Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  1. Just my two cents on the pierce discussion. While spears do obviously have the same attack function as arrows, melee combat has enough nuances that I don't think that it qualifies for them to have the same type of attack. For that matter, the predominant way for a legionnaire to attack was by stabbing, but they don't get pierce attack. The basis for how easily units can defend against projectiles should mainly rest on the shield they use followed by their armour. If I were to calculate the ranged and melee armour of units, I would have a shield and armour value for them based on the type o
  2. I think that one of the issues with the ideas you have for food is the complexity a mechanic like that adds to the game. Granted, I am not opposed to a similar concept, but the exact proposal you make seems to add a large amount of headaches to a player in the form of micromanagement, and given the fact that players only can do a certain number of actions per minute, this would force players to concern themselves with probably one of the more boring aspects of war. The fact that it would affect health so much makes the player have to tear attention away from what could be far more exciting.
  3. I guess one thing that hasn't been explored in this topic is potentially differentiating the train times of ranged units to melee. In Age of Kings, archers took 35 seconds to train to the militia's 25. While the exact numbers don't need to be the same. In the case of Delenda Est, maybe ranged infantry could have training times of 18 seconds. If we are referring to the training times I have proposed, ranged infantry citizen soldiers could have a training time of 25 seconds to the melee citizen soldier's 20. Obviously this would be helpful in making it harder to mass ranged infantry, but do
  4. At the moment, 0 A.D. has extremely fast training times. As far as I saw, women take 8 seconds to train. This is extremely fast, faster than the train times of most economic units in Starcraft II, which averages at 11.66 seconds. Given the fact that Starcraft is a fast-paced game, this number makes the general vision that 0 A.D. seems to strive for of being in many respects an homage to games like Age of Kings with modernised gameplay problematic. Age of Kings had a much slower training time for villagers, which was roughly 25 seconds for training time. Granted, Age of Kings is generally
  5. This may have been the case in later years, but during the time of Alexander's campaign, the foot companions generally did not wear things such as heavy metal cuirasses. Even for headwear, there was a tendency to just wear traditional Macedonian hats. That said, it is unlikely at least from that evidence alone that the hypaspists would have been more heavily armed given the already established roles they had in battle. As for my two cents for the light/heavy dichotomy, I think that it seems a bit backwards to base the class a soldier might fall into due to tactics. Generally it seems t
  6. You mention some fair points, yet I find that the first two seem to be speculation. I could be wrong, yet that seems to be what I see at least. Anyways, the point is not necessarily about whether they used the sarissa; I have not researched that topic heavily and could be misinformed (All that I do know is that a number of experts think that they would have used the hoplite spear). That said, the point is that at the moment is that some of the soldiers that were used for mobile operations are shown wearing rather cumbersome armour in game. Even if you take the camp of Tarn and those who ha
  7. The thing that you are ignoring is that aside from some basic safety, there is little advantage to be had from killing wildlife since their deaths in no way directly contribute to the victory conditions. If there was some reward such as food, it would become more plausible to have it done that way. As such, having the units automatically attack wildlife is a liability. If there is a low hp unit, they will end up dying due to the player simply marching it too close to a predator. There are cases in which predators do yield food such as crocodiles in Age of Empires. Even with this potential
  8. I would agree with wow. The objective rarely has to do with actively killing wildlife in 0 A.D, and making soldiers pursue this automatically seems peculiar. The wildlife wound them, potentially weakening the troops for the next engagement. The issue is that there is no actual purpose to killing them other than the point that they might need to be killed later. What reward does the player get? A good analogy is from mangonel behaviour in Age of Kings. Prior to the conquerors expansion, they would actively target enemies regardless of the presence of friendly units. This could prove disa
  9. Bear in mind that many times there have been new factions added even when the benchmark has been set. At first it was just six. It expanded a lot from there obviously. Rest assured; there is the possibility of having new civilisations like Thebes, Syracuse, Pergamon, and the Achaean League because the more Hellenic civilisations, the better. :)
  10. I chose pacing because phasing is only a mechanic that affects the pacing of the game. What is being aimed for is regardless of whether phases exist, there should be a major effort to ensure that the early, mid, and late game are distinct and are able to keep the game reliably interesting. Concerning sidearms, I would say that they are viable in particular cases. Let's consider the Roman legionnaire. First of all, if they had a javelin side-arm, it would be logical for it to be a special attack that can only be done every thirty seconds or so. After all, they only did one or two vol
  11. Precisely. Obviously the spearman is only the tip of the iceberg here; my hope is to shed light on the idea that all unit types can be tailored to general, but the way that they vary from one faction to the next allows enough diversity to make a variety of strategies possible for every civilisation.
  12. I would say that phases are an unnecessary aspect of the game. The primary point I wished to make is that if phases exist, there should be a definite difference between the feel of one to the next. Furthermore, the primary thing that I wished (and still wish) to have is a proper feeling of unique early, middle, and late game. The spearman actually is an intriguing element of the game since the roles could differ quite strongly from one civilisation to the next. For instance, the hoplite was heavily armed and fought in close order. The Persians deployed their infantry with significan
  13. All part of my evil masterplan to confound you [insert evil emoji]. In seriousness, though, I wanted to avoid an unnecessary amount of text crunched together and still like the aesthetics of indentation in paragraphs; I also am fond of the eclectic French tastes concerning that matter. In regards to sanitation, the point is to make it seem like there is something great occurring with the next phase; it should feel rewarding. While many games seem to naïvely adhere to the Whig Theory of history (things continue to get more sophisticated and better), the important thing is that phases should
  14. While pacing is most of the time associated with movies or books, most games have a similar format, but the structure can vary from one to the next. In many this can be due to artificial barriers. Are these barriers necessarily bad? Not really, but the important thing for most games that take longer than five minutes is to have a distinct feel to what could be called the early, mid, and late-game. The most familiar example to many would be Age of Kings, which had ages serving that purpose. Assuming that all of you are acquainted with some of the strategies of the game, I will simply point
  15. This seems to be the correct forum for this topic to me.
  16. My bad with the terminology. It seems that I was mistakenly looking at a section referring to caetrati which also eludes to hypaspists. The point that I wish to make is a small distinction. Hypaspists according to my findings were heavily armed compared to peltasts, but less so than other phalangites. Essentially the point is that they seem to have served an intermediary role in the battlefield that would be cumbersome for others. Why prefer this to simply labelling them as the Macedonian variation of the hoplite, which seems to be the other camp for academics? First, it seems that, as I
  17. It is true that the sources may be old, but the simple fact is that everyone had and has biases. Regarding his views being controversial, his advocacy for armoured warfare was in many ways substantiated by the success of blitzkrieg in the 2nd World War. Many of his writings formed the bases of officer training curricula and are in many ways still used for modern military theory. Furthermore, although he may have believed in unusual views, perceptions of a person should not be the sole thing to shape an understanding of a historian's credibility. If you would like to see some more sources,
  18. That is a logical argument, but what you are ignoring is the point that they were consistently deployed for mobile operations in every notable battle. Heavy armour would ultimately weigh them down in these cases. In the Battle of Granicus, their purpose was to support Alexander's cavalry charge on the left flank. On the cavalry's right were a group of hypaspists for the charge. He also placed another block on the other flank, demonstrating their mobility. In the Battle of Issus, the hypaspists were deployed closely to mountainous terrain, where heavy infantry would find it difficult to ef
  19. That would be an impractical thing to have logistically speaking. If there were multiple types of armour issued, the difficulty maintaining the force would be much greater in supplying them with the correct things. Also, manoeuvres would be harder to execute with practised efficiency if they kept on changing armour and weapons. While soldiers did in some cases abandon heavier equipment for mobile operations, the implications for these soldiers seems distinct from the typical phalanx, and thus a standardised set of armour and weapons for all of these situations seems to be a far more likely
  20. I would contend that the current depiction of hypaspists in the game is an unlikely case though not necessarily inaccurate. The precise nature of what they wore is ambiguous, making many historians simply guess on the matter. The following from J. F. C. Fuller's The Generalship of Alexander the Great does a good job of summarising the academic views. "Sir William Tarn is of opinion that 'they were heavy infantry, as heavily armed as the phalanx,' and that their difference from the hoplites 'was one of history, recruitment, and standing, not of armament.' Wilcken considers that they w
  21. Actually, the Hasmonean Period is exactly within the timeframe, and during this time the Jews actually had a good deal of interaction with other countries. The Maccabees lasted for roughly 100 years realise. Obviously, the extent of their impact was primarily regional, and the unit roster would leave a lot to ask for, but I would find their incorporation into the game to be a fascinating option much like the Kushites have proved to be.
  22. Keep in mind that many of the reasons for the lack of viable strategies is that no major work has been done to allow each civilisation to have possible strategies for a number of different situations like turtling, booming, or rushing in any way that seems unique to that civilisation. Until each civilisation can execute any of these to some degree of success (Sparta, for instance would have a difficult time with the first one), the unique unit rosters serves more as a handicap to a good multiplayer experience unfortunately. As is, I think that it's important to think of 0 A.D. on its o
  23. Not precisely: I learned to type with a system rather reminiscent of that idea. Typing without two-spaces seems alien to me, but I'm okay with seeing other people do it. Sorry if I caused anyone distress through my spacing tendencies; that is not at all my intentions and I express my humblest apologies possible without being insincere.
  24. A thing that needs to be realised though is that the game is still in alpha, and any tutorial that is made for that alpha alone could later be outdated in just a few alphas. Balance is a good idea to continue to evolve since that keeps an active playerbase for the game. Trigger warning: I'll next write about game design. Regarding counters. I personally dislike that word as an explanation of how units interact beyond a simple rock-paper-scissors formula. Although it is possible to build on that, it rapidly becomes convoluted. I would look to the previous document which outlined count
  25. Realise that the only difference between biremes and triremes is the rows of oars. Distinctions between the light and medium classes of ships could probably be done in a more intuitive way such as making triremes have better speed but biremes turning better. On another note, most ships (triremes) during this time-period only had 14 men fighting on the deck. This was occasionally augmented to numbers like 40, but those were mainly in instances in which the space for ramming was limited, leading to many boarding operations. As another point, archers were solely deployed as anti-persone
  • Create New...