Prodigal Son
-
Posts
518 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Posts posted by Prodigal Son
-
-
My tech-tree for a Scythian Civ for inspiration (I use it for a Warcraft 3 ancient RTS map, so a few things won't fit for 0 A.D. and some other can't be as detailed as I'd wish)
The Scythians field powerful cavalry and archers. They have the weakest and faster to build structures, which also can pack on horseback and redeploy.
UNITS INFANTRY- Scythian Axeman (swordsman alternative)
- Scythian Skirmisher (can hide during the night)
- Scythian Archer
- Scythian Bosphoran Hoplite (bonus versus cavalry, unlockable)
- Scythian Light Cavalry (cavalry skirmisher)
- Scythian Lancer (heavy cavalry)
- Scythian Cataphract (heavy cavalry, has command aura - champion unit)
- Scythian Horse Archer
- Scythian Villager
- Scythian Pack Horse
- Scythian Bosphoran Ballista (unlockable)
- Civ Center
- Trains: Scythian Villager, Scythian Pack Horse
- Techs: Town Phase (2 tiers, phase up), Loom (Villager, hit points), Steppe Hardiness (Organic units, regeneration, Scythians only), Urbanization (Structures, hit point and armor, disables the pack ability and allows the recruitment of hoplites and ballistas, Scythians only)
- Other: New ones can only be upgraded from colonies, which are only buildable on capturable settlements. Garrison Workers. Adds 100 population. Cannot move unlike other Scythian structures.
- Watch Tower
- Techs: Guard Tower (Watch Tower, enables attack/hit
points), Carrier Pigeons (tower, line of sight), Town Watch (2 tiers,
structure, line of sight) - Other: Detects hidden units.
- Techs: Guard Tower (Watch Tower, enables attack/hit
- Storehouse
- Techs: Improved Mining (3 tiers), Improved Lumber
Harvesting (3 tiers), Improved Construction (3 tiers), Handcart (2
tiers, Villager speed) - Other: Lumber dropsit
- Techs: Improved Mining (3 tiers), Improved Lumber
- Barracks
- Trains: Scythian Axeman, Scythian Skirmisher, Scythian Bosphoran Hoplite
- Techs: Defensive/Guerrilla/Offensive Core Infantry (choice tech)
- Archery Range
- Trains: Scythian Archer, Scythian Bosphoran Ballista
- Techs: Marksmanship (Archer damage), Fire Arrows
(Archer/Structure/Ship extra damage vs Structures/Ships/Siege),
Composite Bow (Archer, range)
- Forge
- Techs: Weapon Forging (3 tiers, melee damage), Missile Forging (3 tiers, ranged damage), Armorcrafting (3 tiers, heavyarmor), Leatherworking (3 tiers, light armor), Footwear (infantry speed)
- Market
- Techs: Coinage (periodic income per ally)
- Other: Exchange Resources
- Stables
- Trains: Scythian Horse Archer, Scythian Lancer, Scythian Light Cavalry, Scythian Catafract
- Techs: Envenomed Arrows (Horse Archer, damage over time, Scythians only), Full Scalemail (Cataphract, armor but reduced speed, Scythians only), Heavy/Swift Horses (choice tech, hit points or speed)
- No capturing or importing of horses needed to build Stables.
- Arrow firing units and structures have +200 range (under consideration, might keep this as a default bonus or give them the Composite Bow tech)
- Pack Horses build most of the structures and those structures can pack
back on horseback to be redeployed as any structure among those. - Packable Buildings have short build times (the pack horse trains slower
than villagers though balance it) but also have about 50% less hit
points. Packable Buildings are free (besides the pack horse cost) - No farms. 100 food supply provided with each Civ Center.
- Urbanization strengthens Scythian buildings and allows the training of some extra units, but disables the ability to pack back structures.
- Infantry: Weak. Average late game.
- Missile units: Strong. Most techs.
- Cavalry: Excellent. All troop types (besides Elephants), Many techs and easy access.
- Siege: Weak. Average late game.
- Economy: Above Average. Easy population management and fast-built redeployable structures.
- Structures: Weak. Almost average late game
- Navy: No special techs for hired ships. Extra range due to Composite Bows.
Format shamelessly stolen from the design document of the free indie RTS 0 A.D. Both for it's usefulness and as a chance to promote it.
-
In the current svn only One Hero Unit may be active at any time so classifying elephants as such is not viable.As most civs that used them used lots at once as a single elephant is just meat in any battle.
Enjoy the Choice
Talking about champion units, not heroes here:)
-
Could do as a simplified version, but I like my proposal more as both balancable and reflecting historical roosters and changes in them.
-
My most recent favorites:
New Boysetsfire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iclvmA_RWfw&list=PLarRXRdKB3_CFsHi9U-9IpCpYvQTh3JWV
Russ Rankin (Acoustic, here, he's the singer for Good Riddance)
No Use For A Name (been checking them since the singer passed away recently and many of my favorite musicians mentioned it)
I'm in a "soft music" mood compared to my average.
-
How about imposing quota on certain champion unit? So that we could solve the problem of having too much champion unit.
I think that's against the general direction the game has gone so far. If it turns out to be used, I've got several extra ideas that could enhance it.
-
I've made a moddb profile and started adding some info and screenshots.
Edit: Tech trees for the first four factions added.
-
Thanks for the interest:) The map being playable again is just a matter of a few hours work. It only comes down to when I'll have the will. Screenshots won't be really impressive since most unit models are like "closest possible" rather than historically accurate, but I can post some I guess. That reason is why I look for a WC3 skinner and/or modeler. A few small changes will improve the game visuals a lot.
-
Unfortunately, the Parthians never consider war elephant as the instrument of war because:
1. the cost to maintain an elephant corps was unbearable due to the Parthian poor financial management.
2. Logistics too proved to be a daunting task for the Parthians to maintain an elephant army since the Parthians was bad on logistics.
3. Speed was important for the Parthian army and war elephant didn't have speed thus making them useless on the battlefield.
In fact the a review from Amazon doubt the accuracy of the author's so called "facts" and "informations".
http://www.amazon.com/War-Elephants-John-M-Kistler/dp/0803260040
I wouldn't be so sure. Many sources we have are weak and many others are lost. I'm in noway claiming that they certainly used them, but since some sources say they were used for display of power and others that they were actually used in combat, it could be true and even be more common than that. You seem a little overly eager to act like an absolute expert on this which you don't seem to be (unless the language barrier doesn't let me see it someway). Also (3), that would prevent them from using infantry as well since it's slower than elephants (I know they mostly focused on cavalry, don't get me wrong). And a mixed review doesn't always mean much.
Anyway we're just making suggestions for a (possible) future addon, and the team will deside. And you probably know more on Parthians than me, I'm just saying don't eagerly take something for granted cause it seems this way, especially when there are some serious doubts.
Edit: I think the most valid point for including them, even if the sources don't prove common or even certain use, is gameplay. The Parthians will lack troop variety compared to most other factions.
Edit 2: The Europa Barbarorum team on RTW modding, known for their insanely good research, give the Parthians Elephants.
-
I can't speak of evidence, just a part of a book I found online. But, your argument doesn't mean much. Lack of availability and military reforms happened all the time. Epirus had war elephants only for a couple decades or so, yet they ended up as it's more iconic unit because the campaigns they were used in were well documented. If that Parthian campaign was as well documented, no doubt we'd be speaking a lot about parthian war elephants nowadays (provided that all this isn't made up or mistake by the author, which I doubt but can't be sure).
-
1
-
-
You seem to mix up fanatism and proselytism. An incentive to risk your life (like the promise of an afterlife) is fanatism, trying to convert everyone and eliminate other religions is proselytism.
I partly disagree, but let's not drag this off-topic:)
-
I feel like you would need to catch us in a lull. Artists around here are pretty busy at the moment, I know I only have limited amounts spare time in which to get anything around here done.
It does sound interesting though, care to post some more details?
Yeah when I saw your reply I was ready to say something like "I don't want to distract one of the major contributors from 0 AD to my project, I prefer to see 0 AD finished anyway, even if I see it selfishly it will allow for better ancient era mapmaking:)". So this mostly goes to people here familiar with Warcraft III but not contributing to 0AD, unless someone becomes totally interested in my project which I doubt.
The map has 8 planed Civs, some of which might change (each of them has several unique mechanics and bonuses, which I'm not describing now to avoid length).
Mostly done:
-Romans
-Celts
-Scythians
-Macedonians (which can become Antigonids, Seleucids or Ptolemaics with a city phase choice)
To be done:
-Carthaginians
-Spartans
-Athenians (might merge with the previous in Greeks or something)
-Persians (might become Pathians if I deside to settle for only hellenistic age)
-Other civs are considered as well
The core gameplay is mostly influenced by Age of Empires (and 0AD with paired techs and other details).
Some differences include:
-Soldiers rank up to rank 5 (each rank increases their evasion and critical strike chance)
-Towns are built on fixed settlements, somewhat Age of Mythology like
-There are 2 gatherable resources, Gold and Lumber (an annoying WCIII limmit)
-Most factions require to capture elephants or horses in the wild, or import them at the market in order to build stables.
-Similarly, herdables can be captured or trained at the farm. These increase the pop cap and are slightly cheaper than farms in doing so, but they will require some extra micro and protection.
-WCIII naval system is limmited, but I've come up with a working solution. You can capture "Greek Colonies" along the shore, train ships there and use them to capture fishing regions (which increase your pop cap) and sea trade routes, which grant gold income.
-At fixed locations across the map, randomized mercenary camps appear, changing the options available for each game. I'm also thinking to add structure "resources" as well at those slots, which will be required to be held in order to research top tier upgrades (like iron for top tier weaponforging).
There's much more, that's just some things on top of my head. I've posted many of the techs and other ideas I use in the technologies part of the forum as suggestions for 0AD.
-
1
-
-
I think just making them a little smaller would look nice and closer to the original. But it will look great without them as well, like a more detailed version of the age of mythology lighthouse:)
-
I'm little by little making an ancient themed RTS on the Warcraft 3 world editor. While I like strategy game design and how it turns out, WC3 is fantasy themed and lacking modeling/skinning skills reduces my enthousiasm (and I turn out to focus mostly on my other hobbies, like writting punk rock music). The gameplay and faction design is mostly done, it was actually playable with 4 factions and AI until I broke many things to alter the core gameplay.
Is anyone here familiar with WC3 modding and willing to help or make it as a team? I'd mostly need minor model/skin edits, but anything from triggering/terraining better than mine to just advice or playtesting is welcome. I'm also using 0 A.D. icons on it (I hope it's ok since it's freeware) to give more of an ancient era feel and plan to advertise 0 A.D. within the map and on the hosting forums.
If someone is interested I'll post more details.
-
I've actually found a reference (War Elephants, By John M. Kistler) to 20 Pathian War Elephants being used against the Seleucids in 130bc, so maybe they could have them as well.
-
Achaemenid Persian never used war elephants until the Battle of Gaugamela but it didn't win the battle for the Persians thus making it a white elephant although they are useful in 0 AD, and horse archery wasn't that popular in Persia before Parthian Empire.
About elephants, I've read that there are claims they were used in other campaigns as well but some doubt it. Anyway I'm not suggesting to have them as a main champion unit, but as a tech-unlocked one if this idea gets accepted.
About horse archers, sure they were not used as much as by parthians or steppe nomads but they certainly had them. Both in as local troops and as nearby/vassal nomads that they often used in battles. So I believe they could be an unlockable unit as well.
I still might be wrong with this or other of my points, I just like this idea a lot and would love to see it in game. Some of those units were core army parts for their factions for sure anyway.
Edit (thought of how it could work in more detail, added to the bottom of the OP as well):
It could work like, each civ has 2 champion units by default (or more for factions having some civ bonus on this).
Those would be the most commonly used or better gameplay serving ones, mixing best with the rest of each civs unit line up.
Then with reform techs new ones would replace some of the default champion units (or even some citizen-soldiers in some cases for a bigger cost). Other techs would unlock extra champion units for some civs instead of replacing old ones, when it fits historical accuracy or gameplay. This should generally cost more than reform techs as it would broaden the available unit rooster.
The number of extra units granted this way and the cost of the reform/unlock techs could besides following historical accuracy depend on late game faction strenght. So say the Gauls prove weaker in late game, they could have cheaper reform/unlock techs or more extra champions than other factions.
-
I think they're planed for Seleucids and Ptolemaics. The Persians could also have them as they used them, at least against the Lydians and some part II civs could have them as well.
-
Yes, LOL. Welcome to the forums and thanks for your suggestions so far
Btw, for the icons, I think it's ok, but if you derive something from those icons, you also need to make it available under the same license. I guess attribution is ok when you want to advertise the game.
Thanks:)
The icons are just used for a non-comercial map in Warcraft III. Like an atlas scenario, only in Warcraft you can include imported files in maps.
-
The Nazis alone used lots of symbols, like the eagle. Next to that, you have the multitude of symbols used by other fascist movements. I don't think we should, or even could ban them all from the game. Most of those symbols have a classic meaning, which is very different from the fascist meaning. As we're a game about the ancient times, it's clear we want to stress the ancient meaning.
I know, that's why I said it's just a suggestion that's coming from personal preference. Never said it's intended to be used the modern way. Anyway I guess I shouldn't have mentioned it, at least in this topic, it totally distracts from the rest of my post.
-
Maybe you can think that 0 a.d helps to kick the fascist meaning of the celtic cross, like the swastika from mauryans.
I think it's kinda different with it being the main game logo, but anyway, don't wanna make a big deal out of it, just a suggestion:)
-
Hey and welcome! I think it's great overall but you should sacrifice some length (and maybe make the front part a little smaller overall) to make it better fitting in game.
-
Some nice ideas there. We can definitely pick and choose some of them. I'll paste the ones here that I find the most interesting or useful with some comments:
A "(Promise of) Afterlife" tech at temple could simularly slightly increase the attack damage or attack rate of organic units. (Maybe call this "Fanaticism.") (Could do so, though I think afterlife was and is more common across all religions and their followers than fanatism - which isn't rare either but I have the impression that ancient pagans were less fanatic and more religiously tolerant than dark age and medieval monotheists)
A Faith tech at temple to increase Priest hit points. (Would maybe need a more interesting name.) (Could do so, Faith could still represent some faithful priests who suffered for their beliefs, or suffered as a result of trying to preach the beliefs)
A Coinage tech could give an amount of metal per ally in game each X seconds. (Would this need triggers to be implemented first?) (Might not need "triggers" per se, because it could be coded however we need to. I like the idea of a tech that benefits your allies rather than yourself. Makes alliances and teamwork more interesting.) (Nice, something like you research it and your allies get the bonus and vice versa?)
A Fire Arrows tech to make archers, ships, and structures more effective against structures, ships, siege and war elephants. (Would require implementation of actor switching for techs, plus implementing a tech effect for altering or adding bonuses, but otherwise this would be a cool tech. This is similar to the "Burning Pitch" tech we want to give to the Iberian javelin units.) (Would be nice to implement and include elephants as well unlike other RTS since fiery things should be one of the best counters to them)
A "Footwear/Boots/Sandals" tech to increase infantry speed.
A Gladius tech to increase Roman Swordmen attack or slightly reduce their attack while increasing their attack rate. ("Gladius" for Roman swordsmen, "Falcata" for Iberian swordsmen.) (Nice!)
A Heavy Horses (Mounts) vs Swift (Fast) Horses tech pair to grant cavalry hit points or speed accordingly. (Maybe an extra Cavalry tech for Persians and Macedonians.) (Nice, or you could check which civs had access to various horse breeds)
An "Import Elephants" tech that allows factions who occasionally used War Elephants an extra champion unit without breaking balance. See here for more related ideas. (Could be a one-time purchase of elephants for all civs? See the Seleucid tech "Epigamia.") (I think the one time purchise goes too much the AOEIII way which wasn't very successful. Plays too much with mostly random timing for something that could change balance drasticly either way. Also not all civs used Elephants. I'd love you to check my link here, I think it contains the most interesting proposals I've posted.)
A Linothorax tech that makes hoplites slightly faster and slightly more ressistant to missiles. (Already included for Alpha 15 as a blacksmith tech, though it's just a hack armor buff.) (Nice, I think i remember reading somewhere that the main advantage of the Linothorax was vs missile though, while reducing weight and remaining about as effective vs other attacks.)
A "Logistics" tech that makes Roman infantry cost half population. Or reduces their training time. (I like the pop effect, dunno if feasible.)
(It should be easy to implement, and round it up or down with odd numbers. Unless you mean it breaks balance which could be a problem. But it think there should be a way to reflect the biggest strenght of the Romans, manpower and quick replace of loses. Maybe some reduced traintime as tech or by default for hastati/trairii/veles?)
A "Loom" tech that increases female villager hit points. (Agreed. Will add soon to the House.) (Nice!)
A Marksmanship tech to increase the attack damage or attack rate of archers. (Seems better as an accuracy tech, which is possible to implement! Maybe for just Persians and Mauryans, or a tech for all civs that improves accuracy for all ranged units.) (Nice!)
A Medicine tech to increase/add hit point regenaration of human units (all minus celts). Will we have regeneration? (Yeah, I think something like this can "unlock" health regeneration for organic units.) (Nice!)
A "Herbal Lore" tech that increases druid healing (celts)
An "Advanced Blacksmithing" tech to increase Celtic melee unit attack on village phase. (Alternately, this Celtic tech could reduce the cost of all other Blacksmith techs, or be a "bonus" that moves the Blacksmith building from Town to Village phase for the Celtic civs only.) (Nice! any of those sounds great)
A "Crossbreeding" tech to increase war dog hit points and/or attack (Agreed. Will need some kind of tech tree specifically for the war dogs. I was thinking of doing something where the player chooses to "unlock" one breed over another: Mastiffs or Wolfhounds, each with its own stats and uses.) (Nice! check my dog idea a few posts up though I don't think it's THAT historical)
A "Trimarcisia" tech to increase/add hit point regeneration of Gallic Champion Cavalry. (Just looked this up, sounds pretty good for a tech) (Nice!)
Extra Italics are my comments on Mytho's comments.
-
Some nice ideas there. We can definitely pick and choose some of them.
For Part 2, we could have a bonus or tech for Parthians and Huns called "Parthian Shot" (or we can be cheeky and call it "Parting Shot") where their horse archers gain the ability to fire on enemy units even when retreating. Would probably require the implementation of a "turret" feature (the top part of the rider actor is its own model or actor prop that can rotate toward its target, like a tank "turret").
Nice, glad some of them might prove useful:) Do you want me to post the part II specific ones as well?
Edit: Since I made the post anyway, here they are:
Citizenship: some kind of buff for roman auxiliary troops or turning them into legionares
Envenomed missiles: Scythian horse archer also deal a small damage over time (or increases their attack)
Full Scalemale: Increases Scythian (or other as well) Catafract armor
Lorica Segmentata: Increases the missile protection of legionares
Testudo formation: Unlocks it for extra missile protection while in this formation.
Steppe Hardiness: Increases the hit point regeneration of Scythian/Hun organic units
Scythian (and/or Hun) Civ Bonus: Buildings besides civ centers cost no resources. They are build from pack horses or carts (which can also double as resource drop-points), an extra "worker" unit. Those have a fixed cost and can transform into buildings. Buildings can pack back into a pack horse/cart like siege weapons, and can be redeployed/rebuilt into any other building since it's essential a just a tent.
Scythian (and/or Hun) Civ Bonus 2: each phase up grants 2(?) pack horses/carts at the researching civ center.
Urbanisation: Increases Scythian building hitpoints and grants them access to some greek (bosphoran units). It disables the ability to pack buildings back into horses.
And some ones I didn't post for part I since they are somewhat simular to existing techs but they could be used this way (each one disables the rest):
Offensive Core Infantry: Increases the attack damage or attack rate of swordsmen.
Defensive Core Infantry: Increases the hit points or armor of spearmen.
Pike Core Infantry: Increases the movement speed of pikemen.
Guerrilla Core Infantry: Increases the attack damage or attack rate and movement speed of skirmishers.
I'm also using celtic war dogs as cheap/weak age I zergling-like units trained from the farm/house for rushes, which is fun and gives a new mechanic to the celts but I guess is ahistorical.
-
That would be my preference, but we must first get real formations implemented. Though, I don't think counter-bonuses will go away completely, just be less important.
About some of the specific examples brought up by Prod... There have been examples in history of swordsmen being used to hamstring elephants. There have also been examples of archers mowing down cavalry, so we've shown this by giving them a bonus vs. cav spearmen, but still keeping them vulnerable to cav swordsmen--a trade off. Historically archers and cavalry archers were used well against swordsmen (see: Crassus). Archers weren't very effective against heavily armored spearmen though (see: The Greco-Persian Wars). I would agree that we could give more nuance to this instead of blanket bonuses. There is some nuance there already (swordsmen are really only good vs. elephants when paired with ranged support), but perhaps not enough. It'll all get shaken up once we have proper formation support.
I'm not trying to put presure on anything, just suggesting things, knowing there's still much to change.
On your examples, I'm aware of most of them but I believe they are rather speciffic situations instead of combat rules:
- Swordsmen could hamstring elephants with heavy casualties if they were well drilled and brave. Imagine an equally brave and drilled pikewall though. It would butcher the beasts much more easily, if they dared to charge it.
- Archers could kill some cavalry at range and generally get butchered at the first contact. I get what you did there, and as I said it's ok, balance comes first and I'll love the game anyway. Maybe though Spear Cavalry could beat archers as well, as it should be no different than Sword Cavalry in this aspect, and Skirmisher Cavalry get beat by archers instead, representing that it generally didn't charge, so at range archers have the advantage of extra range, stability and a bigger target.
- Archers should be the kinda the same vs swordsmen and spearmen, again I find the examples situational. Sword or spear doesn't change armor/shield, and the change in mobility and melee attack vs a mostly defenseless at close range target should be minor.
-
I'm not entirely sure about the formation system and how it will turn out. So far all the best RTS games I've played use single unit combat, with unrealistic but balanced unit counters, kinda like 0 AD is now. It could turn out well though if worked correctly. I think I've seen it suggested before, maybe a Total War like combat system would fit better with formation combat.
Or there's the other way, of soft counters and unit roles instead of fixed hard counters. Warcraft-esque style. The article I've linked above has an interesting part about this.
The most easy solution overall would be just keeping the Age Of Empires style hard counters that are now in the game while trying to make them as realistic as possible without breaking balance.
===[COMMITTED]=== Mauryan War Elephant (and hero elephant)
in Completed Art Tasks
Posted
They keep getting better and better:) The only thing I don't love about them is the metal texture on the armored one. Might have nothing to do with it's quality, just overall seems a tiny bit off with most of the game graphics (just as the Persian Ram - just had a flash about it). Maybe the way it flows unnaturally as the elephant moves adds to it as well. A chain/scale mail would look more natural, no clue on if it was used on Mauryan elephants though.
On another, not important at all, note, maybe the armored ones could be slightly bigger? It would make sense to me if they chose the bigger/stronger animals to carry the extra weight.