Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Historians
  • Content Count

    1.052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  1. I'll say it quite simply. All melee units should counter rams. Making spears, swords, pikes, and other types of weapons have dramatically different stats in terms of their efficiency of taking down rams is frankly rubbish. There should not be an elaborate meta built around who can dismantle the most simplistic siege weaponry.
  2. It would mean that during the Village Phase unit production would be effectively capped. The Town Phase becoming a greater priority of course is one side-effect that it would have. The point is that unit spam during the Village Phase is a thing, and merely increasing training time has not stopped it. I would go for a different approach (like the change to the barracks mentioned).
  3. The reason that the spam exists is attached to the fact that barracks can carry out virtually an identically economic role as they can to a military one. If units trained at a barracks started at an advanced rank or had a gather rate penalty, both of these would make the barracks a risky investment to commit to early on from an economic standpoint. I have pointed out before and can make the same point again; 0 A.D. has extremely fast training times for their units compared to games such as Age of Empires 2 or Starcraft II, the latter of which is already considered a quick-paced game.
  4. Dedicated workers could possibly have technologies in later phases that boosts their output; that could ensure that they would be more efficient workers in the late game but not make them a go to unit in the early game.
  5. It might be frustrating, but depending on how the projectiles are done, it could be something to better appreciate than you might think. Assuming that an inaccurate arrow deals damage to an enemy target it hits, this would mean that a large number of archers would not have their damage wasted when the player selects single targets due to overkill. That all said, your point about spread not being seen ingame is a valid criticism that should be considered regardless of whether spread is incorporated in the game or not.
  6. I agree with Dakara that removing the metal cost from Civic Centres and attaching a stone cost instead would be a good choice. That all said, the point shouldn't necessarily be about making stone a necessary resource. When was the last time a war was fought over a quarry?
  7. Fair points. As I would see it, javelinists would be the best ranged units equipped to face infantry head on since effectively fighting melee unit with them already is fairly involved. Personally I would like seeing archer and slinger missiles doing pretty minimal damage head on, making their role one of softening melee units unless there are some units in place pinning them down, which would allow for them to surround the force. Naturally that's just one approach, and undoubtedly it would have side-effects. Those problems in my mind would be navigable.
  8. I think that this feature in moderation could add some nuance to the game. In general ranged units probably could have little directionality to their armour by virtue of them rarely wearing much. Instead it could be focussed on melee infantry, making things such as flanking them a relevant way of countering them. A way I could see this particularly working well would be that a simple kiting manoeuvre would be suboptimal since the ranged unit would basically just strike in the direction with the most resistance. Instead it would be a matter of surrounding the force to hit their vulnerable si
  9. Possibly there could be a case for some factions that are more 'civilised' using more stone in their structures; one of the Settlers games did a similar thing with one being more stone dependant, another being wood dependant, and the last being a bit of a balance of the two. It wouldn't change the inherent issue (if we call it one), but it would be a somewhat thematic way of differentiating one civilisation from another; it being worthwhile is another question.
  10. One thing that does come to mind as a basis for why stone is less important in 0 A.D. compared to say Age of Kings can be seen in the fact that fortresses, previously essential for producing siege weapons, lack that utility with the inclusion of arsenals. Maybe the question could be a matter of how fortresses could have more uses outside of being super towers.
  11. I have already argued against his inclusion. Agesilaus II was much more emblematic of Spartan hegemony following the Peloponnesian War even though his diplomatic stance in part led to its downfall; honestly he was a remarkable historical figure that deserves more attention at least for his extraordinary life. Athenian marines could be affected by a different technology; marines existed before Iphicrates, and having their existence contingent on him seems strange. The same could be said for Cretan archers.
  12. Perhaps this might be a lone dissenting opinion, but having Iphicrates let alone Iphicratean like units seems against the central idea of 0 A.D. The goal is to represent civilisations at their height, which in Athens case would be most likely the timeframe between the Persian War to the Peloponnesian War.
  13. I don't really see the issue myself. Costs can always be adjusted to compensate for that.
  14. I stand corrected. That all said, just because a building existed does not make it a worthwhile part of a building roster. Undoubtedly people in the ancient world had latrines, but for some reason they are not represented. As it seems, the Stoa was removed for even more pertinent factions like Athens, but having a structure that served social functions and was the main meeting place for philosophers serve as a training ground for mercenaries does seem a bit odd. That was an underlying piece of logic behind its removal. Also Spartans can build multiple mess halls, so I don't see
  15. In theory that is possible. The problem is that spears are generally always preferred to swords in most situations due to better reach; the advantage of the sword was its utility as a side-arm, not as a main weapon. The idea of troops using the sword alone is generally a pure fantasy idea (with a few exceptions).
  16. You've argued generally that distance is the bigger variable at play in this conversation. I guess that begs the question; what do you think of the current distances with where animals spawn? I would consider that to be valid to this conversation since the gather rate can consider when the amount of time it takes a unit to gather the resource and drop it off.
  17. Could you give a source for that? A brief search for any only showed that only one I could find was probably built at the earliest around AD 30.
  18. The stoa was generally used for commercial activities, something that Spartans were known to disdain. Furthermore, doing a quick search for all examples of stoas on Wikipedia lists no Spartan one (That's not definitive of course, and anyone can list a case of a Spartan Stoa, I would appreciate it..).
  19. So with all of this, I would say that a middle ground is possible. People like turtling; it's a staple of the RTS genre, and if people want to farm in the safety of their protective shell, perhaps they should not be overly penalised for doing so. That said, I would still say there should be ways to encourage people to use other areas due to increased output at the risk of being raided in those areas. In addition, there could be a few benefits to realistic urban planning around the Civic Centre. This all could help encourage better map control and more thought with building placement; all t
  20. The aura itself in most cases doesn't make a lot of sense, but in the case of Sparta, where women had a fair amount of authority, it would be more fair for them being nearby to command the serfs having a tangible benefit. Honestly the aura itself (at least in my opinion) is not a sexist thing; it's just in most cases an unintuitive mechanic.
  21. This regardless of any other points is something that should be seriously considered. I could see another alternative be to have chickens be replaced with something like sheep provided that the food count be the same.
  22. The Arverni are kind of a must to incorporate as most of the heroes for Gaul are from that tribe. I do like a lot of these elements, going along the lines of each of these choices representing the tribes confederating.
  23. That was why they could have an aura to help the collection rates of helots (or all citizen soldiers). I would not see women making up the bulk of the Spartan economy, but their inclusion in strategic areas could provide a reasonable economic boost.
  24. The concern I see with this is that Age of Mythology dealt with 15 civilisations, divided into clear variations of roughly the same civilisation. 0 A.D. lacks that advantage, and this feature would complicate the learning curve depending on how it was implemented. How would you see making each choice intuitive? I assume that you've put a bit of thought into how this could work. One way that differentiation could also be done would be to have other mechanics such as a nuanced way that the structure might behave with territory. Alternatively I could also see some civilisations having ca
  25. I agree with the debuffs part. Fields built near the Civic Centre having an arbitrary malus to collection makes little sense. That said, having some ground be more fertile to incentivise players to farm in those areas makes sense and adds another layer to the area control aspect of the game.
×
×
  • Create New...