flesh out the culture they came from.  As such, I thought up a few potential changes to how some (not all) champions could be altered to better reflect this.

    Immortal: capable of swapping to archer mode at the cost of lower armour.

    Spartan Hoplite: free but extremely long training time and two population, can be trained in the Village Phase through a the Mess Hall, which has a building cap of one in the Village phase, 2 in the Town Phase, and 3 in the City Phase.  They cannot be batch trained.

    Consular Bodyguard: buffed when by a hero.

    Sacred Band: buffs citizen soldiers within a small aura at the cost of taking up two population.

    British Chariot: incorporate transport aspect (see Geneva’s thread.).

    Naked Fanatic: ignores armour.

    Scythian Archer: buffed when fighting in friendly territory.  Is trained at the Civic Centre.

    Marine: small movement buff to ships it is garrisoned within.

    Cataphract: Higher armour but slower speed.

    Hetairoi: Faster movement and bonus against infantry at the cost of a smaller bonus against cavalry.

    Skiritae: faster movement speed and starts trained at advanced rank instead of elite.

    These are just a few things I thought up that may not be practical to implement at the moment, but I think that a line of thinking like this would greatly help in characterising defining part of each civilisation.

    • Like 5
  16. 1 hour ago, Lightning38 said:

    In terms of 2 handed axes, they are the natural predator against shields, the axe head could also potentially if of longer variety go around the shield and hit something from around. Also shields being wood and axes being axes... Perhaps a bonus vs shield infantry? Axes are more extreme in the sense that their minimum and maximum damage are far from each other. A dangerous weapon/tool, however not for professional soldiers as a soldier would want stability over damage.

    I would disagree with the last statement.  Axes were often used by professionals throughout history.  I would agree with the points about shields.  Being two-handed is also not the only qualifier to being well suited against shields.  The head could easily work as a means of catching weapons and shields in such a way as to displace them and create an opening.  The general way I could see that reflected could be through a decent cancellation of armour when attacking.

  17. On 13/8/2021 at 6:18 AM, AllanReyes said:

    group games for family members

    Player size is a major factor in choosing the right game for your family.  Also, how competitive do they like games?  How long of games are you looking for?

    Codenames is an excellent four player+ game, and if you wish to restrict the number to two players or have the game cooperative, I'd recommend Codenames duet.  

    On a similar light complexity game, The Crew is an ingenious trick taking game that works well with three to four players but is functional at five.  

    If you're looking for something a bit more meaty, there is Pandemic the board game, but I would warn that although that is a fantastic cooperative game, it can lead to a bit of a problem if one person asserts over everyone else.  

    As a light asymmetrical wargame, I am a fan of Root, which functions best with 3-4 players, yet I would warn that it is very cutthroat and could vary in compatibility from one group to the next.  

    Isle of Skye is phenomenally well designed and worth investigating, works well with up to 5 players, and tends to clock at around 45 minutes of play-time.

    RPG-wise, Gloomhaven is fantastic if you're willing to spend that much money (at this rate you might as well wait for it's sequel Frosthaven coming out next year.), yet I personally prefer Mage Knight; that game however is much more cerebral and might be for a more niche audience.

    If you want a heavy-weight civilisation game, I cannot recommend another game more strongly than Through the Ages: A New Story of Civilisation.

  18. On 11/8/2021 at 12:42 AM, Freagarach said:

    A trickle of slaves from a CC and/or market? And then one can slay enemies to "capture" more of them?

    I think that introducing a completely different slave mechanic simply seems to be an arbitrary way to put in more complexity than necessary.  Citizens are trained in game rather than naturally spawning.  Why should slaves be too different in that respect?  

  19. Axes derive most of their advantage from concentrating the mass at the head, making them generally better at penetrating through armour.  The issue is that that amount of weight makes them more cumbersome to use.  I would suggest a unit with higher damage output but with worse melee defence capabilities.  

  20. On 31/7/2021 at 4:56 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    I think doing anything more than a citizen/slave dichotomy would be pushing it for an RTS.

    For Delenda Est I would say that is a fair argument; 0 AD I think can afford more granularity.  As is the only overall change I am proposing is limiting promotions, which I would say is fairly minor.  The point to be understood is why would a perioikoi hoplite fight as hard as an Athenian hoplite who is a citizen?  Would they be capable of as much socio-economic mobility?  In my opinion no, and this would do a decent job modelling that.

    On 31/7/2021 at 11:39 AM, hyperion said:

    Simplification of history is often used in politics, as such I have some aversion to such practice. Not putting you into that same boat, just saying. The current situation is so far off that it's sort of fine. I mean citizen has another meaning in modern society so we can easily hide behind that meaning.

    Well can I assure you that I have never run for a political office and I would assume that most of my scholarly sources did not do the same; thus the system I proposed is not part of a political campaign.  You warn against simplification but give no substantial objection to the proposed system, and if we look at the current game, it implicitly tells a variety of misconceptions about the societies through its labelling of almost everything 'citizen,' which I would say does not have a very different meaning today compared to then.

    I'm not saying that the proposal I gave that would affect gameplay is the best thing since butter and bread; in fact it's because most people here seem to care more about preserving the meta than experimentation that I said that simply removing the label citizen from descriptors would be an easier solution that deserves serious consideration.  

  21. 22 hours ago, hyperion said:

    Still there are quite a few question that come to mind which need be answered first:

    • applicability across civs
    • whether it doesn't distort truth as much or even more than citizen soldier (over simplification might be worse than omission)
    • whether additional constraints on unit design have negative effects on "balancing"
    • whether the possible added (even if only perceived) complexity is an issue (mostly for new players) or offsets the gain due to lore.

    I would say for the most part that it would carry over to most cultures, but the tribal confederations of the Gauls and Iberians might require a slight bit of tweaking.  Again, this is a general template.

    As far as it distorting the truth, it allows for a simplistic yet at least viable representation of social classes.  If we compare that to the current game...  Everyone is a citizen.  That frankly is not how ancient world worked.  Citizenship was a privilege that usually required both parents to be citizens.  With an RTS simplicity is necessary.  Is it over simplified? It does so no more than many other games of the genre.

    It would make some aspects of balancing the game a bit more rigid.  Helots would be poor military units by and large, but I would point out that changes could be done to the roster to adjust.  Supposing that a hypothetical mercenary camel archer was represented inaccurately as a citizen.  It could be replaced by viable citizen alternative that reflects the social status of the unit and is more accurate.  Honestly I think that these sorts of constraints would still generally work to diversify the somewhat homogenous rosters factions have.  I would point out that distinctions between freemen and citizens at least as I mentioned above would probably not impact the game too dramatically.  Changes like making them possibly worse at fighting in non-friendly territory to better reflect their general roles might affect this more though.  

    This would make civilisations more asymmetrical and definitely complicate the game.  I think that provided that there would be a decent tutorial to fluidly teach these things, that would not be an issue, yet I could be wrong.

    On 28/7/2021 at 7:29 PM, azayrahmad said:

    Also this, so for example gathering choice can be more varied than female vs CS vs horses. Different social classes could be given different gathering rate based on social classes.

    I think that there could be potential for this, but it would have to be balanced with considering how much more complexity it might introduce that would not be immediately apparent.  0 A.D. already has a fairly convoluted economic system in which units that move faster for fighting purposes also end up gathering more quickly.  Complexity should not be introduced for complexity's sake.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...