Thorfinn the Shallow Minded
-
Posts
1.170 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded
-
-
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 where the point about them being able to build from only one building comes from.
That all said, I have mentioned before and point out now that Sparta could theoretically be able to build mess halls in the town phase or even the village phase to make champions a more staple part of their unit compositions.
-
1 hour ago, Stan` said:
China was the first to mass produce things so in theory they could have had such cavalry.
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).
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, hyperion said:
Ergo hunting with cav is still acceptable just outside town borders, while inf is better off farming independent of gather rate in that case. Also luring is an essential skill.
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.
-
3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Sparta had a theater (theatron) from 5th century BC to the 4th century AD.
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.
-
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..).
-
2
-
-
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 to say, I think that there is a compromise to this whole matter that is not too extreme.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Angen said:
would not reintroducing aura bring back discussion that the aura is sexist?
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.
-
1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:
Perhaps you can make the chicken models a bit larger so they are easier to see? I find myself missing chickens and sometimes misclicking empty ground...
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Angen said:
if you would want quality over quantity for women citizen, gather rates would need to go up as well, else you end up making women more costly and less efficient.
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.
-
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 cavalry have the ability to build a hunting lodge as a resource dropsite.
-
6 hours ago, ValihrAnt said:
I don't really see a reason to use some convoluted bonuses or debuffs to keep the player from farming near the CC. If you want players to farm in more exposed areas simply reduce the amount of farmers per field and appropriately reduce field cost.
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.
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:
after loom it is 20. Also they get 70 HP and 3 hack after that while costing like only half of a citizen soldier. So they aren´t really bad considering that 2 of them can take down a spearman.
I was thinking along the lines of them ending with 80 after loom, but 70 is a good number to be fair. An important point with that and the other change I would stress is that I'd like to see them costing a bit more, probably around 60-80 food or so to emphasise a quality over quantity.
-
A couple other thoughts:
Spartan women should maybe have a few more hitpoints. A meagre increase of ten is a bit lackluster; I would say them starting with fifty would be more interesting. Along with that it could be neat to see them have an aura like women did before that would increase the efficiency of helots (possibly other citizen soldiers too). These could both come at an increased cost and training time.
All of this would better represent the legal rights Spartan women enjoyed alongside their mandatory training regimen.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, alre said:
chicken and bushes at the beginning of the game make it possible to create a fast growing economy, in the moment of the game that would feel slowest. I think it's good the way it is.
That's kind of the baffling thing to me. Why should the beginning of the game feel that way? There's something to be enjoyed about a somewhat more slow-paced beginning that ramps up as the game continues; naturally there is a balance to be struck, but why should a village economy be fast?
-
1 hour ago, Grapjas said:
Not really a fan of the feature either, i get the "reduce micro" mentality (although i dont support it), but i feel like there should be limits. This is just another way of dumbing down gameplay. Multiplayer is about skills and organizing/micro is a part of that when it comes to RTS. However, since manual batch training is still considerably better im not really against it personally, but only if the tool is available to everyone in the base game and the autotraining is not able to autotrain batches of units, only singles.
Thing is, this kind of feature would reward good macro, assigning workers in such a way to sustain constant production. As ValihrAnt noted, even the corral option has a major liability that this feature would help with players who meticulously have calculated their production and consumption; if you've ever tried sustaining a corral economy while actively attacking an opponent, I can assure you that having to cycle through the corrals is a frustrating distraction.
-
3
-
-
29 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Could make it a game setup option.
A setup option seems a bit much for me personally when it is just an automation feature. When Age of Empires II DE came out with multi-queue and infinite reseeding, there was a degree of push-back. Honestly this is a quality-of-life option that should make the game less micro-intensive, one core value that 0 A.D. aspired for.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
Also the practice of using war elephants died out(except in India and south east asia), so I don´t disagree with elephants slowly decreasing in value.
While that might be the case, 0 A.D. reflects empires generally at their greatest (in which the exact time is admittedly a bit arbitrary). During that time Seleukids, Ptolemies, Carthaginians, and Indians all used elephants in a variety of battles; having them decrease in value doesn't really line up to me at least.
-
2
-
1
-
-
I'm honestly unsure about this feature as well, but it would be interesting to make it so that advanced, elite soldiers, and champion have resistance to this.
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, faction02 said:
I think it might have made more sense to start this topic with this part (if this is the final purpose), it would avoid the talk to focus too much on the suggestion made.
While the idea of scout/hunters that have been made on the forum are interesting in themselves, I don't think they would solve this particular problem. How would Sparta fight archers cavalry/camels without having cavalry ?
What about nerfing Sparta cavalry in late game rather than in early game? Gauls have better sword cavalry currently, so worse spear cavalry for Sparta? I might also have less issue if the nerf was set on stables rather than on the cavalry itself if the aim is to have Sparta producing few cavalry. Producing a few cavalry through the civic center would work as it is the case now, but you wouldn't be able to mass a lot of them since stable would be more complicated to get.
I mainly wanted to spark discussion to have a feel for what people genuinely think. Most seem to like it the way it is or do not have terribly strong feelings about it. Your questions really open a can of worms that might be worth a different topic, but for the moment, not considering the economy, let's go through those.
The primary answer to ranged units for Sparta should be the Skiritae unit, but possibly all melee infantry could benefit from a technology that increases their pierce armour called "Fight in the Shade." Honestly the idea of cavalry being an answer to a camel unit is a bit unintuitive.
As for late game cavalry, that's kind of when things for Sparta started taking off. King Agesilaus II even formed a fairly decent Spartan cavalry force while they often were able to rely on horsemen from cities such as Olynthus. That all said, them not being able to build a stable during the Village Phase is better than nothing. The guide you shared did provide some interesting nuance to the early game that I was unaware of, but a cavalry rush with Sparta honestly seems weird.
All that said, most people do seem to prefer things the way they are, making much of this discussion needless. I went into this with one primary reason; cavalry to my understanding are at the moment vital to early game economy, which seems weird for most village and does mean that all civilisations, regardless of historicity, must start with cavalry to be able to function in the current meta. That all said, it seems that I am more or less just a vocal minority about that position, and I do appreciate the fact that people have been willing to share their thoughts on this aspect of the game.
-
42 minutes ago, hyperion said:
Guess a bit of calculation is required to show the point.
Let's say the average distance for chicken to CC is 25 and ignore path finding and turn rate which make gather rate even less important for current gather rates, then currently cav has an efficiency EC5 = 20 / (2*25/15 + 20/5) = 2.72 and for inf EI1 = 10 / (2*25/10 +10/1) = 0.66.
Increase Gather rate for inf to 5, 50, and 100 it's
EI5 = 1.42
EI50 = 1.92
EI100 = 1.96
Ergo, distance to chickens is very relevant. Even with a gather rate of 1'000'000 the cav still beats the inf.
Distance is relevant, and the reason I said that the space between chickens and the Civic Centre is small is because on nine out of ten random map generations it is that case; the chickens are practically hugging the building. If we set the arbitrary distance number to two for soldiers at a gather rate of two, using roughly same equation logic, a single cavalry unit is roughly 2.58 times more efficient than a soldier, and is 1.86 if the gather rate is set to 3.
The point is not for cavalry to beat infantry or women in this case. Cavalry are more expensive than the other counterparts and lack flexibility, and in these short distances it would perhaps be a conceivable to put soldiers or women to work on chickens rather than cavalry. That said, your point is otherwise quite valid in that hunting would be practically meaningless outside of this context for non-cavalry units.
-
On 12/4/2021 at 7:40 AM, hyperion said:
Bringing gathering rate up to 1.5-2 probably wouldn't make it viable alternative to berries or cav hunting due the walking distance. Gather rates are very high compared to carry capacity in 0ad, which is fine, just if you look at efficiency it makes walk distance (and path-finding) incredibly important.
This is more an attempt to bring variety to the immediate early game, in which walking distance is not much of an issue due to the animals spawning close to the Civic Centre. It would do little to make hunting better in other cases.
-
One thing Nescio earlier on proposed that I particularly liked was giving a bonus to building structures like markets and temples within a certain radius of the Civic Centre. This would be a nice "soft" encourager for the player to migrate their farming economy to a different area.
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:
If that would happen, then people would put at least 3 of their citizens on chickens at the start and your eco would be skyrocketing for the first few minutes. Also if you scout can push the deer to the cc it would be a huge bonus making map gen way more decisive.
Fair objection. There could however be a marginal increase, bringing the value from 1 to 2 or even just 1.5 that would make the option of putting a few women or men to hunting viable but not optimal.
Blemmye Desert raider identical to javelin cav?
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
I don't really see the issue myself. Costs can always be adjusted to compensate for that.