Jump to content

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

Community Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

  1. Age of Empires had a clear idea of what cavalry in the early game did; it scouted. I personally enjoyed this since it allowed for something to do during the slower stages of the game. In 0 A.D. scouting is less important, which is okay since the pacing is different. Due to this, cavalry primarily help bolster the economy. Since these units are highly capable at food gathering when hunting is easy, it often encourages players to mass cavalry for an eventual early rush. I'd personally say this feels immersion breaking. Cavalry were the usually elite, not soldiers that one could expec
  2. A more likely case in most scenarios is that sappers constructed machines using available lumber around the area they besieged. Naturally if the engines were too complicated for field engineers to make on site, I'd say a workshop would be a more likely case.
  3. The differentiation is valid, but I'd say primarily from a practical military perspective. As I'm sure you're aware, they had massively different roles in the battlefield. Having chariots, which required different housing than the typical horseman's, trained at the same building as horsemen is an abstraction but an abstraction I don't mind. Probably, assuming that chariots would have a viable enough role to justify it, the chariot stables as you mentioned would be the best option for making a decent marriage of sensitivity to historicity and gameplay.
  4. I'd say the matter of chariots being trained at one place compared to another is more a matter of taste. Yes the frame would have been made by a carpenter or the like, but that doesn't account for the horses. It's roughly the same logic as having infantry trained at the blacksmith, where their weapons and armour would be manufactured. I prefer the stable since it gives a more intuitive logic to the game compared to a building that's generally used for making siege.
  5. I mean for what it's worth, the Total War series has never been the best example of historically accurate unit designs and rosters. Rome Total War was and is an awesome game, but the depictions of Egyptians, Britons, and Germanic Tribes were... shall we say a bit fantastical. This is nothing much worse than that game at least to me.
  6. I know this is a minor nitpick that is kind of arbitrary, but having a few scratches or even dents on the helmet would make them feel a lot more grounded to me. If that's too much trouble, I understand; they look great as is. Just saying.
  7. One of the central reasons is balance for multiplayer purposes. This would be a fun choice if the emphasis was on single player modes, but for multiplayer, the number of options available to one single faction would be staggering. We're talking about 108 possibilities based on the variables for one single faction. I would personally that's too much especially when there are so many factions. A while ago I posted a topic about a much more in depth idea of how Sparta could function at all stages of the game, allowing for offensive and defensive play based on strategic in game options. It's
  8. I wonder if a lot of these options are truly worth making an option to customise at the beginning. The most justifiable one would be the hero. Apart from that, I would leave it down to build orders. If the enemy player doesn't know the choices another has done, it would greatly hamper their ability to understand the strategy that would be the inevitable best option of some option taken. Meta that the game misses is primarily due to adherence to a strict formula based upon Age of Empires without attempting to bring any of the depth with it. The civilisations definitely have historici
  9. I in no way claim to be well informed about the siege methods of Persia at this timeframe, but at least the original developers thought that their capabilities were subpar. What's your basis for considering them so good?
  10. The point I wished to make about swords is that there isn't much an inherent advantage to using them over spears, and the game should reflect that. I think that a marginally faster movement speed could be fair, but even that doesn't make too much practical sense. Factions should not have to be reliant on a sword unit. Altogether I like the ideas Alexandermb mentioned for ammo. In regards to which faction was barrack-less, the easier question to pose is which ones weren't. Sparta had men living in their common barracks, but for other factions it mainly was a matter of levying troops (T
  11. The whole matter of whether civilisations used swordsmen or not is a bit of a non-issue to me. Spartans and Athenians fielded swordsmen. They just happened to use spears, which have better reach as primary weapons. Yes the Romans did use swordsmen, but of course that was due to their having javelins instead of thrusting spears (the triarii being the exception). With that in mind, I'd say that trying to give distinct functions to infantry that only used one weapon or both seems odd to begin with. If anything, they should be only slightly nuanced.
  12. Just to again add some more thoughts, I said that factions should be fleshed out; I think the point still stands. Let's take a classic like Age of Empires II, a title that still has, twenty years in the running, a healthy multiplayer community. A key reason for that I'd say is that each civilisation was designed to synergise with specific strategies and unit compositions. 0 A.D. I'd say lacks that flavour. As for what I would recommend, each civilisation should have at least one economic bonus and a bonus to a specific unit class. Age of Kings has each civilisation matched with thre
  13. To add my opinion, which is definitely needed due to the shortage of people who care about this topic (There is not a hint of sarcasm there), I'd say that the team should focus its efforts on fleshing out one single existing faction. They get a full tech tree, unique flavour when it comes to their units, and the whole works. Developing new factions is a great thing, and we shouldn't discourage that, but the existing factions seem to be little more than skeletons of what they would actually be. After one faction has been done this way, there can be an effort to do so with the others as well.
  14. Okay. Thanks for explaining some of the technicalities that prevent a more streamlined system. It would be nice if there was an easier way to access that information for moderating purposes, but there are more pressing concerns than just the multiplayer scene I'm sure.
  15. Glad to know. Obviously I stand by my position, but if there's a better plan in the works that might be a bit more on the just side, I'm all for it. It came to mind that my simple solution may have been mentioned before, yet I never saw one. It's not the first time I've overlooked something important.
  16. Those are definitely fair points, but even with those extenuating circumstances, I think that the option I've made works better regardless of those particular problems. Aside from the game crashing, most of the other aspects are controllable to some extent by the player, and not differentiating may not be the most fair option, yet it would be equally fair to everyone. The way I currently see the whole thing working is that it doesn't. This option would make for a number of problems, but I think that the end result would be fixing a much larger issue. In some MOBA games that live and br
  17. I'm not going to say that a quitting a game without congratulating an opponent is the best show of sportsmanship, but unless I'm mistaken, the solution is quite simple. Have quitters suffer the ELO loss that they would experience if they had lost the game. Maybe I'm missing something, but to me this rather simple change would be for the better. Could anyone point out any unforeseen problems with this? Also, I'm honestly baffled that a loophole like this has existed for so long. Is there something I'm overlooked or why have I not seen a solution like this before? Is it primarily a technic
  18. It's a tad ironic that the Spartans are the ones using it.
  19. I think that Delenda Est's model is a good idea, but I'm not sure about how intuitive it is. Choices are good, but overloading a player with too many is a substantial risk. Clicking everything until it's all gone is a problem more for the player than the system in my opinion. When it comes to these technologies, timing is key, and resource efficiency is important to effective build orders. When a player chooses a melee armour upgrade, they are making their melee infantry better, which in turn encourages them to train more. They could try to balance the unit composition with a ranged attac
  20. The blacksmith upgrades seem rather meaningless to me for a number of reasons. First, they affect things too universally. Compare things to Age of Empires II, and the difference is stark. In 0 AD, there is a distinction given in attack upgrades but not defence in the case of ranged versus melee. Also, the technology cost seems outrageous in the case of the wood necessary to research the armour upgrades. Last, only two upgrades make concern of teching into a specific unit combination practically a nonexistent other than worrying about the cost. My proposal is to have three upgrades that a
  21. I'd personally say it's rubbish. It provides no interesting strategic options because it's factions counter some factions while being countered by other factions. There's a flat out buff or nerf that the player has no way to take advantage of except during those specific match-ups. I personally wouldn't say that Romans were that case. Although the Roman military was exceptional, much of its success was based around its ability to take advantage of the diplomatic turmoil in Greece, leading to its ability to defeat them in detail by and large.
  22. While cattle and sheep were not primarily used for food production, there isn't anything to represent those resources, which makes that kind of abstraction fair enough in my opinion. What I don't like about training animals at corrals is how micro-intensive it is for very little in the way of enjoyment. It's basically a grinding mechanic. Having the animals spawn from the building would be a much better alternative to me, but the training was initially considered only placeholder use for the building anyways, which probably warrants just scrapping training altogether. I do like Nescio's id
  • Create New...