Thorfinn the Shallow Minded
-
Posts
1.170 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded
-
-
I think one of the problems is that there is a total lack of reward for minor engagements. In Age of Empires II, scout fights are common cases in which players can work to capitalise on their micro skills, and even a small difference in hitpoints can be critical up to early Feudal Age. Cavalry instead are mainly rewarded by just gathering chickens, which was of course the primary thing that horsemen did historically.
Much of this could be fixed by incorporating more rewards into scouting, which in turn could lead to early game engagements. Resources that can be captured already exist in game. The issue is that these are rare in most maps, and in fairness, it would be difficult to balance since depending on the amount of randomness, it could lead to a large snowball in the early game.
I would say that one thing I personally find disappointing is that rushes basically consist solely of cavalry. I would personally like that to change; how it could be done is a separate matter.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
We would leave the Maccabees and Herodians out, if we take this path.
The Maccabees are the Hasmoneans. Leaving out the Herodians is perfectly fine by me; they represent a time in which the kingdom was nothing more than a client state.
5 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:Well, he also drove out the traders with his whip and knocked over the tables of the money changers, spoiling their coins on the ground; a bit less a meek approach then he is stereotypically portrayed.
Small quibble to make: the text is fairly ambiguous as to whether he used the whip in particular to drive out the money changers; my reading would be against that interpretation, but scholars from throughout history have sided both ways.
-
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:
Whip attack? What is that? Since Jesus was quite a pacifist we can let him be the ultimate healing hero, with an aura effect that doubles the hp of all units within 40 metres. (Resurrection)
I think that the whip is in reference to Jesus using whip to drive out animals that were being sold in the temple.
That aside, I would strongly argue that neither of these people would be appropriate for the Hasmonean Kingdom. Jesus is depicted as having few patriotic sympathies, talking about the kingdom of heaven instead of literally creating a physical regime. Herod the Great on the other hand was highly unpopular and possibly a sociopath. Last, neither of these heroes fit into the timeframe.
Instead, I would recommend Simeon the Righteous, a high priest who was famous for rebuilding Jerusalem's walls and was famous for his piety.
Salome Alexandra, as the last queen, would be interesting as well as she extended the kingdom's borders to their largest extent. I would advise a fortress discount due to her making extensive fortifications along the border.
John Hyrcanus could be another option as well, with a mercenary discount.
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:
Of course they have different gathering rates. But that isn't a bad thing. It introduces different dynamics into the game. It introduces choice. It introduces strategy. Let players build more storehouses. Or research techs. Or just make different units that are quicker gathers. Or make units that counter quicker gathers, so you can try to rush the other player that is going for boom. What you propose eliminates all of the aforementioned choice and strategy. One of the main lessons to be learned from a23-->a24 is that making everything the same and uniform is a stale, lazy way to balance and is actively disliked by players. What we have now isn't broken. Let's not try to fix what already works.
Standardisation is not a lazy, stale approach. That said, I'm not against some units having better economic purpose within the framework of citizen soldiers or other units. Rather, the point should be that merely because one unit is faster should not mean that it is inherently better at collecting resources. When making one unit more efficient, there should be intentionality behind that design choice, and at times a military advantage should not translate into better economic advantage. Simply speaking, by streamlining resource collection, the game can be easily changed to accommodate the intentions of the designer rather than translating into a system where one simple change can have have massive unintended effects.
The point of the matter is that this that even if it does eliminate some emergent strategies that occurred because of unit speeds, these can be still reintroduced, and I believe in the opening post I pointed out a number of ways in which depth could be used for the system I proposed. Undoubtedly other viable alternatives can offer similar if not more interesting approaches.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
I don't see any need for this. There is already an incentive to build more local drop sites to limit shuttling distance. Likewise, you can just research basket techs to carry more res. I also don't see why it unit speed matters--if a player makes all of one unit type then that unit type should be rushable. A properly built eco will address all the problems you describe, and if a player doesn't do it then they will have a worse eco.
To me, all this does is necessarily take out strategy in what units are trained, what buildings are built, and what techs are researched.
Simply speaking units of different speeds, regardless of the proximity of the resource, are going to have different gather rates. More time walking back and forth means that there is less time actually working; it's simple math.
How would eliminating or reducing the effects of unit speeds on their economic efficiency be bad? Frankly I find it absurd that say a skirmisher is a better lumberjack than an archer due to their uses in the battlefield a questionable thing.
10 hours ago, azayrahmad said:Another, perhaps more extreme solution, is to go Rise of Nation route. Dropsite has aura that automatically 'gathers' from all relevant resources within dropsite's range, i.e. trickles from resources within aura. Garrison more workers to increase the gather rate. It uses aura, yes, but since resources don't move, should not be too taxing on performance.
I like this, but I think that one of the biggest problems it would face would be the current resource distribution in 0 AD, which is currently less systematic than other RTS games. Still, it's a worthwhile approach.
-
31 minutes ago, Angen said:
So to not end up spearman is better version of swordsman and swordsman is now useless, it needs deeper thought.
From the current state swordsman is supposed to be anti siege unit.
What role it will have if that is taken away?
The first problem is that the sword is not inherently designed to cut. Some weapons such as the gladius tend towards stabbing. On the flip-side, cutting with some spears is viable.
Next off, there doesn't need to be a massive difference between the two. As I would suggest, swordsmen should move a bit faster and have more pierce armour while performing a slight bit better in fights against spearmen. Swordsmen historically were not deployed with the sole purpose of destroying siege weapons.
Giving all melee units hack damage would overall be a much better way of streamlining the game.
-
3
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, hyperion said:
And / or reduce gathering rates. As some people complain EA to be to be to spamy reducing gathering rates is probably better.
I would definitely go for both of these approaches if my more radical idea proves unpopular (which I kind of expected).
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Stan` said:
I'm not sure one can do that currently. Maybe @Freagarach knows.
It might be worthwhile checking how things functioned in previous alphas before shuttling existed. I believe it was either Alpha 4 or 5 when the change happened. The following video shows a bit of that in action; aside from that, it's fascinating seeing things like the changes in the UI.
18 minutes ago, hyperion said:Gather rates are high compared to carry capacity, making shuttling more important in 0ad than most other games I'm aware of. If you want to reduce importance of shuttling you have to make units spend more time gathering instead of walking, not the other way around. I think it was AoE III that does away with shuttling altogether.
That's more or less the point, getting rid of shuttling entirely.
-
24 minutes ago, Stan` said:
Do you have a source for that, for further reference?
The War Story represents some aspects of the original game. There are a lot of intriguing differences to be found.
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/War_Story
Probably some more search archaeology could bring up the other points as I didn't find everything I remembered. Obviously this isn't meant to be lifted up as the 'Holier Than Thou' relic, but I just brought it up to show that this idea is nothing new.
24 minutes ago, Stan` said:Would it be rates, or carry limit? According to TechModifications we support the following.
It would be rates. In this model units would automatically trickle resources to the player much like Khmer farms in Age of Empires II.
-
The idea of dropping off resources is a staple of the RTS genre, but for 0 A.D, it limits key design aspects of the game. As has been noted, changing movement speeds has a direct impact on gather rates since units have to deliver resources to drop-sites. Interestingly enough, the original vision was to not have this kind of feature, and in some of the first alphas, this was nonexistent. The initial plan was to construct structures that had an aura; units could gather within this aura and not outside it. This was clearly a very restrictive choice. What I would rather propose is that drop-sites (including worker elephants) would provide bonuses to collection rates within their auras. Instead of increasing the resource capacity units could hold, technologies could instead increase the effect or range of the building's aura.
This could benefit the game in a number of ways:
Movement speeds would have less importance for the economy, making it possible to have greater unit diversity.
Performance might increase since units would not have to calculate routes as much.
There might be chances for diversity as some civilisations might be better at collecting resources outside the range of drop-sites while others might have ones that are much drop-site auras that are smaller but have much more potent effects.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Should we increase melee DPS or decrease ranged DPS?
Yes.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:
That´s very true, but we don´t see that in any aspect of the game.
It is, but the unit collision and a few other factors make it very rare to properly show up in gameplay. Unlike kamyuks, in which there seems to be enough range for up to three units to stand between, pikemen instead can only reach about the size of a single person standing. A reason for this is that the sarissa is represented as fairly short in game. According to a random google search, the average man in ancient Greece was roughly 1.6 metres tall. The length of the sarissa according to wikipedia was roughly 4-6 metres. Looking at the game, pikes stand at roughly twice the height of a person, making them only 3.2 metres if the information from earlier is correct. That 0.8-2.8m is a rather massive disparity that translates into their range in game being rather lacklustre. If one watches kamayuks fight in Age of Empires II, their range still plays an important role even without formations since it allows for them to attack more frequently without needing to move.
In short, make pikes longer and extend the range of pikemen.
-
2
-
-
50 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
I think the art team makes the models based on history. As a community I think we could all help out by shaping the balance such that the units serve a historically accurate role. If people want target dummies, they probably need to give that role to a unit with a big shield. Also I feel like the game should be shaped such that being a target dummy is not a thing. The problem does not lie with the art team, it lies with the people that decided pikemen needed to have huge armor stats.
Definitely the defining trait of pikemen that should dictate their advantages in fights should be their long range. That said, all melee infantry should be able to tank arrows relatively well if they are slow. With that in mind, pikemen have to have good pierce armour since they have been defined by the trait of being slow units. I think that by and large there is a good argument for making all melee infantry (with some exceptions) start with roughly the same movement speed. Technologies could then potentially serve to differentiate them in later phases.
-
9 minutes ago, ChronA said:
However, no one escorts their rams because there is no unit type with sufficient arrow resistance to dive against static defense and ranged fire support.
Therein I would say is the biggest problem. It should be viable to escort siege weapons.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:
Yes you are right but how many people you see using stand ground on pikemen? In theory thats what they should do but as you saw in the video they tend just be side by side and when they get behind one another it is barely noticeable to the point It doesnt really matter if they do or not.
I think that the issue is primarily in unit ai. For an experiment, I started a singleplayer deathmatch game in which I only trained masses of pikemen. I then sent these units alone to the enemy base, set them on stand ground, and adjusted their position whenever they needed to advance. Granted, this was against an ai fielding a mix of ranged and melee units and using no micro. Overall they performed much better than I had anticipated. I would say that they could use perhaps a bit more range, but the fact that they cannot coordinate as a formation a more relevant point in my opinion. Microing a mass of pikemen in stand ground is awkward to say the least.
-
I'll just say one thing for this hypothetical. Rams.
1 hour ago, Auron24015 said:Yes, but if the pikemen had longer range they could theoretically be stronger than any other military unit in large groups. Not having to move closer to poke the enemy is such a good buff.
Pikemen do actually have longer range. If you have them stand ground, multiple ranks will attack simultaneously.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:
Spartans get auxiliary slingers which are available since town phase. Should I give them an auxiliary barracks to separate them from the prime specimen Spartans?
Auxiliary is a bit of an anachronism from post-Marian times. I would just call them Helots or Perioikoi, leaning more on the helot side of things. Since prime specimen Spartans have their own building already, I would say that the normal barracks is good enough.
-
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:
Should Romans get auxiliary archers?
Even though they probably fielded them, I would say no. That's just personal preference to me.
-
18 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
To satisfy both of you I have an idea: Spartan gets 2 champions: a village Spartiates champion and a Town Phase Spartiates Champion.
The village one can be a bit weaker than the town phase one. But note that Sparta already has Skiritai, who can be used to push. If they get a spearman that would be perfect. I also gave them a slinger for ranged support during an early push.
Should they get archers?
Seems good. Honestly I would prefer for their slinger to be available in the Town Phase; Spartans have the identity of a melee infantry civilisation and should probably retain that identity since their champions should theoretically deal with infantry well enough. I would say a hard no to archers myself; that all said, I respect your choices in the matter.
-
2
-
-
If Hannibal could train that unit, I think it would be fair for Hamilcar to be able to train mercenaries since that was his shtick. Maharbal could perhaps train cavalry units.
-
5 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:
I disagree, going to P2 gives you absolutely no benefit if you plan to play aggressive. The eco techs are quite expensive and military techs are much too expensive. There's a reason you don't see players getting military upgrades in P2 and why the P2 eco techs frequently get left until after clicking P3.
I did list a number of solutions to this problem earlier in the thread. Pushing the Syssiton to Phase 2 is only one option, and the problem with economy and military technologies sounds like an entirely different problem. Having champions available at the start of the game would be an interesting difference that no other civilisation at least at the moment has, and it would be a shame if it were moved to a different phase just for that reason. That all said, I understand the basis behind your argument; honestly I'm just happy that Sparta can train Spartans earlier.
6 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:though moving cavalry champions and ranged champions would likely be a bit too much.
Again that is a fair concern, but there can be a difference in stats of a champion in the Town Phase that are immediately improved upon advancing to the City Phase.
-
13 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Should I make it available since P2? Or just P1?
I would say Phase 2.
-
12 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:
Ok. Socii barrack. Is there a more Roman name? Like something in Latin?
I am not to any capacity competent with Latin, but I believe 'Castrum Sociis' would be correct, taking the genitive plural form of socii. That all said, my knowledge of Latin mainly comes from the Life of Brian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lczHvB3Y9s
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Yekaterina said:
We might want a Socii embassy
Having it called an embassy might seem a bit strange as socii were recruited from subject states. I would maybe just call the structure a socii barracks.
-
1
-
Mercenaries in p1: Bad or Good?
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
Honestly unless we're talking about civilisations that were famous for fielding mercenary armies like Carthage or the successor states, I don't really see a good reason for mercenaries to be trained in the village phase.