Mythos_Ruler
-
Posts
14.941 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
58
Posts posted by Mythos_Ruler
-
-
The "ceasefire" thing you mentioned has been in the game design since day 1, it's just been a low priority. The idea would be to add continuous attrition damage to enemy units who cross into your territory. This would only be in effect, as you say, for a limited amount of time at the beginning of a match, potentially configurable by the match's host.
-
1
-
-
This one's a good one. (skip to 1:15)
-
But then you would have to calc some paths from open spaces to the mine space to make it sure that everything is reachable
Don't you have to do that already with mines that the script places?
-
Mythos_Ruler, just a technical thing.
Right around the base, everything is clear, so you the random map knows it can place a stone and a metal mine there. While further on, stuff is distributed according to random patterns. So it's possible the RMS wants to put the mine in a forest, finds no place for it, and gives up. In that case, it's not sure at all the player will have a mine near to his base. On skirmish and scenario maps, this is no problem.
Maybe it should be better to have a small stone and metal resource next to the CC (so the player certainly has something), and just distribute the rest randomly.
Can a map script create a "clear space" first before placing a large stonemine or metal mine quarry? So that trees wouldn't be placed within the mines.
-
I don't mind that much and the necessity to scout for them but some PPL already complained about having different ratios of resources distributed on different maps. If you have concrete ideas/design propositions PLZ let me know.
I think there should be standardization of resource availability and quantities, but based upon biome. So all desert maps will generally have the same resource availability, placement, and quantities, but different than temperate, tropic, or mediterranean maps.
This here is a handy guide I spent a lot of time on a while ago.
http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15562 -
A look at my skirmish maps and a few play-throughs should dispel doubts about what I'm saying.
-
Here is a PSD with the effects I use for portraits.
-
1
-
-
I think the starting stone and metal mines need to be farther from the starting Civic Center, so that players must build a dropsite to gather from them. You don't need them so close to the Civic Center because in village phase the emphasis is on wood and food.*
Each starting point needs a nice big patch of trees.
*This goes for all of our random maps, which for some reason plop a stone mine and metal mine right next to the Civic Center.
-
Lorica Ferrarea - We commonly call this Lorica Segmentata in the Re-Enactment community, but nobody knows what it was really called other than just "Lorica." Furthermore, the Lorica Segmentata dates to 9 AD at the earliest.
The "Lorica Segmentata" portrait is simply meant to represent iron armor of any type (for now).
-
I could see noisemakers or standard bearers becoming another part of formations. A benefit of using them.
-
Didn't the V have a W sound back then?
The voices sound nice! One thing I would encourage is to add a little more 'drama' to them. Drama is one thing our game lacks at the moment. Some sounds (like "Yes Lord?") should be enunciated as a question, for example.
-
1
-
-
Great post.
We have to think of a formula for how stamina would go into attack and armour values. Probably just make the units attack frequency slower:
attackFrequency = maxAttackFrequency * sqrt(stamina / 100)
[attackFrequency] = 1/s
Example values:
stamina = 100 (fully fresh unit)maxAttackFrequency = 6/min = 6/60 /s = 1/10 /sattackFrequency = 6 * sqrt(100 / 100) /min = 6 * 1 /min = 6 /minstamina = 50 (half power)attackFrequency = 6 * sqrt(50/100) /min = 6 * 0.71 /min = 4.26 /minstamina = 10 (nearly dead of exhaustion)attackFrequency = 6 * sqrt(10/100) /min = 6 * 0.32 /min = 1.92 /minstamina = 0 (total exhaustion, falling to ground, no movement possible)attackFrequency = 6 * sqrt(0/100) /min = 6 * 0 /min = 0 /min
If we were to include stamina in such a comprehensive way, then units would need to be cloistered into formations or battalions permanently. Reason being, you would not want to manage stamina over 300-ish entities while also managing everything else in the game. With battalions, you could then only need to manage stamina and other combat mechanics over maybe 20 entities, while also managing everything else going on in the game.
-
-
Except that the word Aspis referred to a specific kind of shield.
The shield tech icons are meant to be generic.
-
I agree that bolt shooters are currently underpowered. We'll take a look at them in the coming months.
Great video nonetheless!
-
2
-
-
Reducing hard counters helps alleviate imbalances like the Roman swordsmen slaughtering Spartan hoplites right at the beginning of the game.
So, here's what we'd do for units.
At the beginning of a match, melee units and then ranged units would all be very similar in function. So, swordsmen and spearmen would be nearly identical in stats, and archers and skirmishers would be nearly identical in stats (the minor differences would be a small difference in range and attack and maybe small differences in cost). And as the game progresses, technology research, formation fighting, and running and charging differentiates the units more and more. So, by the end of the match, for example archers would have much greater range than skirmishers, but skirmishers would have much higher attack. Archers would be used to sit back and snipe at the enemy, but the skirmishers would be much more up close and personal, used to try and devastate the opponent's melee units from the flanks. And by mid-match, hoplite or pikeman-heavy civs will have the phalanx and syntagma formations which will make them behave and function much differently than swordsmen: more prone to flanking damage, but much tougher from the front, with longer melee range, heavier armor, and slower movement. Swordsmen would remain faster and more agile. So, swordsmen could have a higher charge attack and faster speed, while the pikemen/hoplites/spearmen are slower, tougher, and more durable.
Looking at cavalry, cavalry spearmen would be good with charging and trampling attacks, while having lower default attack strength. The reverse would be true with cavalry swordsmen: higher default attack, but lower charge and trample attacks. What makes them different is how the players will use them, rather than using hard counters like 2x vs. swordsmen and 1.5x vs. skirmishers.
Now, I think hard counters can still be useful, but in a much more targeted way. So, maybe spearmen retain an attack bonus vs. all cavalry, but they don't get the full bonus unless the enemy cavalry do something stupid like attacking your phalanx on its front.
-
2
-
-
Some cool information. Could make for an Athenian technology. It sounds oddly "Spartan" of the Athenians to have implemented something like this, especially with the orator being named 'Lycurgos' of all names.
-
3
-
-
LOL, always nice to see a Roman rush fail. Cavalry Spearmen are currently counters against swordsmen, so it was a great move by Infoman to go heavy on CavSpears. He obviously knew noobert was going to go for the swordsmen rush. For a Roman vs. Roman match it would be a tossup whether either player would go for Swordsman Rush or Cavalry Defense. The Roman Rush is very good vs. a spearman civ like Spartans, but if you have any counters at all like CavSpears or Archers, then the Roman Rush is easy to deal with for those civs.
-
Good discussion. Though, Alpha123 and I are going to do a major rebalance for Alpha 17 (soon after Alpha 16 is released). This rebalance will address many of the concerns raised here and hopefully prepare the units for the inclusion of real formation fighting and things like charging and flanking. The huge emphasis on ranged units will be alleviated and cavalry will be more interesting. Hard counters, like Swordsmen 2x vs. Spearmen and the like will be reduced or eliminated in some cases and we will rely more on mechanics like cost, speed, attack vs. armor, flanking, etc.
-
3
-
-
Most likely we're going to reduce their range and change the crenellations upgrade to something like 1.4x arrows instead of 2x.
Oh, and also foundations will probably be unattackable or hidden until they start being built. Currently you have to build towers very far back to prevent enemy towers from shooting down their foundations before you start building.
We can also make towers weak initially and require tech research to make them as strong as they currently are.
-
Attached files: commands.txt, interestinglog.html, system_info, and main log.
-
-
I've got all those discussions if someone wants to take a trip down memory lane
This has to be one of my all time favorite 0 A.D. Screenshots:
http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15503&p=231803
I'd love to see an updated one with all the new graphical features like AO.
yeah, that would be a cool screenshot. Though, nowadays, the "isometric" view makes me tend to think of cheap Facebook games unfortunately.
-
Thinking about this, then something like the Scythians would only have a limited range of buildings. I'd say it would make sense for them to be able to build buildings in any territory (like the Roman Camp and Siege walls).
They would not have stone buildings. Everything would be wooden. Can probably take inspiration for the civil center from Attila's palace, which was a rectangular 1-story structure with 2 outbuildings and a palisade in a Gothic/Sarmatian style.
However, you'd probably be best off balancing it between packable and unpackable buildings to represent the semi-sedentary lifestyle of the Scythian people.
A plausible building list:
Civil Center (Can Pack)
House (It would be better to have a "Scythian Tent" unit) (Can Pack)
Resource Building (Can Pack)
Palisade (Cannot Pack)
Fortress (Cannot Pack)
Farm (Cannot Pack)
Food Deposit Building (Can Pack)
Barracks (Can Pack)
Could probably create a "Wagon" unit specifically for their buildings. I have images of Sarmatian Wagons I can post.
Yep, you're getting the general idea of how we see nomad factions playing. I would say they could have an "ox cart" similar to the current Mauryan Worker Elephant, that steppes factions can use for a universal dropsite.
And perhaps steppes factions don't have "territory" like the other factions do, or otherwise use territory and borders differently than other factions do.
-
2
-
Ranged Cavalry too strong
in General Discussion
Posted
How would that be "much better" than a real full-functioning ceasefire/no-rush feature?