Unarmed

Ok let me be clear I'm just saying it is a possibility. Not that it should be made, or is going to be made. Because: it requires new animations, new model, new coding what not. Then there's balance etc. It might be simply not worth it. I don't really want to start a discussion about it, because I feel the change of actually seeing it/them in the game is abysmal. I just wanted to give some examples of weird/unique/unconventional weapons, and yes, I would be pleased to see them if done correctly. I remember as a kid I loved the "weird", better said exotic, things in Age of Empires, the elephants, the camels, the fire galley. Maybe some of the developers or players didn't know of them. Whatever they are fit for the game, I'm sure the developers can decide. But true, I did mention the Spartan siege thing. Good for pointing out. There is actually a picture of it. Here is the incorrect source: http://www.fighttime...asp?article=676 Yeah I can see how my idea would be annoying. Hence I said it might be much better to just go for more damage. The only thing I don't like about just doing extra damage, the poison is really nothing special. But if there is no better alternative, it's all fine and dandy to me. What about some effect instead? Poison arrows make: -units take more damage from all other weapons -units deal less damage etc. But I guess that's too much programming work. (Balance should not be a problem, the effect could be very minimal)

You make a fair point. I was going to say it would be something for DLCs. Though the Spartans could use a siege unit, hence I did not mentioned it. And I thought I made it obvious that you could ask if it's worth it. But this is one of those cases I would personally say, if considered, "fun above realism". First Person Shooters have weapons which are not in service, but added for coolness. We have heroes which only appear once in history. I'm sure I can think of more examples. The poison, we could test out if slowly losing health works. If not it could be tweaked or poison could simply mean extra damage. I say could, it is easier to just go with extra damage.

I'm not sure if abilities fit 0 A.D. I love the abilities in Company of Heroes. I enjoyed the hero abilities in the Battle for Middle Earth demo. Though, charging is planned. This must be a ability. So I guess why not? Unless it's too silly. ______________________________________________________ Since the Spartans are lacking siege equipment, it would be really cool if they get the pump flamethrower and the pump poison gas. But yeah it requires new animations and stuff like that. And another problem is that there are not any good pictures only this description: I love the idea of unique units and weapons. Though these kind of things do little to gameplay but cost a lot of time to be made. The Gastraphetes is another example. It's just a bow (though it could have longer reload time but more damage), yet it needs new animations and models.

This is a good discussion. My thoughts: 1. I also do not like the farms next to civil centers, because it kills atmosphere. Something that stops or makes it difficult to do so I would agree on. 2. Fertile ground non-fertile ground could be really interesting, making maps more strategic. However it has the potential to make the game too complicated, and I'm certain it will make map developing more difficult. 3. I do not agree that all maps should have the same resources, I prefer the idea of having maps that would be authentic and require different types of gameplay. I could really enjoy maps without resources nearby for example. Though, I can understand the issues this could lead to, and I understand differences in map resources is already pretty much the case (though I see here players and developers suggesting maps to have more of resource x because map x has it, I don't agree) 4. I like the idea of having regenerating resources, but not stones or metal, I kind of like the idea of wood regenerating though I won't complain if only animals and fruit regenerate. (I like the idea of animals coming off map, but I'm not sure if that's possible). This argument however against wood: Not a good one. Real cities take years to be build. I can give more examples. I would not go for wood for gameplay reasons, not for such a reason. Here you go: elite soldiers take years to train. 5. I would also like gathering and hunting to become a bit more important, let me explain: Now, hunting and gathering was pretty important in Ancient times, because many people supplemented their diet in the Middle Ages with hunting and gathering. (True, this is a assumption, not a fact, but it is a fact people in the Middle Ages supplemented their diet with hunting and gathering) Wildlife would have been much more plentiful than to today (I'm very certain). I'm no expert on Ancient fauna, but what I know: -Prehistoric Europe and Asia had huge herds of animals, think Serengetti -In Ancient times certain animals did however decline So prehistoric Europe and Asia would be somewhere in the middle. Animals would not be that plentiful as the prehistoric times, but yes more plentiful than in modern times. By the way, I don't think animals are lacking on most maps. But other food sources like; nuts, mushrooms, berries are lacking. Hence I want to make some when my computer is back.

Found it. Thanks. They play pretty much like me at first glance, however I see they use a lot of farmers on one piece of land. Looks kind of silly just like the farms connected to the civil center, which is talked about. So I would kind of like a limit of 7 for farms. The game looks really enjoyable. I like the use of outposts and small scale raids (I don't raid in singleplayer). The building creep is something I'm not sure I could enjoy, both being too arcadey and kind of annoying. The map is kind of weird, but I'm sure that's not intentional.

Well, it's a Sacred Band of Thebe kind of group. By the way: where is the Sacred Band of Thebe in the game?

Let's try to turn this thread back into a animal thread, my bad! I wanted to compliment that the elephants are done accurate. North African Elephants (for the Carthagians), and Indian elephants (for the Indians). I hope it's not only a visual difference though. North African Elephants (could be cheaper but) weaker, and Indian elephants stronger (but more expensive). I also saw something about Syrian elephants. Great attention to detail! I saw in a thread of Rome 2 some did not care. But to me it's the same as historical accurate shields and units. While you can be very extreme in this, people would complain about Romans with medieval helmets, so why not make it as historical accurate as do-able/possible. The difference between African and Indian elephants are also notable. I read about the Egyptians using Ethiopian elephants, these might have been Forest or Bush elephants. I see this was also in the description of this civ. But yeah since there is no good agreement what these are you might as well stick to the North African ones.

It seems poison was used as a weapon by the Indians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bindusara Though this story also seems somewhat unlikely, "boasted". I suppose women using poison to kill does not seem that imaginary. Though "blood that is poisonous". I will do some research into the use of poison in Ancient times, since I'm in the mood of doing that. Wikipedia again but whatever: EDIT 1: A good read: http://toxipedia.org...Fire+Poster.pdf Celts, Greeks and Romans used spears or arrows with poison. Spartans used poison gas, toxic sulphur dioxid. Persians also used poison gas against Roman besiegers (not usable for mod since it was in mines).

I thought of something, posted in another thread, but I suppose it would need new programming and stuff like that; Poison weapons/units do little damage, however they slowly make a unit lose health like a outpost in neutral territory (could the code of that work for this?). The losing health will continue until the unit dies, unless! The unit affected goes into a healing building and it is resolved. That was my basic idea. I haven't really thought of issues it could have or stuff like that. I would recommed reading into chemical, entomological and biological warfare of history, it's interesting. Romans used bee hives we discussed about this in another thread, Hannibal used poisonous snakes, the Scythians used poison arrows, Ancient Chinese used poison gas. Greeks poisoned wells. Mongols used the plague. I also thought when spies would be introduced the Greeks "could poison wells". The spies would have to do something to a building and the "well would be poisoned". What happens is that the all the workers of the player affected would work less for a slightly ammount of time. Because if I remember correctly, the Greeks used a poison that did not kill but gave you a bad case of diarrea. EDIT: actually no, they used poisons that really killed, the poison causing diarrea was used against Alexander the Great! These kind of "gimmicky" stuff would be cool to see. I don't know who did it, but there were also people who tortured enemies using assassin bugs, and some Native Americans I think, burried enemies into the deep sand and let them be tortured by ants. I don't think I need to tell about flaming pigs, but I thought the Chinese used flaming oxes. (can't seem to find anything about flaming oxes anymore though!) I remembered it correctly! Here the flaming ox is: http://depts.washing...ch/firearms.htm EDIT: I demand we have this: I'm not going to demand anything, that was a joke. But yeah you would make someone happy. Hehe. (I'm ignoring any issues, historical or otherwise)

Unarmed starts thinking; "What is this? What is he saying? Is it a secret message?"

I guess that's it. I may never understand it, but I suppose that's the best answer I'll get!

Well there is not really a option to start the game I think. When I want to play multiplayer of a mod: I chat to someone I know, ask if he knows any other players, we chat a little while, we start the game (some games allow you to use Steam in the game), and go to a lobby where someone made the game. But yeah there is no lobby in 0 A.D. but my point is that you'll have to do everything manually. But I think Steam is a good way to communicate since you can just have it running in the background. I'm not familiar with Teamspeak, so I'll admit I have no idea how it works. But I was under the impression you need to start the program and can't really have it in the background. Also with Steam you can communicate with group members which is kind of handy.

Since Art of Supremacy is not rated that high I assume it was not that great. I read one review which did not mention it being a decent addition. Funny, I did not know but it's pretty much the same idea as mine. My idea was more or less a joke, since I don't expect the developers to suddenly change the hero system, because one player comes up with a idea that might not work at all. That being said, I don't like the hero system. I like the heros themselves, the aura and stuff like that. But I don't like that in a hour of gameplay I could potentially have Philip of Macedon number 30 facing me. I prefer how Age of Empires 3 and Dawn of War 2 have this (?and Warcraft 3?). You start with a hero in the beginning, since we have three you would pick one like you pick a faction. So you only get one here and that's it. I would love to have them level up, I don't want it to be WoW, but three levels that take some time to gain yes I would love. There is a unit very useful for scouting, but I like the idea of your hero being a bit of a scout. And I can see the fun of what I saw in a Warcraft 3 video where you kill stuff (in case of 0 A.D. dangerous animals, in history some kings did this as a sport) to make your hero level up. Naming your hero. Sounds good, but I'm not sure if everyone likes: Hero 1: named after a particular infamous German dictator. Hero 2: Mr. Dirty McPoopy Pee. Hero 3: Booby McGee. Hero 4: (Censored) Hero 5: Elton John IV Hero 6: (Censored) Etc. EDIT: From another topic: What I loved in Seven Kingdoms was that you first needed to research siege engine technologies before you could build them, and you could improve them; you had catapult 2, catapult 3 etc. Well that's not what I loved, what I loved was that you could sold them to other kingdoms (Seven Kingdoms 1) or better exchange them for another technology to other kingdoms (Seven Kingdoms 2). But I'm not sure if this from Seven Kingdoms can be brought into 0 A.D. Talking about siege engines. I would like upgrades or abilities: For Romans: bee munition (yes you read that correctly!) For Greeks: incendiary munition (I thought I read that Greeks used pots with combustible material, needs citation.) EDIT: Wikipedia: I have more ideas but I'm going too much off-topic, so I will post it elsewhere if I can. EDIT: Will post it here, since we are talking about siege anyway: I'm not sure which civilization this is, but it would be a nice unique upgrade for a fortress. I also had the idea of a upgrade for the outpost. You can choose to upgrade it with someone who throws stones but then you can't choose the stone foundations upgrade. (it would be very weak) And I think civil centers should not have arrows but stone projectiles instead (like slingers). Makes more sense. (again inspirited by Seven Kingdoms, but the second one)

Why not join the Steam group? I'm not a Steam fan, I had that program and I ran into all kind of issues; never ever connecting whatever I did, stuck in searching for updates, etc. And the support basicly told me what I could find on the net and had already done. That being said. Steam is a great way to communicate and play a game or mod. EDIT: By the way, I will join the Steam group when my main computer is fixed.

So let's summarize: It's a completely different game, so I should not try to compare it. For it's kind it is, exceptionally great. The game is balanced and has little issues. But why the high rating from critics? From fans I can understand, but if say Team17 made a true sequel to Worms: Armageddon. And this game is totally flawless, better graphics, everything from the original game and a few gameplay additions. I think the fans would be pleased since to the majority and also me Worms: Armageddon is flawless, and so even I might buy it. But I can imagine the review titles like I have seen with Worms Revolution and Worms Reloaded "Worms X, more of the same" "Worms X, solid but nothing new". Now these games actually removed some features from Worms: Armageddon, so I can understand the reviewers gave them not very high ratings. But even so, most critics complain that the Worms series does nothing new. Why is it okay for Starcraft to stay pretty much the same but is the Worms series punished for being nothing new? True, the newest of the Worms series do not have such high quality as Starcraft 2. However it still puzzles me.

About the ficitional stuff. I overly exaggerated it to try to make a point. I'm okay with fiction as long as I don't get the wrong idea when playing a map that I thought would be authentic. I don't like the idea of amazing historical accurate civilisations on a map that's the opposite. I'm not going to stop the developers from making fiction, like the special dragon map. But yeah I might very well complain when something fictional is done in favour of something authentic that is important. Good that you wrote down the list, so we can discuss this futher.

No I don't mind the off-topic since this is the off-topic section anyway. And I went off-topic myself too. Unless we go really off-topic I'm not bothered. You give some nice points what makes Starcraft 2 enjoyable. Though I can't figure out why it is rated so high. Even the first game was not rated a 9. Yet this one is pretty much the same (not to say the improvements aren't good), and is rated very high. The bees, funny that you mention that. I was almost going to buy a book called "Sixth Legged Soldiers" which was about insects used in war. I read reviews and parts of the book that were free to read and bees was one of the things. I read that because of the Romans, the bee population started to shrink. Have you heard of the snakes and scorpions in pots used on ships? Hannibal was the one using poisonous snakes. Bees would be very nice to have and unique by the way.

Yeah, Starcraft of course. I know that from watching Korea TV. I thought I read something about Germany and strategy games. Might be the Command and Conqueror series or maybe it only applied to Europe. _______________________________________________ I'm interested in watching a player vs player video of 0 A.D. Will see if there are any.

@both I thought it was planned that units would be given randomised names? Seven Kingdoms always had this, though I never remembered any of them except for the king who had the name of the player. Most of the time he would be named "Yanick the Great", my name with Great in it like Alexander. WARNING: may cause megalomania. I didn't propose giving units your own names, though it would be kind of a cool gimmick. And yeah my hero "proposal" is a bit tongue in cheek.

Yeah, for example Company of Heroes. I love the game, great campaign, great game design, great gameplay. However; The factions are poorly designed in my opinion, and there are balance issues. One thing I hated (yes hated, because it can be frustating in competive play), is how one faction could buy experience while others needed to gain it. It wouldn't be that bad but the elite units are super humans, making it very hard to beat this faction late game. So I guess Starcraft 2 could get another 0.5, but what about the other 0.5? Fun fact: I always first check out if there are plenty of mods for a game before I buy it. One of the reasons I bought Battlefield 2 and Company of Heroes was this. It's very game-like, not immersive like you would want a historical game to be. I'm not sure what you can compare it to, maybe something like ping-pong. And yeah I've watched Koreans play this, and I got the same impression while I haven't played it. In Company of Heroes I need to be fast, but I can't imagine myself playing Starcraft 2 with pro-gamers. I guess though you can choose to play with less serious players to make it not too much like what you described. It does not appeal to me, but I can understand it appeals to others. (though I should really try out the demo!) I guess I can understand it's popularity, but not it's critical rating. And for 0 A.D. I would personally like it to be neither like Starcraft or Company of Heroes. But instead take inspiration, and features from it what could work for 0 A.D. Like you said Mythos: I imagine 0 A.D. to be Age of Kings at it's core, but with features taken from other games like I saw in the design document (if it wasn't in the design document I would have suggested it, but since I played other games, I would have came up with different ones), and of course original ideas. And compared to Age of Kings it becomes much more immersive and authentic; with authentic real-like maps (but fun maps if you like) and historical accurate factions and unique factions. I personally prefer it more like; "you win how you use units" instead of "you win what you build". I guess a healthy middleground is the best. And I feel like some fields could be explored more, like diplomacy (something that you don't want in Starcraft). And with a team lock option this should not be a issue. It's going to be really interesting to see what kind of non-total conversion mods become popular when 0 A.D. reaches it's release date. Realism? Competitive (balance)? For Battlefield 2, the most popular mod was a realistic mod. For Company of Heroes it is a mod with a added faction. Guess what the most popular mod on Moddb right now is... a mod with scarcely clad women for Rome Total War. Though I guess it's much more than that. I see Starcraft 2 has a demo, will try it out when my computer is back.

Well I mean the combat looks visually really bad. Units go into eachother, it doesn't look like they are fighting with eachother etc. I guess it's not really important for such a game but it does bother me. It's important to get immersed into the game and make the game feel authentic, though I guess Starcraft is more a game game that does not try to feel "real". That said, I don't like the combat. Even like you described it. I dislike rock paper sciccors, if it is like; A will always beat C. That's why I was a fan of the Total Annihilation demo and am a big fan of Company of Heroes; they are different. Since I only played the demo and read about the system of Annihilation I can't really speak about that. But Company of Heroes has rock paper sciccors; anti-tank is good against anti-tank, anti-infantry is good against infantry. In that game you can't use a anti-tank gun to counter a bunch of infantry. But if you want to destroy a tank, you have so much options. Even in Company of Heroes there are tons of strategies and openings I'm sure Starcraft 2 has. But in Company of Heroes it is not a game winner. It's all about how you use your units. Someone with two panthers and a tiger (strong and heavy tanks if you are not familiar with it) can still lose from me with a bunch of infantry and several anti-tank guns. I get a kick out of that. I never play strategies in Company of Heroes, well only for the openings, and did have more wins as losses but note that I was never very high ranked. Maybe I misunderstood. Building a bunch of units and keeping in check what they counter is fine. But the idea of having to build a particular unit because my opponent makes a particular unit seems like very boring. But that's just my personal opinion. Anyway, that's not why I'm wondering why this game is so high rated. Different games appeal to different people. But how can a game that does nothing new get more as a 9? That baffles me, since so many games are punished for not being refreshing or revolutionary. Well I wasn't really comparing, but since I have played mainly Age of Empires games and on the other side Company of Heroes, I will likely compare without actually comparing (I couldn't remember the word to describe this) What I don't get is that it offers nothing new, yet it is rated very high. Total Annihilation was a great game, though I've only played the demo. It looked great, was different, the combat was great. Supreme Commander tried at least to get bigger, while Starcraft 2 seems like it is just the same game with a few new gimmicks and enhanced graphics. I'm not really questioning why Starcraft 2 is enjoyable, but I'm questioning why it is rated so high when it does nothing really new. It seems to me it just: -graphics enhanced -a few units added -some rpg elements added -new campaign I watched to video reviews and appearently they made some great variation in missions. I think that surely deserve some points. (it makes me remember Seven Kingdoms missions which were also very diverse, inspires me to make scenarios for 0 A.D. that would be very different than we have now) The campaign also seems really well-done (except for the story). On the other hand, alpha123, you make it very clear to me, that Starcraft 2 could not really add anything new or revolutionary. On the other hand, I haven't read of new game modes or co-op missions or stuff like that (things that do not change the gameplay but do add to the game). So I'm still confused why this is not a 8.5 but a 9.5 according to most.

Thinking of trying out the first one if there's a demo. Only really know Starcraft from greatest strategies of all time where it was ranked very high and Korea TV. All of my friends that liked strategy games played Age of Empires 1 & 2 back in the day. I've never heard them talking about Starcraft. I watched this. The combat looks horrible to be honest compared to Dawn of War 2 (the effects are nice, but not the actual combat). But that's coming from a Company of Heroes player. It's funny, I read some critical reviews and a lot of them were Company of Hero players that complain about there not being cover. I don't think that's a fair critique, not all games must have a cover system. But something like units only being able to fire stationary I agree on, that's really something of the past in my opinion. It looks very silly. (I guess 0 A.D. has this, hehe, but that's different, it's not a commercial project and I think it is already exceptionally great for a voluntary project) But maybe this is done for gameplay reasons. A lot of critical reviews are garbage, complaining about minor things. There are also quite some reviews that say the game is basicly the original but with better graphics. Sort of what I thought. This game does not look bad at all to me, but I'm not sure if it deserves a 9, a 7 or 8 seems much more fair. Some games are punished by reviewers for not being revolutionary and refreshing (think the Worms series I enjoy, but I only play Armageddon). It's a smart move from Blizzard though to not change the game too much. That makes it so great for E-sports I think. Some changes can go very wrong, like CnC 4.

Empire Earth 1 also had a warning on the map along with a sound. I would kind of like that only certain buildings warn you (outposts and watchtowers), so the game get's a bit added depth. Players could then try to sneak into bases. (enemy always showing on the minimap should not be changed) Not sure if it works that good in theory and how do-able it is. Some people get frustrated when they are attacked without knowing, I thought it was funny when I was bussy fighting a opponent and found out half of my population was massacred by the other opponent.

I am wondering about this a long time. I don't understand why Starcraft 2 is rated so high and why it is so popular. Could anybody enlighten me? No offense, but if I judge on the reviews I read and the videos I have seen I'm like, hmmm... seems well-made, but not great. I can't even enjoy watching Starcraft 2 matches, something I can do with other games I don't own like Dawn of War 2. Where are the revolutionary new features? Is this game so well-made that it does not need them? Not to upset fans of this game, but I am honestly curious. To me it looks like a decent game for it's kind, but not great. If somebody knows a great review that explains this or can tell me clearly. Much appreciated. I'm going to do another search again, because I'm really curious.

In another game, Seven Kingdoms, where diplomacy was very important and waging war could mean your troops would deflect or civilians would rebel. I always gave enemies of my biggest enemies a lot of support. Those enemies of my enemies sometimes turned into very big civilizations which I could not win of. It was one of the reasons I love Seven Kingdoms. So I try to convince the developers to take a look at this game and take some of it's diplomacy features (something like soldiers deflecting and civilians rebelling I do not suggest, because I think it's too radically different) It's not that bad. But I thought of some ideas and I could sense resistance, some people came up with very true concerns, and I'll admit not all of my ideas are well-thought or that good. And I'm not expecting everyone to agree, I always like it how some people modify my idea into something better, but some I got the feeling they are not interested in something new at all, even if I came up with a golden idea. I feel you. I think it's good that it stays true to AOK, and the core is AOK. If somebody would suggest no phases or no base building, I would not agree. I found this game searching "free Age of Empires like game". I haven't played AOK, I remember vaguely playing the demo but uninstalling it very soon. I have played a lot of Age of Empires 1 and Empire Earth 1. Those two games are enjoyable, but I feel they lack depth and become very repetive. Something I was fine with back in the day, but nowadays I don't like that. I gave Age of Empires 1 and Empire Earth 1 away to a second hand shop for this reason, but not Seven Kingdoms. And I remember vaguely that I played a very early Alpha of 0 A.D. in which you could only play as the Greeks. I was put off because I thought it was a exact copy of Age of Empires. Now that I played it in a later stage and read more, like the design document, my faith is restored. Though right now the gameplay is still very much like Age of Empires 1 and Empire Earth 1. Things like new historical accurate civilisations and authentic biomes are great, they make a already great game even better, but they do little for gameplay. The new things are well-though and good additions and they do change gameplay in a good way, but I don't think they make the game that different or deeper. The game should not be overly complicated, but in some fields I think it wouldn't hurt to make it more challenging. Economy right now is important early game, but once I make the market and reach the latest stage, I float resources and economy is not that important anymore. I like the idea that late game the economy goes it's way, but I feel like it could indeed be improved. (note that I have only played singleplayer so far) There's also multiplayer vs singleplayer. I can enjoy multiplayer, but I think I can enjoy long and deep singleplayer games which I need to save even more. People who play multiplayer don't want things that could distract. While people who play singleplayer could really enjoy things that could distract in a multiplayer match where you want it basically like this (my theory): -Versus, free-for-all or team match, not worrying about who's a enemy or who is not (I could really enjoy the latter, who's enemy who's not, even in multiplayer) -Gather, build, upgrade, build army, destroy opponents I feel like making things optional, like the lock teams option already in the game (expanded diplomacy should not be a issue with this), is a great way to please different kinds of people. This can be done by maps which is not that good, the best way is through options or gamemodes, but I guess this is a lot of work. EDIT: What I forgot to say: Age of Kings is rated high. So I can understand people who want it to be a exact remake with few changes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. On the other hand that's 14 years ago. If I look at Starcraft 2, which does not seem to have anything (radically) new (I'm not sure), it is very popular and very high rated. (I have no idea why it is rated so high and why it is that popular, I looked at videos and reviews, and I'm confused. What's so good about this? It does look well-made, but what makes this game a 9 and not a 7?) I think I'm going to make a off-topic thread about Starcraft 2, I don't want to discuss that here.