Thorfinn the Shallow Minded
-
Posts
1.170 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded
-
-
I would point out that rushing is generally a tactic that is about harassing the enemy by doing things like attacking the woodline, which might be primarily defended by women. Attacks during the second phase hardly can be considered rushes and need to be planned in a different way. Rushing by entering range of the Civic Centre generally is a bad call depending on the circumstances.
-
2
-
-
Game speed is a major component of affecting how long games take. Consequently, you can simply change that and have a more meaningful game experience.
-
Just looking at this thread, it is obvious that something has to change, but I do not think that hard-counters are the proper way to go. Counters work well in situations in which there are consistent ways to work with it. For instance, in Age of Mythology, the Greeks had from each military production building produced a soft-counter unit that worked within the rock-paper-scissors formula, but also there were hard-counter units that worked against their unit type. 0 A.D. lacks this system, and when it tried hard counters, the result was a confusing and convoluted mess that was not realistic or intuitive, but what it really needs I would argue is clear unit roles. For instance, there could be units that are designed to absorb damage, or ones that can provide reliable long range support, others that can use their terrain to do hard-hitting ambushes before retreating. By giving distinct roles to each unit that provides intuitive strengths and weaknesses in different tactical situations; it encourages players to use their units in a synergistic way rather than necessarily building counters. The mind-game then is how to counter a specific tactic rather than a unit combination generally.
-
3
-
-
Why should the chariots do more damage though?
-
Besides being the most over-rated Unit in history, spartiates were never that great.
Their track record isn't so fantastic compared to most athenai hoplitai, for example. Sure, a LITTLE bit better,
No, the deadliest warrior, was easily the roman legionairy.
There is a reason rome had an empire, and sparta did not.
And what is your basis for this claim? The Spartans defeated the Athenians on land time and time again and were practically undefeated until the rise of Thebes. Surely Roman legionnaires were capable, yet most were simply conscripts prior to the Marian Reforms and suffered many defeats. There is not simply one reason that Rome had an empire while Sparta did not. (Naturally when Sparta was in its height it only controlled most of Greece with a league.) Reasons for Spartan decline were many including decreased birthrates and unequal land-distributions. Romans, realise, were pathetic in defeating Hannibal in Italy unless it was by attrition.
-
1
-
-
Style apart, you should follow the U-shaped design for barracks. All barracks are U-shaped, apart from the Roman ones, but the Roman barracks need to be redone some time.
Some U-shapes are very symmetrical (like the Greek and Carthagian), others are more organic, but also show a U-shape in some way (like the Gallic barracks).
For the style, the Seleucids were Macedonians that conqured and settled in Persia. So architecture would be based mostly based on a combination of those two. Similar to the Prolemaics in Egypt.
However, the Seleucids did find their Hellinistic values and knowledge superior to the Persian (in contrary to the Ptolemaics, who wanted to be true Egyptian pharaos).
So most of the style influence should come from the Hellenistic styles, while all the materials they used should be local (so very little white stone).
Regarding the Ptolemaic architecture, I would point out that as of a whole, it is extremely inaccurate regrettably. While the houses retaining Egyptian elements seems good generally, the architecture the Ptolemies had was at large Hellenistic. While it may not seem to help building diversity, having most structures look like things from the New Kingdom is quite a stretch.
-
Do realise that at the front the pikemen held their own very well to any legionnaire. The problem for pikemen was the inflexibility of the formation, which the Romans lacked. As a result, a properly done flanking manoeuvre was a disaster for the pikemen.
-
The fundamental point of walls is to prevent rushing from being an effective form of harassment at the cost of limiting the potential for expansion and phasing up through the high stone cost. Players who choose to wall would not have fortresses as early to help and thereby would be deterred.
-
I support this notion at least regarding stone walls.
-
At the moment, walls are practically a pointless investment. This is due to them first being extremely expensive, many times making a short length of wall cost the same or more than a defence tower, but with palisade walls, that is not case at least, yet still practically minded players would generally not bother investing in walls. The fundamental reason behind not even making palisades let alone stone walls is because of a lack of choke-points. Forests, being passable, are not a defendable option, and neither are there many cliffs around. I would highly recommend working that problem out as walling has interesting strategic implications that should be cost effective.
-
1
-
-
I have a few suggestions myself. First, it would be good to have walls be cheaper since they are rarely effective at the moment. If players would like their wall turrets firing arrows and potentially ballista shots later, that should be an upgrade. Having walls cost hundreds of stone is ridiculous balance-wise and Age of Kings recognised this problem.
Next, archers generally should not be as effective as they are. Historically they were actually nothing that decisive in most battles and their role should most likely be limited to supporting infantry. Persia also is depicted having very good archers, but I see no historical basis for that. If there is any bonus they should have, it should be in rapid deployment.
Third, blacksmith upgrades should not be generalised with melee infantry upgrades being with ranged as it makes little logical sense. For that matter, having them cost food seems obscure to say the least. With food there may as well be stone added.
-
1
-
-
I do Sparta since I enjoy using lots of infantry.
-
1
-
-
One point I would make is that the Ptolemaic architecture is currently inaccurate and should have far more Greek influence to it. Alexandria for instance, the pinnacle of the Hellenistic world, had practically no ethnic Egyptians and would have been very Greek in the style. As it looks now, the Ptolemaic buildings seem from the New Kingdom. Regardless of what can be said for architectural diversity, inaccuracy on that scale seems quite unacceptable I fear.
-
1
-
-
Actually there was such a thing as an octagonal tower in Athens that did not serve so much as a defence than as a clock, possessing multiple sundials on each side and and a water clock. If I am not mistaken, this was called The Tower of the Winds, but that was from the Roman period.
-
1
-
-
By the way, there should be a technology for the Isis Cult that would allow for improvements in priests, individual units, and such. The Isis Cult was an important way of bringing the cultures together.
-
1
-
-
The alpha 17 changes really are very very bad. Removing hard counters was a mistake and there are numerous bad decisions like the one pointed out in this thread. Spearmen get pierce attack, and to make them counter cavalry cavalry must have low pierce armor, right? But ranged units have pierce attack too. Ranged units are supposed to be countered by cavalry, but instead slaughter cavalry like hot knife through butter. And then you have a basic unit like swordsman who costs 3 different resources, food, wood, and iron. You have champion units (see Seleucid silver shield for example) who cost HUGE amounts of 3 resources too. You will have post after post of people trying to defend their decisions (the balancing branch people who basically have thrown the game's design into disarray), so it is very clear that they do not intend to change direction. It is good to experiment, but you should know when the experiment is a failure. The truth is the game's health just now relies on modding to fix game's balance.
I would like to turn your attention to the "Combat Dilemma" thread. This was started by me because of imbalances and lack of realism in the game at the time with the hard counters. I basically broke down the units in their purposes with the hard counters and showed the problems they had. While a soft counter system may not be optimal, with adjustments it can improve.
-
Definitely there are some good thoughts put into this, but I would recommend a few changes to the scenario design. First, walling the isthmus would have been ineffective with the navy free to disembark troops anywhere on Peloponnesus. Rather, the focus could be to rally city-states to your side with different benefits. For instance Argos would provide a reliable army and industry to support you since it was a major weapons manufacturer. The problem would be of course that they would be difficult to win over. Corinth on the other hand might provide a good navy and base for trade operations. The Kingdom of Macedonia could lend cavalry support. With this adding a scenario for the Battle of Plataea could add an interesting element.
-
Actually the current corral system is not the finalised plan. Rather, animals that are capable of being herded can be garrisoned in corrals for a useful purpose such as providing a steady flow of food or in the case of horses they would make for a small discount. Farming should be the primary source of food historically speaking.
-
2
-
-
The reason for having Skiritae treated like elite units is because they were some of the most dependable allied units, as can be learned from Thucydides and Xenophon. I never implied that they were super elite.
-
Just a thought, but perhaps Skiritae could be treated like triarii with their starting rank. Otherwise, good thoughts.
-
In regards to the comments, I am glad to learn you agree on several points, but I would argue a couple points. Helot workers losing hitpoints seems a bit queer. Although they certainly were not treated well, they had certain degrees of autonomy that made them far better off than many slaves. Having slaves depicted in this way is not a bad idea I will admit though. Regarding the idea of the traditionalist reform, I would not venture to call it a reform. Rather, it is more of a reflection of emphasizing on the traditional martial characteristics of Spartans. Following it would represent dependence on allies and perioikoi as the main Spartan soldiers while Spartan hoplites would provide vital auras to them. The idea is not so much a fantasy, but instead rejecting innovation, a thing the Spartans clung to for a good while.
-
"While Arsinoe II would be a fine Ptolemaic hero, none of the current ones need to be replaced. To say that "The only relevant accomplishments [Cleopatra VII Philopator] is remembered for is seducing powerful men" is simply an ignorant statement (and I mean no offense, as a great many people share this ignorant point of view). I recommend Stacy Schiff's "Cleopatra: A Life" if you want to know more about why she is definitely worthy of being a Ptolemaic hero in 0 A.D. She was quite a remarkable leader, and while she may be best remembered in popular consciousness for seducing powerful men, that was only one aspect of her long and complex reign."
My statement I would argue is not an ignorant statement. Perhaps it was not worded well, but to most people, that is what she is only famous for. While Cleopatra may have been a competent leader, Arsinoe II, from my knowledge, seems the better of the two. Not only was she actively involved in the First Syrian War, but also had wide influence in other matters. For the purposes of a game focussed on war, Cleopatra seems to be an incompetent military commander at least (Battle of Actium), making her a poorer choice. Would you explain your rational to having her in game besides citing a book? It is not as much a matter of whether Cleopatra was a ruler, but what makes her a better hero than Arsinoe the II. You yourself pointed out that Arsinoe the II would make a fine Ptolemaic hero.
-
I do like a lot of ideas regarding Prodigal Son's proposal, but I would like to suggest my own takes on them. I do them in anti-alphabetical order starting with Sparta.
Sparta:
While I like the ideas, the Spartan hoplite should still be limited to the Syssiton, a building available from the beginning. Second, the helot unit should be limited to simply being a regular worker. Having it lose hitpoints seems a bit unnecessary. One possible thing for them could be to have a liberation option, which would convert them into Perioikoi for a cost, similar to the Age of Mythology mechanic of converting gatherers into Ulfsarks. Perioikoi should be average units given their limited liberties. I would limit the Mercenary Camp's uses, yet regarding the reforms I think that seems like a good idea. Perhaps an alternative players could make to the pikeman reform could be technology representing a focus on Spartan traditions, making the powerful Spartan hoplites even more so. Helot skirmishers do not have any historical justification to my knowledge, so maybe in the mid-game peltasts could be a viable mercenary option for the mid game.
-
I would suggest that Cleopatra should not be a Ptolemaic hero. The only relevant accomplishments she is remembered for is seducing powerful men. I would rather recommend that Arsinoe the II be her replacement. Arsinoe the II was supportive of Ptolemaic naval conquest and would be appropriate in that respect.
Design meeting report #3
in General Discussion
Posted
I would point to the classic Age of Kings that rushing often occurs at 6-7 minutes into the game, and furthermore, there is the feudal age rush, which occurs near a later mark in the game. This is due to Age of Kings having various stages in the game in which multiple aspects of aggression can be seen. I recommend that 0 A.D. emulate this by perhaps locking specific unit types until a later age, but that's just a suggestion. Regardless, rushes can occur on many different stages and earliest ones should only be able to harass above anything else. In later stages the damage could be more noticeable, but walling should provide a viable counter to this later aggression. In the later stages siege should make it possible to work through this strategy, yet fortresses can provide another source of defensive advantage.