Thorfinn the Shallow Minded
-
Posts
1.170 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded
-
-
8 minutes ago, borg- said:
I would like some opinions on how we can implement the idea of democracy for athens?
Giving a bonus to the agora might be a decent start since that was where the citizenry assembled for voting.
-
6 minutes ago, Grapjas said:
Could you give some more info about these? Would sappers be the one that build engines aswell or should i make that a different unit?
Sapper is just an alternative term for military engineer.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Grapjas said:
Wouldn't mind adding a unique 'engineer' unit trainable at the arsenal. Soldiers could make crappy siege, but engineers of much better quality (attack/def/hp boosts)
A simpler approach might just be a matter of limitations. Soldiers could only construct battering rams. Also sappers could have a high base attack against buildings.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Grapjas said:
i was wondering if you have any information on how siege engines, more specifically the stone throwing ones, actually got their ammo. Were there like carts of ammo available nearby?
Usually siege weapons were built on site, and ammunition probably was improvised based on the available materials the engineers could use. When Demetrius was attempting to besiege Rhodes, he hired a large number of specialists from Asia Minor and imported materials for the construction of his mother of all siege engines.
-
1
-
-
Another technology Athens could have would be Thetes or Rowers that would confer a speed boost to ships. This is based on the fact that some of the lowest class of citizens still played an important role in the military and had significant political rights as a result.
-
10 hours ago, Loki1950 said:
All slingers used lead projectiles most carried their own mould for casting new pellets it's a fairly common find archaeologically on all ancient battle sites.
That statement is incorrect. Xenophon explicitly states that Persians used stones.
-
14 minutes ago, Grapjas said:
Just to double check, you mean the Rhodian hoplites were using lead projectiles? Or did you mean slingers in general? I was aware of these lead projectiles but i still thought stones found on terrain were more common
The Rhodians in this case definitely were. Xenophon seems to write about it as an exception to the rule, however, not the norm. As to removing Roman javelin throwers, that would be ahistorical. Velites served an integral role in the initial phases of battle, but their sword infantry should definitely have javelins.
-
1
-
-
On 18/3/2021 at 5:47 AM, wraitii said:
All fair points. The thing is that I'm reading that P1 techs are rather easy to grab - and I'd agree. IMO, we could cut them from the game entirely and increase base gathering rates proportionally, and P2/P3 techs could both be increased proportionally.
From what I've seen of FeldFeld play, for example, the fruit tech needs to be researched ASAP, which makes basically no sense, it should just be removed.On the other hand, these techs could be nerfed by introducing a higher cost. That way there is still the potential for a decision.
-
6 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Has a very AOE3 feel to me, just set in the Renaissance.
The architecture is a bit interesting. The church looks in the style of Norman architecture. The odd parts are the thatched roof houses, which look like they come from the ninth century instead; another strange thing is the use of red bricks with some structures. It's like Keble College built hundreds of years earlier.
-
2
-
-
54 minutes ago, Grapjas said:
That's quite interesting indeed. Could make the Rhodian hoplite as a mercenary or a special limited unit in my mod. And give them slings along with the ordanary hoplite kit with less ammo and range (i assume they had full armor on?) than a normal lightweight slinger. Is it known why only a few did this? Were they men with more skill than others for example (because in this case i would make it a special rank)?
Xenophon is fairly vague on what they did with their other equipment. As to range, these were troops using lead projectiles, which generally went a lot further than typical slung stones. Fun fact as well, it was not unheard of to inscribe messages on these. The one to the right could be roughly translated as 'catch.'
-
2
-
1
-
-
Undoubtedly most soldiers did carry side-arms, but ammunition is a more difficult thing to consider since armies at this time were not standardised. What might have served as the amount of missiles a soldier carried in one campaign might vary with the next.
One interesting example of a case of reverse side-arms is mentioned in Xenophon's Anabasis, when a few Rhodian hoplites switched to using slings.
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, submariner said:
That I understand. But Hoplite is Hoplite, not every spearman infantry was shielded.
Actually if you look at most artwork of naked fanatics, they generally always were carrying shields. Not doing so would be virtually suicide.
-
1
-
-
Introducing that many weapons sounds like a large amount of complexity for an otherwise additional thing to manage, especially for an RTS. I would maybe propose a simplification along the lines of units of equipment that work for melee units and separate ones for ranged ones.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, maroder said:
didn't notice a big difference from the archer reload time.
The difference should be completely cosmetic.
All of these changes seem good to me at least by the looks of them. Good and prompt work as always.
-
Spartans were not known for fielding competent light infantry. I would recommend alternative routes for buffs. Spartans were famous for their poetry that often had martial themes (See Alcman, Tyrtaeus, and Terpander). I would advise introducing a technology that gives a movement buff to all infantry through that.
The Athenians could have a later technology for subsequent changes in equipment and tactics that made their peltasts have a more hybrid role by having +1 melee and ranged armour.
-
1
-
-
I would personally prefer the barracks only producing advanced units.
17 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:Maybe I'm missing it, but what is your opposition to CCs making men? It seems like something only a few people want but those that do really want it. I don't particularly care one way or the other, so long as it doesn't create abusive rushes.
The point I think that is being made is that from a functional perspective, Civic Centres are no different from much more militarily themed structures. The point isn't about men, it's about military. That said, this is getting off topic.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:
Additionally, I really liked having a P2 champion meant for head on fighting. This is something that was removed together with the stoa, but from what I understand the unit itself wasn't too problematic (Rhomphaia/Black Cloak). So what about moving them to the barrack and having a tech to unlock them in P2? It would also mean that Athenians will now have atleast 1 trainable champion between the barrack and the stable.
The stable would most likely not be the best choice since Athenian cavalry was nothing incredible. There is a reasonable argument, however, to allowing the marine to be trained in a building like the barracks. For that matter though, why not just have the gymnasium be available one age earlier with the marine trained there?
On a separate issue, the Scythian archer probably shouldn't be a champion for Athens unless it is potentially locked behind a technology. They served as police, not frontline soldiers if I am not mistaken.
-
2
-
-
The linear increase shown looks like the better approach. After a technology has been researched that increases the gather rate of a resource, the resource becomes less valuable due to ease of production. The other alpha had it go from a 50 resource increase to a baffling 850 resource increase in phase three.
Potentially there might be the argument of having there be diminishing returns on the subsequent technologies. These are economy upgrades and shouldn't aim to work as massive power spikes like military ones can often do.
-
1
-
-
The A.D. B.C./C.E. B.C.E. system for chronology has been eliminated. What system do you propose for a replacement and what does it mean for the title of the game?
Example: one option would be to use the system of AUC (Ab Urbe Condita), the date of the supposed founding of Rome. Hence 0 A.D. would become either 753 AUC or 754 AUC. It's hard to exactly say since the year 0 does not exist. Probably the best compromise would be 753 AUC or 754 AUC. That way nobody would be happy.
What are your completely serious answers to clearly controversial topic?
-
1
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, BoredRusher said:
Now tell me, tell me honestly if that, that is 0ad.
You clearly have a lot of emotional investment in the game and have grown comfortable with the previous alpha. That makes sense, but I would point out that 0 AD is a collectively developed game. There are a lot of things I dislike about the current iteration, and if I were to take dictatorial control over the game, it would veer in a radically different direction. Luckily some of my opinions have made an impact, and yours can as well. That said, while I like many of the changes introduced, many other people like yourself are disillusioned with the current alpha so you're not alone.
You yourself said that you do not wish to nitpick over the problems. Would you mind explaining some of the things you miss from the previous alpha? I doubt I'll agree with any of your points, but I would like to better understand where you are coming from.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Stan` said:
and maybe even a new civ to add.
My Little Pony Mod merger confirmed!
Best of luck.
-
Limiting slaves based on a resource might be a bit problematic; slaves were a fairly naturally occurring aspect of all societies and tended to come from one of three sources: debt, crime, or warfare. I would definitely like to see warfare play an active role in the acquiring of slaves, but again, limiting them sounds arbitrary.
-
2
-
-
One thing I had mentioned before that I generally liked as a possibility would be to make melee units provide more capture resistance at the cost of not being able to contribute arrows. Some people didn't really care for that idea so there is that, but I think that it would make defence have a bit more strategic depth. Honestly all of the above suggestions sound like improvements.
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
I guess pairing the unit with hunting dogs for authenticity and recognizability wasn't a popular suggestion?
I could see the hunting dog choice work particularly well for the Britons.
23 minutes ago, Sundiata said:I've always thought that daggers for any kind of mounted unit looked like an awkward choice. Spears, javelins and even bow and arrows in specific cases seem a lot more appropriate. I'd defer to my dog-suggestion for recognizability.
Any more complex armament would imply a much more militaristic purpose and defeat the purpose of it being a dedicated scouting unit. That said, daggers are still awkward; the question is whether or not it is too problematic.
Civ Differentiation: Athens
in Balancing Discussions
Posted
The one thing that is unfortunate about this for the Athenians is that Themistocles is purely designed for water maps, making it only a matter of choosing between the order of training Pericles or Iphicrates. If Themistocles had yet another bonus like a wall construction buff it could be a different story though...