Mythos_Ruler

You claim to be 48 years old?

Understood. Some basic gameplay footage from alpha123 or Pureon or Enrique or whoever could suffice. Maybe a task for a (dedicated) fan/contributor, like Oimat...

Hmm, I think we'll need more than that! At least the same amount of difference between Athenians and Spartans or Macedonians. Any ideas?I think the Sarmartians can have female cavalry units and female archers, to differentiate from Huns and Scythians. Anything else?

I see and hear you. I really think we need an actual Programming leader, either paid or volunteer. I think this is crucial to moving forward. A different discussion thread though.

I would love to do this, but it looks like three weekends from now for me (I have two weddings to attend, this weekend and next).

Hmm, if we want the game (a full-featured release) to hit Gold within our lifetimes we need to try some new things. Any thoughts?As (acting) Project Lead, I need to garner thoughts from all the best corners.

I agree, Fabio. Perhaps 1 major, 1 medium, and 1 minor game performance upgrade. I think this should be a standard thing for each release, whether we have 4 more or 100 more alpha releases.Let's say what we can accomplish: 3 major gameplay features 3 minor gameplay/UI improvements 3 Performance upgrades 3 major art improvements (can be replaced by a new faction release when applicable) and 3 minor art upgrades. In each Alpha. How much time would that take? Let's look at past Alphas for reference!

That's fine. What you are doing is a "jab" in boxing language. It's an attack that softens up the opponent, but does not give the "killer blow" so to speak. Imagine if you are holding a spear or sword in your right hand... it will make you move differently than if you are making a simple jab.

Let's talk about a timeframe for Alpha 14 release, and also what we think we can accomplish (see: first post), code and art. Also, Jeru (and me), how the release date could impact the crowd-funding campaign (and vice-versa).

I'll let more active artists, like Enrique and Pureon offer their criticisms... But one thing I'd like to mention, and it's something our hoplite animations do, is that your attack animation incorrectly lunges the right foot along with the right (attack) hand. In fact, in a real fight, the left foot move along with the right swinging hand. As an exercise, stand up from your chair in your room and pretend that you are a guy wielding a sword or spear or just your fist.. and make a striking motion with your striking hand. Shockingly few first-time animators actually do this kind of thing... You must understand how the body moves before you can correctly animate it, right? That's why animators in Hollywood take dance lessons and acting classes to sharpen their skills. If you stand up and take a "boxer's pose" you will find that that your left foot is forward while your left fist is forward (if you are right handed). This is the idle or ready position. Then when you make your punch or strike, your left foot takes a step forward while your right fist punches forward. It maintains the "tripod" stance. When right hand goes forward, the left foot goes forward, as if walking. Understand? This kind of thing is fundamental, and I say this not only for your benefit, but for any animator that reads this.

This is an interesting topic, but perhaps best reserved for a different thread. Have RTS gamers gravitated now toward the "battalion" model, the "strategic campaign" type of play vs. the narrative campaign or what? Excellent questions.I think overall, 0 A.D. should appeal to "old school" RTS gamers, but also include new innovations.

Just a random thought. I haven't planned out all the remaining Alphas yet. We still want to add the Ptolemaic Egyptians to the game before Beta, and maybe the Seleucids as well (they were a huge force during the Hellenistic Age, I mean huge). But what if we wanted to add the Scythians as well, as a kind of "wild card" civ that breaks a ton of rules? While Part 2 would have the Huns and Sarmatians, who break all the rules. Just idle thoughts. They mildly interest me, as they interacted with the Greek civs (the Athenians civ has Scythian archers, btw, which historically served as a police force within Athens) and Persian civ (together they sacked cities and Scythians offered their services as mercenaries for the Persians). And their gameplay mechanics would add a nice wildcard element. They'd also set the stage for the Huns and Sarmations in Part 2, the sequel. The thing is, how do we make the Scythians different from Huns and Sarmatians, and vice versa?

This is why I wish people would trust me a little more. Elephants are only underpowered when you look at them currently, but folks must take the long view and think about things holistically, as I tend to do. Elephants will definitely not be underpowered when they have trample and charge features.

It's slightly more complicated than that--the move-attack animation needs to play but also the attacking entity needs to move position as well (to shadow the movement of the target), which affects the simulation.

"Gameplay!" Suggestion: We offer "Spanish" versions of official WFG videos with this gentleman's voice narrating for Spanish-speaking audiences. EDIT: My God, I wish I spoke Spanish so I could understand his epicness!

Thanks for starting this. I think these things are a must: 1. Number of formations reduced a little to the most important and useful. 2. There are some "formations" that aren't really selectable. For instance, column formation should just be a "default" formation that units fall into when moving over long distance. You don't have to put your units into this formation because they do this automatically. 3. Formations reduce or eliminate vulnerability to focus-fire. Units (heroes, et al.) within a formations cannot be focus-fired upon, providing a great benefit to using formations. 4. Perhaps 50% of the XP gained by a unit in formation is shared or given to all the other units in the formation--another benefit to using formations. 5. Creating for breaking formations should be intuitive and easy. Perhaps if you create 15+ units in a batch they auto-form into a formation. Maybe since the formations and stances will be reduced in number the buttons can be slightly bigger. Also, hotkeys. 6. Formations of troops (I like to call them "Battalions") should be easily visually recognizable. I have some thoughts on implementing a "banner carrier" unit that appears and is completely cosmetic (cannot attack and cannot be attacked). 7. There should be directional bonuses and weaknesses. For instance, a phalanx should probably have 0 or reduced armor when being attacked from the rear. Perhaps this could just be extended to all units, whether or not they are in formation.

This is very true. The real issue is that melee attacks, once initiated, get "interrupted" once the target moves out of range. This interests me (units attacking while moving, makes sense and is realistic), but I wonder about the difficulty of implementation.

I'd say so, yeah.

Pretty sure we all already agree on this, guys.

Yeah, the fleeing problem really needs to be fixed (there's a Trac ticket around here somewhere!). Then it will work much better. When we have running, charging, and trample damage too, it'll be easier for melee cav to hunt down fleeing (e.g.) skirmishers.

"Courageous" was not meant to be taken literally. Just a cheap way to describe their behavior. They would stand ground instead of fleeing.EDIT: Point is, I'd rather melee cavalry's usefulness against ranged units be a part of behavior and gameplay mechanics, rather than just simple attack bonuses. Using min range for ranged units does this, while always giving them knives and having them stand ground (AOE3) removes that mechanic.

The "run all over the map" thing is currently broken and should be fixed. If fixed, they won't run all over the map when fleeing (they'd tend to get cut down instead). The fix for this is to make the pursuer's melee attack "follow through" when initiated. This is a problem with melee attack range, not with fleeing.

Not really. It takes 1-2 seconds for the swordsman to throw his pilum and would happen automatically.

Your first case sounds about right. Hmm, with the Roman swordsmen (and whoever uses an 'initial' attack), I was thinking that they'd just automatically throw the pilum if the target is at the proper range, and then just close with sword. If the target is too far, they'd close within pilum range, throw, then close with sword. If target is too close, they'd just skip the pilum throw and just close with sword. Thoughts? Two other cases I can see: - Defensive secondary attack: Some ranged units will switch to knives or swords if they are attacked by a melee unit. I'm thinking this could be a bonus to using formations--when in formation they would be courageous and stand up to a fight, but when the formation breaks they would flee to min range distance (or min range + 50%) like they do now. - Passive secondary attack: This might need 'turrets' to be implemented. A good example would be a war elephant with archers on its back. The primary attack of the unit is the elephant's crush power, but the archers on its back would fire arrows at random nearby units for a "passive" secondary attack. Like I said, this may need turrets to be implemented and could be applicable to things like warships and chariots and other units like this.

I feel like Stances could be simplified. Specifically the number of existing stances reduced and the remaining stance behavior tweaked and a few other behavior features rolled into stances, rather than being presented as separate features. I think the (selectable) stances should be: Aggressive: Attack anything that comes into sight. Defensive: either attack anything that comes close, or attack and pursue anything that attacks them first. Stand Ground: Do not move, even if attacked. Will attack back if possible, but will remain in position. Removed: Violent: The difference between this and Aggressive is not intuitive and really not all that impactful. Passive: I can't really foresee a player choosing for his units to not fight back when they are being stabbed. 'Stand Ground' is the more useful stance. Other stances that exist, but aren't selectable (aren't shown in the UI because they are more like 'behaviors' than stances): Avoid: For most females who are attacked, skittish animals, etc. Others? These are behaviors/commands that could be either grouped with Stances or grouped near stances: Scout: Clicking this will send the unit scouting around the map automatically (but at reduced armor or some other trade-off for reduced micro). Units will also use the Avoid stance behavior. Conceptually, this used to be seen as a separate feature, but I think it could be grouped near or with stances quite easily (conceptually for the player). Search & Destroy: The unit will roam the map with 'Attack-move' as its motion behavior. Useful in late-game to find those last remaining enemy workers. Conceptually, this used to be seen as a separate feature, but I think it could be grouped near or with stances quite easily (conceptually for the player). I think doing the above would make stances more useful and impactful, while removing a couple of superfluous choices for the player.