Prodigal Son

I wouldn't blame the removal of citizen soldiers if DE is hard to balance (which seems to be the case since it tries to add way too much imo). Single units and battalions/groups tend to favor different styles of micro, deppending to the rest of game mechanics as well. They were probably added for historical accuracy and to differentiate early 0 A.D. from AOK. But even taking historical accuracy into account, not every male citizen, non-citizen (person with reduced rights, such as immigrants) or slave was a soldier in war times. In fact a minority in most cases. The classic RTS way of recruitment can be argued to be equally or more historical, representing the ones who went for training or picking up arms in the barracks as soldiers, while the rest as workers.

I think the main issues with citizen soldiers are: A workforce that can fight raiders on equal terms. Severely messes the risk-reward balance between booming and rushing. The attacker losing resources while the defender still gathers for a while until the attack arives, discouraging rushing. Different movement speeds and costs among citizen soldiers favoring some classes as workers, some civs for their roosters. A nightmare to properly balance with 12 civs and several unit classes. Possible solutions: Remove citizen soldiers. Easiest fix. Just one melee citizen soldier per civ (spearman?) representing the citizen levy. Uniformity across civs and relatively balanceable, while not neccesarily fixing all issues. Just one melee citizen soldier for one civ to make it unique while not completely discarding the mechanic. Might lead to some civ balance issues, while not neccesarily fixing all issues. Some factions with citizen soldiers, some without as you suggested. I'd still propose just one per civ. Might lead to some civ balance issues, while not neccesarily fixing all issues. On the last three solutions we could play with the stats and cost of citizen soldiers to trying and find a happy medium between attackers and defenders in the early game. Also another thing that matters is what unit classes the rushing player will have available in the early game to deal with the citizen defence.

I more or less agree that those are good possibilities, but since my first example went to the extreme with battalion combat, I'd prefer the opposite direction for it's economy. In an intermediate gameplay what you proposed or similar ideas could apply. Yeah I don't like the current concept of citizen soldiers at all from a gameplay perspective. It messes badly with economy and raiding mechanics. Perhaps having just one class of weak citizen soldiers per civ or just for one civ as a unique mechanic (say the hoplite levy of Athens) could work in order not to discard it. Something in between. I've been playing strategy games for about 15 years (as a relatively good but lazy player almost always avoiding hotkeys and fixed build orders), modding several of them and reading on game design for several years now. I'm also a history nerd (especially ancient era) since my pre-school years.

True, but that is normal, not every idea can get it's way in because of work needed, incompatibility with other incorporated ideas or distaste by influential people. However, a minority of proposed, previously unplanned ideas have made it into the game and to my knowledge others like advanced combat/formations are still considered. A purpose of this thread is to understand where the gameplay could be heading and maybe influence it in meaningful games. I guess I could just ask team members in private, but I doubt that I would get the same answear from everyone, or that each of them is sure about it. Worst case, even if this discussion is a waste of time towards it's goals, it has some value in understanding parts of gameplay design. @Servo @stanislas69 A poll like that would need to be extremely detailed and well writen and even then I doubt every participant would have the knowledge or the will to evaluate the effects of each option. I'd say that actually none of us can 100%. Picking what we like in each game (as a majority or as individuals) and throwing it together would end up in a messy game. It could have the value of knowing which features are most desired by those who happened to participate, which could have some limited use though.

True and there's many people who prefered the older combat system from some alpha's ago. It's impossible to please everyone, hard to guess what path would have been more popular in the end, and popularity doesn't mean "betterness" anyway.. it can be shaped into people's minds by conditioning (familiarity, promotion/brainwash, WOW! factor etc). That said any gameplay style can be done right and functionality/quality can find a numerous player base for the game no matter which style is chosen. It's free, good and authentic looking, mod-friendly, waiting to be fleshed out. The coding side is what makes me lean towards simplicity without expecting radical additions, even possibly cutting some of the unready features and shapping the game accordingly. But in the end the programmers and decision makers could surprise us adding even more than "promised", which has happened already, with mixed effects so far. By mixed effects I mean that adding extras pushed for adding more and more, generated discussions on adding even more, to make a more complex and unique game, while delaying production and causing indecision. Agreed. More choices, complexity, impressiveness and realism are good as long as they have a meaningful focus and don't become overwhealming to the player and hard to balance. I think we could go on adding examples forever, as releases mostly show us that successful games stroke the right balance and recklessly ambitious games failed or ended up being released incomplete and more or less failed. I think where AOE DE seems to have failed is in being yet another buggy official release (becoming the "industry standard" these days...). It never promised more than new graphics and slightly more modern controls as far as I know. It also has some ridiculously high requirements for what it is, so I guess terrible optimization. On the Stronghold thing, indeed it has very detailed economy and city building, but it's combat system is even simpler than AOE's.

It was more of my way of saying "hey, I don't ignore you" to some people or parts of what they say and an encouragement to stay on topic rather than a call for radical action:) To clarify a bit on my views on battalion/formation vs single unit combat since this seems to be a key point of the discussion for many people. Battalions could be added, but that means much extra codding work, especially if their they are not meant to be a simplistic "one unit, many actors" entity. Imo they fit well with a more complex approach with morale and/or stamina, running/charging, directional bonuses etc. But that would make the combat more complex so it fits with a simpler economy. Several people argue that you would actually control less units. It's true but those units would need far more babysiting to be effective (while single units with a basic "stats" combat system are relatively effective even left on their own). See again my previous example, try playing an Age Of Kings economy and a Total War battle (say just 20 units instead of 100 or 200) at the same time. An intermediate balance between combat and economy, adding features to one while removing features from the other is an option, but not necessarily better until tested (and ofc subject to personal preferance to a large degree). What would be boring in the end, imo is having squads that just work as simple, single units without realistic combat tactics, because we needed to tunedown the combat too much to fit current economy, or we couldn't get enough code in. I hated this approach in several games (rise of nations, rise and fall: civilzations at war and to a degree cossacks among others) and found it far inferior to single units. If a fully functioning squad system is possible, while striking a right balance with the economy, I'm all for it.

As I've said in a prior post working on the mod is not a priority for me at this point. This can change with my mood, especially if the game reaches a more stable phase. That said, I'm not trying to turn the game into my mod, which anyway doesn't have a concluded gameplay core for a while now. Instead I'm saying that the team should conclude on something cohesive and doable, be it ispired by some of my various (and conflicling) ideas or not (see this tread). I remember the game being at this point in discussion forever and up to now, so I don't think I should be singled out by anyone as making unwanted noise. Besides that, ideas and brainstorming by anyone should be welcome. The current playerbase is indeed another factor to take into account, but the end goal shouldn't be just clinging to their (varied, anyway) demands. Forthermore, I've seen several specific ideas worth discussing in the comments, but I'll refrain from doing it as this wasn't the point of this thread.

Introduction Realising that confusion on where the gameplay is/should be heading is still going on and inspired by discussion in this thread, I've got a number of different proposals for the game. They are based mostly on old ideas (not necessarily mine), while writen mostly on memory and would have improvements, extra details and better presentation had I used my notes. However I'll try to be as objective as I can about them and explain their pros and cons in hopes that they might inspire something. They also include related games that you might like if you like each Idea or regardless. 1. "4x/Grand Strategy with Tactical/Battalion Combat System" Features: Battalion/Positional Combat (flanking etc) Battalion-only Recruitment Battalion Leveling & Customization Running/Charging, Morale and/or Stamina, Unit Abilities? Demoralized/Depopulated units (battalions) will flee to a friendly town (or territory) to replentish unless destroyed/rallied Towns are single, customizable/upgradable entities, (could be consisting of additional current building models under a single entity as they upgrade?) Towns have their own manpower pools and tech levels Towns and capturable resources/structures autogenerate income (or grant bonuses), possibly only if occupied by worker "battalions", including captured enemies (slaves) Lootable trade routes between cities and ports. Supply lines? Focus on real world maps? Pros: Not overdone, much room for innovation Easy to assign unit roles even without counters Easy to represent large armies Fits great with territory and capturing concepts Easier to design campaigns and sandbox historical scenarios Religion/Culture/Politics could fit in well as techs, choice pairs, auras etc Easier and fitting to introduce new civs Cons: A quite a lot of work thrown away, and extra work needed Limited/no citybuilding More prone to snowballing due to capturing Hard to balance a competitive multiplayer game in this style Similar Games: Hegemony Series (Philip of Macedon/Gold/Rome e.t.c.) Partly Similar Games: Paradox Games (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Stellaris e.t.c), Rise Of Nations / Empire Earth, Total War Series , Spartan / Gates Of Troy 2. "Age Of Empires Clone" Features: Familiar Age Of Kings based gameplay No citizen soldiers, capturing, leveling, territories, heroes Mostly shared unit classes among civs Universal upgrades Focus on Random Maps Mostly Hard Counters Pros: Tested formula and desired by many who want the new AOE Kinda easy to balance Relatively little extra work needed in art and coding Scouting is valuable and replayability high due to random maps Cons: Some work thrown away Very little innovation Similar Games: AOE Series, Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds 3. "Starcraft A.D." Features: Familiar RTS gameplay, somewhat more modern and fast paced than AOE No citizen soldiers, capturing, leveling, territories, heroes Structure Requirements instead of Ages/Phases, Local Structure Upgrades Unique roosters for each civ Focus on Skirmish Maps Mix of Soft and Hard Counters Pros: Tested formula, ideal for competitive if done right Relatively little more work needed in art and coding Unique unit roosters Scouting is valuable due to largely visible tech Balanced Skirmish Maps Cons: Hard to balance and diversify unit roosters due to similarities among historical troops and the number of civs Some work thrown away Not much innovation Similar Games: Starcraft, Armies Of Exigo Partly Similar Games: Warcraft Series 3.5. "2 & 3 Mixed With Possible Extras" Features: Familiar RTS gameplay No universal citizen soldiers, capturing, leveling, (heroes/territories?) Structure Requirements instead of Ages/Phases, Local Structure (and some local tech?) Upgrades Partly unique roosters for each faction OR "unique feature": Customizable units (chose weapons & armor with preset stats bonuses and cost for each of your unit classes in game) "Unique Civ features" : A civ could upgrade/level units through combat (Romans?), another have a limited form of citizen soldiers (Athenians?), another units that toggle between melee and ranged weapons (Persians?) another have (some) soldiers that can build e.t.c. Focus on Random Maps Mix of Soft and Hard Counters Pros: Partly tested formula Relatively little more work needed in art and coding Scouting is very valuable due to largely visible tech and random maps. High replayability. Cons: Could be a bit hard to balance A little work thrown away Not too much innovation Similar Games: Empires Apart, Ancient Wars Sparta / Fate Of Hellas Conclusion While I know that none of the ideas above is reinventing the genre, I consider them doable and cohesive enough and I think the game needs something along those lines to reach a complete stage at some point in the not-so-distant future. It might be still on alpha, but how many more alphas will there be? I guess 4 to finish the latin alphabet, or even just 1 to complete it's classical form? Going to Beta usually means a feature-complete game lacking only polish. By going overly-ambitious while changing goals frequentily along the way things get messed up. This should be especially understood by an everchanging team of unpaid volunteers if they are to deliver something good, which would be quite an achievement and is still possible. I'll try to rank my proposed ideas in two ways. If going by innovation (and risk) as the desired factor, I'd suggest them in order 1>3.5>3>2. If going by practicality I'd likely say the opposite, though I'm not sure on how to rank 3.5 and 3 in this case. Imo the last 3 could easily trade specific features with each other but not with the first one. Anyway... eveyrone is free to steal from the above for whatever use, also discuss, challenge, add your own.

That's very subjective, but we could try. For it to make sense I'd to take into account at least: What is ready to be used as of art/code What is not working as intended from the above What is easy to fix/add, or at least is probably doable in the relatively short term How we want the game to play in a broad, then somewhat specific way What details fit in the above vision while doable within given time/personel (or art/code) constraints How much/which work could be thrown out by any radical change and are we ok with such actions To what degree we will try to be objective, bypassing our confused egos, those of others and whatever "popular consensus", in trying to make it the best we can within the above limits That's all I can think for now.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone Well my point for bringing up WC3 was what you left out of the quote (that it handles it's coding weaknesses in a smart way). A battalion system can be handled in many different ways, but unless it's very simplistic, imo , it's incompatible with current economy. Anyway I could say much for and against the rest of your proposals, but let's not turn this into another "which gameplay details are best" thread, while it's overdone and we don't even have the foundation laid down. @stanislas69 I think we a agree on a lot but also disagree on a lot. Plus judging from me (but I'll risk to say it affects both of us nowadays), we'd have the problem of who will handle the tedious parts.

Well after about 3 years of almost complete inactivity here, I was expecting to find more focus towards the most important part, a clear gameplay goal. Still I'm not losing all hope for the game and I'm not in the mood to restart working on the mod.

I'll expand a little on my way of thinking around this. Also if what stan said holds true and the team is lacking in this field, I'm open to discussion on how I could help. While working on my (now stagnated) mod and other projects and reading more history/playing more strategy games, (from Classic RTS to Field of Glory II, Hegemony, Civ, Stelaris, CK2...) for enjoyment and/or scanning them for ideas, I've come across some issues. What to aim for, what to keep and what to discard? The more ideas I come across, the more I want to steal, edit, fit with other or draw inspiration from. To me it's a natural process of opening your mind on whatever subject, becoming curious and interested, ovewealmed and confused at the same time. If you are to deliver a complete (or anything close to that) creation, you need to focus on something. Avoid a good portion of the possible ways in order to go somewhere. While the eternal search is far more fascinating and honest, and I mostly tend to go that way in real life at the cost of many things, it's not a very functional habbit for game design. Especially when you don't have one contributor but many, causing the confusion to skyrocket. I've mostly used two extreme opposites as suggestions on where to lead 0 A.D. gameplay. RTS formula vs a mix of enhanced tactics and grand strategy*. I'm in noway claiming to understand the entire range of possibilities, nor that any kind of intermediate gameplay would be undesirable. But reading opinions, from years ago to today, by both team and community members, it often comes across as many people influence the games curse towards a mix of AOK economy (almost cloned to be the current one in game) and Total War style combat. Try fighting a total war battle while managing an age of kings base (while having the two linked for reinforcements, but that's not possible). Even if you can with great personal success and pleasure, would you suggest that the average player should have to cope with it? If we want more tactical combat, we need to simplify the economy accordingly (not neccessarily a bad idea, given it could solve issues with hunting, tree placement etc). Or let's stick with Classic gameplay and skip devoting a lot of work on implementing extra combat mechanics (or being scared of having to, among other colossal tasks). Or find a happy medium, but decide on something:). On the scale and game pace thing, do we really need to have quantity over performance and gameplay quality? WC 3 is one of the most successful games of the genre. It uses 100 pop (in practice more like 30-40 since units cost pop accordingly to their power). The same game even after years of professional polish will lag badly on custom scenarios with hundreds of units. But the core game, supporting what it can, runs fine. I'm not saying lets go for 30 or 100 max units per player. It might be too immersion breaking. But we could have less than 300, at least until performance is greatly improved. Also, high unit speed and huge vision break immersion and make scouting too easy, while incohesive actors for simular units/structures make bits of the game confusing/unappealing (I'm all for realism where it fits, but for example we don't need 5 different cloth colors for the same unit type messing with teamcolor). *Tactics as increased battlefield focus. Grand Strategy as focus on the great scene of things, say empire building, culture, politics, etc.

I've played previous versions of DE and like many ideas there. I probably would like many of the new ones as well, if/when I check it again (which I can't from my current computer). However my whole point isn't to dictate what's best as a whole or as isolated elements. I'm not even sure what I'd prefer and I do like a good number of styles and strategy games. What I propose in short is that the team or whoever is currently in charge of the gameplay developement should finally decide on a solid basis and work around what fits it.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone Bait for what? Are you implying I'm trying to start a flame war or something else I can't get, while at the same time liking the post and pm-ing me your mod's link as an answer to the gameplay question? I am failing to get your point or was my point that confusing?

Reading various topics and comments after quite a long absence I got the impression that the gameplay, or at least people discussing it, still has/have little clue on where it's heading, while not strangely, as preferences vary, people often have radically different visions on where it should head. Please correct and update me where I'm wrong, since I'm sure I can't/didn't catch up with everything. What I'll (more or less) repeat is that you can't have everything fit in the same gameplay type and that no idea is universally great without context. At some point, preferably sooner rather than later, it would be nice to make bold choices on which should be the core features and then build the rest of the game around them. I'll go on with a few such possible choices. They are not meant to be taken at face value and kickstart the glorious "I want this in/I want this out" thing. I've also been very guilty of it in the past and will probably be again in the future, but this thread is started with the intent to have myself informed on the current state of gameplay development and see if I can contribute with my general point or in more specific ways. A major choice that would be better if addressed before continuing to debate on which features to throw in or out, is if we want a classic/oldschool RTS or something different, like increased focus on tactics and/or political/cultural simulation (in gameplay terms, not just visuals). In the first case we could have an awesome AOE clone, or something slightly more "modern" without phases and with structures as tech requirements or (insert whatever suitable). But loading it with much more than what "successful" RTS do, say, total war-ish battles, on top of the classic formula and the number of current additions, is a bad idea that won't work , due to an overwhelming mix of economic and tactical micro. In the second case, we could enhance combat, largely or fully automate the economy, add special function techs/policies, customizable cities... e.t.c. and have our fully real time total war or 4x/grand strategy game. I'd love to have all styles in one, and each separately, and various intermediates, and something really great and innovative that I can't personally imagine. But it can't happen all in one. Let's give the core game a cohesive focus and leave the rest to mods. Which in turn would multiply and give enjoyment for various tastes, being made for a successful free game, nomatter it's "genre" (if we ever reach that state with the real world in a healthy shape, but that's another story:p). Another thing to consider might be dumbing down the scale. Reducing unit speeds, line of sight, population cap - maybe even reducing map sizes, streamlining the forrests for better pathing. Better have less scale than (often major) lag "until fixed" which goes on for years and has repulsed who knows how many people. A classic RTS can work fine with 200 or even 100 pop. The game could be designed around that. If desire on having a grander scale is dominant or arises strong in the future while the code has improved, or if battalion combat ends up a core feature, so be it. Balance is really far from being acceptable anyway (in part due to the lack of a clear gameplay vision) and readjusting stats for the years to come should be taken for granted. For now or for good I can see this scaling down as a blessing to the game. Finally I'd like to add a couple of things on visual cohesion (while expressing joy for the new art assets I just saw, especially the new ranges, stables etc). Structure numbers and unit numbers (along with variants) are getting increasingly high, with differences often hard to spot at a distance or by people not really familiar with every game imagery, both things bad for gameplay. It would be nice to have actors of the same class easily recognizable as what they are by shape, size etc. I won't go as far as suggesting redesigns, which would be a crazy amount of work, but starting with whatever is new from now on would be something. But I will go as far as suggesting reduced actor/prop variants of a unit for example, when the shape or color uniformity breaks too much. I'll stop here to avoid missing the point, adding that if i sound harsh at bits I don't mean to degrade anyone, on the contrary the work done so far is great, it's only missing some extra focus.

To get a little more specific on my current thoughts about the mod, I am considering 3 gameplay variations and I need to settle on one if I am to resume work on the files at some point: 1) Make this into a more or less Age Of Empires II clone set in the ancient era. It should be the easiest time and balance wise and I still love the oldschool gameplay. 2) Grand strategy style. Should include the return of capturing, no workers (but auto-gathering from captured structures instead), historical maps/scenarios, strategic resources, a very basic structure tree but a detailed tech/policy tree and loads more. Could make use of many 0 A.D. features I don't consider really fitting in classic RTS gameplay, have more realism and possibly fun, but it would be a lot of work and very hard to balance for multiplayer. 3) Continue from the point I left it at. Think AOE with a blizzard RTS twist, as of structure requirements instead of "ages/phases" and an intermediate state of faction rooster uniqueness. Or 0 A.D. with more clear (but not very hard) counters and without citizen soldiers, frantic unit speeds and capturing. Not sure how helpful it is, but you can see a generic tech tree I use as the base for civ design in this case.

I will most likely return to continue the mod when I can spare the time and motivation. For now it's somewhere between low priority and occasional heavy brainstorming on gameplay choices (and on if I should work on this first or other projects).

Indeed, in many aspects of the mod that's the goal and it feels easier to balance civs this way.

History: The Britons were the Celtic tribes of the British Isles. Using chariots, longswordsmen and powerful melee soldiers, they staged fearesome revolts against Rome to protect their customs and interests. Also, they built thousands of unique structures such as hill forts, crannogs and brochs. Gameplay: The Britons are great at scouting and early food gathering, an advantage which can get used either to rush the opponent or get ahead in numbers or technological level. Their military is rather weak, with the exceptions of swordsmen and chariots, but all of their infantry units can become very easy to mass. Their navies and siege weapons lack variety, while their structures are some of the weakest in the late game. A notable exception to this are their forts which are very cost effective allowing them to guard several key locations and rapidly gather numbers of their Celtic Chariot, which is an excellent ranged support and hit and run unit. Civilization Bonuses: - Dog Scout, better scout but weaker in combat (briton dogs). - Villagers +50% meat gathering rate, requires a Farmstead (hunting/herding bonus). - Fortresses -20% cost (numerous hill forts in Britain). - Structures -20% build time and hit points (wooden construction). - Team Bonus: Cargo Ships +50% hit points (Atlantic trade). Unique Units: - Celtic Chariot (Chariot Skirmisher). Unique Technologies: - Boudicca's Levy (Infantry -40% train time). - Swift Chariots (Celtic Chariots +10% speed, -10% attack rate). - Woad Raiders (Melee infantry +1 crush attack). Unique Structures: - Rotary Mill (Farming Aura: Villagers +20% farming rate.). Units:

History: The Gauls were the Celtic tribes of continental Europe. Dominated by a priestly class of Druids, they featured a sophisticated culture of advanced metalworking, agriculture, trade and even road engineering. With heavy infantry and cavalry, Gallic warriors valiantly resisted Caesar's campaign of conquest and Rome's authoritarian rule. Gameplay: The Gauls focus on massing melee units which get much stronger as the game progresses. While they mostly use weak, cheap spearmen early on, their swordsmen are quite capable and their Unique Units can be unlocked for mass production at the Barracks and Stables. Their cavalry is generally strong and great for hit and run tactics, but their ranged units, siege weapons and navy relatively weak. Their structures are weak as well but are fast built and get a lot of utility through upgrades. They also get some of the best healers, with potentially great hit points and a good economy. Civilization Bonuses: - Melee Infantry +10% speed (furor celtica). - A Sheep added to starting units (farming/herding bonus). - Healers +10% hit points for each temple technology researched (druids). - Structures -20% build time and hit points (wooden construction). - Team Bonus: Unique Units, Mercenaries -10% train time (frequent service of Gauls as bodyguards and mercenaries). Unique Units: - Solduros (Assault swordsman, x1.5 vs structures). - Brihent (Heavy Cavalry). Unique Technologies: - Late Armies (Solduros can be trained at the barracks, Brihent at the Stables). - Great Migration (Structures -30% build time, no territory restrictions). - Gallic Wall (Walls and Fortresses +3 all armor levels). - Trimarchisia (Cavalry units +0.9 hit point regeneration per second). Unique Structures: - Rotary Mill (Farming Aura: Villagers +20% farming rate.). Units:

It's been a quite a while, but the mod is compatible with SVN once more, including many changes and additions:)

I tried re-implementing them and while they are indeed a little buggy, they do not seem that game-breaking.

Thanks, it works:) Btw are formations currently bugged or disabled to ease the new pathfinder?

Looks like it's something else as well (I think it was around when the new pathfinder first got in): The map loads now, but is totally black/in fog (developer overlay use shows no player units and animals are created, the other resources are spawned though).

I think the mod was broken before this got in, but I'll start with it, thanks:)