Unarmed

Looks good. Nice work. I want to make a green variation one day.

I'm sorry for this but I'm kind of an animal freak (yes they exist! Just like historical freaks). Note: I'm not a nile crocodile expert though, so I do not even know everything about them. Slow is fine, but not too slow. They are quite fast as you can see: And about the damage. I think crocodiles are the strongest in water. They have a strong biteforce, but their teeth are designed for grabbling (but also crushing, I've seen a video of one crushing a turtle with ease) so it can drown the animal in the water, also by death roll. Crocodiles also use the deathroll to teer the flesh. Like mentioned: A shark for example has teeth designed to really tear through flesh. My point: if a crocodile gets a hold of you yes you are screwed. But since crocodiles relly on ambush, I don't think they do that well against a moving target. But since you can't really do the "getting hold", high damage seems reasonable (and of course people expect them to do high damage). My opinion: -high damage, the best would be big change of no/slight damage, slight change of very high damage, but I think there's no system like that. -slow compared to other units, but not very slow. I think going for a very large crocodile slightly smaller or as big as Gustav, a famous large crocodile, would be pretty cool. And it seems reasonable there were much bigger individuals in Ancient times with the lack of guns. To give an idea: The model looks great by the way! Keep up the great work, I love seeing animals in 0 A.D! (About wolves, the SAS survival guide says they only attack when you are injured, and ferocious packs of wolves attacking hunters is bogus. For a game it's fine though.)

It's quite tough as a designer I think regarding the combat. Like mentioned in the thread some might not like "randomness", and like the click point at a single units kind of stuff. (though in the proposed system randomness plays a role, it is not the deciding factor). They remind me of those Korean gamers playing Starcraft ?and maybe Warcraft? on Arirang TV, I watch Arirang sometimes for fun or the annoy my family members. Anyway, that kind of gameplay* does not look appealing to me, but I can understand some people like it, Starcraft 2 seems to be the same (I have no idea) and it's very popular. *Game focussed on speed and a very harcore rock, paper, sciccors (correct me if wrong); I prefer a game with more tactics, hence Company of Heroes is my favorite commercial RTS game. For 0 A.D I would like to see the middle ground, to please as much people as possible. Back to people not liking randomness; however, I do not believe the team should be conservative regarding the combat system. Because I do feel there is enough room for improvement. The team has already implemented some improvements, and I like how it's just not a Age of Empires clone (when I hadn't played it yet, I thought it was, and was less interested). The units upgrading and balancing is a great improvement for example, because in Age of Empires (1) at least, some units became useless. On the other hand, it's important that the combat system doesn't get too complex, because that could scare away new players or old rts players. I have some issues with combat that I haven't mentioned in my combat enhancement thread yet (so I put it here): -it seems to be better to use a lot of ranged units (I thought of limited arrows, but that would certainly cause an outrage.) -formations, but this is alpha (I would like units to stick together in formations someway) -close combat units going after ranged units ineffectively; I mean going for miles behind a unit (ideas to improve: minimum range? Again limited arrows? Force them to fight when hit one time? Something else?) -it's quite effective to just attack one soldier at a time, very arcadey (arcadey can be good, but in my opinion not with this) which I would prefer to see as something of the past, but maybe conservative gamers disagree (middle ground?) Again just some ideas and opinions to improve. Since this is a free project I assume the objective is to make the best game possible with the time and manpower available and not just go for a good enough game to sell a few bucks. So I like to help and inspire, not force or pressure the team (sorry if I do! I don't mean to!), and I think this game has much potential to be even better than it is!

That got me thinking. What about the children (boys)? I read that in the American independency war or civil war 15 years was the lowest age of a soldier. I assume this was even lower in ancient times. A quick search gives me this: The Spartans of Ancient Greece built an extremely militaristic society, with boys as young as seven being taken from home and brought up with military training. In the early years of human history, the violent nature of existence ensured that the military would be the most popular and attractive industry. There was seldom a problem in recruiting (or kidnapping) children into the armed forces. The great need to call up military forces quickly revealed the desirability of child soldiers. With adult males often gone abroad, youth were counted on to protect the home city and families. The smaller children who were unable to wield heavy weaponry were used as scouts and spies. http://suite101.com/article/the-history-of-child-soldiers-a59619 Another source: The Ancient Roman Army would not knowingly allow boys under 16 to enlist in the army. They had military and philosophical reasons for this. The Roman soldiers were not just fighters, but each was also a specialized technician. A blacksmith, carpenter, concrete specialist, hunter, physician, cook, engineer, etc. The Roman Army required mature men, educated in the technologies of the times. However almost all the other armies of the ancient world included male children. However before them, the Greeks used child soldiers. The Spartans started military training at age 7 and from then on boys were soldiers. http://scriptamus.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/child-soldiers-are-unfortunately-nothing-new/ Wikipedia: Throughout history and in many cultures, children have been extensively involved in military campaigns. The earliest mentions of minors being involved in wars come from antiquity. It was customary for youths in the Mediterranean basin to serve as aides, charioteers and armor bearers to adult warriors. Examples of this practice can be found in the Bible (such as David's service to King Saul), in Hittite and Egyptian art, and in Greek mythology (such as the story of Hercules and Hylas), philosophy and literature. Also in a practice dating back to antiquity, children were routinely taken on campaign, together with the rest of a military man's family, as part of the baggage. The Romans also made use of youths in war, though it was understood that it was unwise and cruel to use children in war, and Plutarch implies that regulations required youths to be at least sixteen years of age. Facinating dark history. And no I'm not advocating for child soldiers even if it's historical accurate because I can see the outrages it would cause.

I think I want to though. It is less of a typical bush. Not my intention. It works like this: Model regular oak = wood harvest My model is small oak = only food So my intention would be not having two types of gathering on one "model" (I have no better word for it). But the same type of trees but different models and different gathering types. I could make one, and the little bees (black dots I assume). Empire Earth (1) had flies too, but I haven't got Empire Earth anymore for reference. But it would need animations right? Good thinking. Though I didn't forget about them fully, because I did have it as an idea. There are many weeds that are edible. One particular weed is ground elder that the Romans used to cultivate for food, but it escaped and is now common in Northern Europe. Another one is the dandelion, which farmers dispise but which is actually edible (not tasty though). But no edible weeds/flowers? Just eyecandy? (I think that's fine) I will go very low poly and then ask for feedback on this forum when I'm going to start my project.

I just saw Arkive in a thread. Glad I helped. _________________________________ Slightly off-topic. I hope it is allowed. Otherwise I will post it in another thread. I'm quite an animal "freak". So if there's something else concerning animals perhaps I could help. But I can't think of anything. I'm going to look at the biome and animal list and see if there are any important animals that are left out. I want to learn modelling and make trees and plants. I also want to make animal skins to present the different subspecies. Though the problem with subspecies is: did they also life in the ancient times? For example, Southern European wolves look very different from Northern European wolves, example: North-European (this could actually be an American wolf, but they look very similar) Iberian wolf: Notice how different they look?

Yeah. (Maybe I should make another thread to talk about this, I will do when I'm working on it.) I know quite something about non-native, exotic plants (but mostly animals). It's one of my interests. I also know quite something about edible plants, and have a survival guide with edible plants. And the internet has a lot of information where plants (and animals) are originally native. It's not only plants from America, some plants were not that far North in Europe (for example). So I can't just use all the plants that are in my own country (Netherlands) for example and put them on a map of the same country. I read the Netherlands used to consist of mainly Scots pine (but that could be prehistory, would need to research that), and like depicted Netherlands was mainly swamp (but also lots of forest). But I think it's okay if I go with all the plants from my country (that are from Europe, North-Africa and Western Asia), since their is a good Dutch site that has thousands of pictures of plants and I can look at home for references. I will make a list of plants that I want to make, here are some: -Blackberry bush (food) -Raspberry bush (food) -Scots Pine (wood) -Common Hazel (edible hazelnuts) (both wood and food) -Small English Oak (edible acorns) (food)] -Fly amanita (poisonous mushroom) (eye candy) -Penny bun (edible mushroom) (food) -Wild cherry (food) -Mountain Ash (food) As you can see some nuts and mushrooms I made as food. I think it's important that there's not only fruit, for authenticity reasons. Bees nest would be kind of cool (that attack your workers but give you valuable honey (food)).

Thanks a bunch. I was just going to edit my post that I found one, the primary design document. Google is my friend (who knows too many... I should kill him probably...).

Thank you for the answer. I will atleast read the suggestion thread. I do that with most games and mods anyway. I've skimmed through the trac tickets. Very quickly though. I would appreciate it if you told me, or someone else, where I can find the design documents.

Ok, so it's not that hard. Then I can't blame him for his comment. Nevermind Sanderd. Sorry! Though what I also ment, it's just not modelling them, I would need to research which helmets are historical accurate not only for the time, but also for the unit and importantly rank. I know I can Google, but I think I would need a proper book (Osprey I guess?). But maybe someone here knows it? Sounds good. And it helps the graphics in this game are not too "good" (I think they are great, but you know compared to the newest commercial games). I'm going to start Blender this week. If it's really that easy I will surely make visual upgrades if there is support for it. Because I actually want to do trees first Maybe, but I think the atmosphere is important. EDIT: I was reading this in the design document: So, I can understand you Sanderd.

I don't know if this helps, but maybe it does: Arkive is a site about animals, you can search a species and it has some videos about this species. For example, you search Forest elephant, you'll find this: http://www.arkive.org/forest-elephant/loxodonta-cyclotis/video-06a.html A elephant running. Again, no idea if it helps, but I thought it could.

Don't be offended, but: Not a very helpful post. I think you know that I don't have the capabilities to do that. If I had I would have done it already, or mentioned that I would do that. I would love to contribute to the mod just like you (and I'm planning to!), I want to learn modelling and texturing also because one day (far in the future) I want to make my own mod for this game (I would prefer to wait; until I can actually mod, the game itself is finished or in beta stage, and the concept of my mod is finished). Anyway, I feel like you could have better said: "The problem is that additional models need to be made. Because (...)" Also, why need they be made? Well you do have somewhat of a point in your post to be fair; because it might be an important design feature --> But if the problem is that you don't see how strong a unit is there could be other solutions. Most other games which have a ranking system have some icons (to explain: icons floating on top of the units). Could I make icons? Yes. (No idea if they are good , see attached file) There is of course a possibility that icons is not possible in the engine. Another argument against the icons would be that they look ugly/don't fit etc. I at least do not see that as a problem. Company of Heroes shows the experience always on top of a unit, but perhaps it could be made to only show when you select enemy or friendly forces for those who think it doesn't look good. Icons could, in my opinion would, actually be an improvement. I do not always notice if my soldiers are upgraded even with the visual upgrade (the very obvious ones like hats, yes, I do notice). Sometimes I even have a little trouble distinguishing types of units. But since you can see when units are selected the types, I did not bring this up. See attached file for icon ideas:

Okay. Man, I feel so silly for not knowing this. Is this kind of stuff mentioned anywhere? I made fun of people on a mod forum for doing suggestions that the mod specificly said (several times) they will not do; I made a fake quote with some guy that did all sorts of silly suggestions. So I want to make sure I'm not doing the same. It can be very annoying having to mention everything again and again.

Yes, I agree. And resources would be one of the most important if not the most important but not the only factor. Well, I thought of that problem. I forgot to type it, this is how I vision it (simplified): Let's say it is now like this (again this is simplified, and I don't know if it's doable): Citizen-soldier Tier 1: 100 points Tier 2: 150 points Tier 3: 200 points Elite soldier Tier 1: 200 points It would turn into this: Citizen-soldier Tier 1: 100 points Tier 2: 137,5 points Tier 3: 175 points Tier 4: 212,5 points Tier 5: 250 points Elite soldier Tier 1: 175 points Tier 2: 212,5 points Tier 3: 250 points If this would mean, and I fully agree with you this shouldn't happen Than tier 3 and tier 5 would be lowered and according to that the tiers would be given points (simplified stats).

Oooh I see!

Right now, you can build the corral and then you get acces to sheeps. What I'm wondering: -Does anybody use it? I do not use it at all, it requires so much managment (maybe less than I think), that the farm is much better. Next question: -Would it be better if the corral would spawn animals automaticly (perhaps after upgrading something which costs some food) Or a (I think maybe better) alternative: -Would it be better if you upgrade something in the corral, costing some food, and the sheep spawn automaticly, but for a limited amount of time, in which you have to upgrade for some food again

Good to see more thinking about the Scythians. And we also get some good ideas how to make other nomad factions. I agree with your first point. The second, I would give them fortresses (like the one picture in this thread), but not watchtowers or walls since I don't think they had them. If they had them in reality, they can have them. This is kind of what I had in mind, but better. One question: -should the mobile one be replaceable/buildable? I'm thinking of one at the start and that you can't build another one (except for the static main civic center, which will be buildable in the next phase) And if you have the mobile civic building (not have it in game, but I mean like the faction meganic), I think they should get acces to the farmstead and mill, but instead get these in their settle down phase (some Scythians settled down and farmed in reality, though there is debate if these were real Scythians). I think the settle down is also necessary. A nomad faction early game works, but late game I think it would be very hard to make it work. Does anybody know how Scythians get their food? I know some farmed (which they should have acces to in the settle down phase), but: -did they hunt and gather mainly or/and also herd sheep/other animals? If so, this type of gathering should be in their nomadic phase. Maybe they should have bonuses collecting food and hunting.

Good points. So you think it would make the game more complex? Maybe you are right. I think it's important when we make suggestions or ideas that we keep in mind that those ideas or suggestions do not make the game too hardcore/not for casual players. But with this I see no problem. It doesn't really make the game more complex to me. And casual players can still play very casual. Against a "hardcore" gamer they would already have trouble to play against I think. I would think these are planned.

Back when I was little, I used to play mostly real time strategy demos: Age of Empires 1 (which I bought) 7th Legion (I recently downloaded it, great music, had potential, battlecards & interesting rescource system but the game is bad) Knights & Merchants (which I bought) Red Alert (not much, the demo was very limited) Ceasar 3 Then when I was a bit older, I played mostly: Knights & Merchants Age of Empires 1 (played this much online on Zone.com, but always deathmatch, fond memories of this) Seven Kingdoms (excellent strategy game when you get the hang of it, takes long to get used to especially when you are young) Lords of the Realms 2 (quite enjoyable, but not that great) Empire Earth (loved it back in the day) Then when I got even older: Company of Heroes, excellent game, but not a casual game and flawed faction design (in my opinion) means it can be very frustrating sometimes, since it's very competative Was almost going to buy Medieval 2, but I though, meh I spend too much time on the computer let's not buy this game More recent: I tried Rise of Rome, Ceasor 3 and 7th Legion, but it's not that enjoyable anymore Not a real time strategy, but a strategy game I recently bought and used to play with my cousins: Worms Armageddon, excellent game, very fun to play with friends. This is actually still enjoyable. Fun fact: Worms Armageddon is still being updated by volunteers. And nowadays I play 0 a.d

Good more opinions. Quite interesting, I read that the Iberians did not deploy that much guerilla tactics. I think guerilla warfare is very interesting, a matter of fact, I'm really interested about this kind of warfare, and the darker sides like terrorism. I'm going to think of ideas concerning that. I assume the Gauls, Britons and Iberians are the factions which would mostly deploy guerrila tactics. One problem is that you can't really hide, since the base is on the same map as the soldiers. What was planned, units becoming invisible when in a dense forest, seems like a good feature. I can't think of anything else right now. Spies. Does anybody know Seven Kingdoms? I liked spies in that game, but since the dynamics of this game is totally different those features could not work. I had that idea too, every unit using torches. But I noticed how Iberian flaming javelins were very effective against buildings and I figured that was a feature and I did not want to eliminate this feature. I do not agree. If you give them both the same phases (visuality not neccessary) this should not be a problem at all. A bigger issue is "do most players, and of course developers, feel this is necessary or a nice addition" and of course, very important "do the developers have the manpower and time to implement this". That seems like a waste, hehe. If you made more than 10 and some soldiers I would be scared and not play at all with you. You make a good point. However to me it seems like you mean: -He who has the highest rescources wins (I'm pretty sure you ment he who has the most rescources has a (big) advantage) I think it should be like this, he (or she) wins with: -Good strategy (what to build, what to upgrade) -Good management (rescources, what to gather, when to build) -Good tactics (when to attack, how to attack, where to attack, formations, use of heroes) -Unit preservation (this should be under tactics but this is important to me) This has nothing to do with limiting or capping, but I want to see unit preservation more rewarded as of now. I mean you should still be able to do suicide missions if you want to (I did this when I was little in Empire Earth 1 and Age of Empires 1, human wave tactics), but if someone does preserve it's troop well and someone who doesn't, the one that does preserve should be at an advantage. I must say, I do not like my "group zeal" idea that much (that's how it is in Company of Heroes, sorry for that). I am with you, I hope to see formations evolve in something that can win battles. I thought of a buff when in formation, but that would be problematic since formations don't work like: -always in formation It would be kind of cool if units would stick together in formations. Attack as one. Like Company of Heroes squads or Knights of Merchants groups or Total War units. Did the Celts fight in formations? I always visioned them as not having "real" or tight formations except for those "Romanised" troops.

Well, I am new and I can assure I will be very active in the forum. Because I tried the game and I enjoy it, and so I would like to help improve the game. (If I would not like it/see potential, I would have never registered, not even to improve the game) Not only by suggesting, but my plan is to start learning modelling and texturing and do little things like decorative stones & skins and later a bit more difficult stuff like European flora (I know about some edible plants and trees in Europe, and I would like them in the game) I enjoy the development reports. I think it's always better to have any reports than no reports, because it keeps your attention. There's a mod I enjoy, but I'm not that active anymore because there are no updates, and not much to chat about (I suggested everything I wanted and could because of engine limitations). A developer report could have something new, and that could be discussed. Without any news there would be less to discuss about I think.

Wow, awesome job guys. Looks great.

Nice. I like the idea of team bonuses a lot. Some of my ideas could indeed be faction specific. Hence they are ideas, let's call them conceptual ideas. About the torches, I think I haven't been clear enough. It's like: -Units, that can attack buildings, throw torches at buildings. The torches are just like regular projectiles, but they do damage against buildings. I think Age of Empires 3 had this, I got the idea from that. So, not units using torches to set buildings on fire. Just a secondary or third projectile attack specific for buildings. Flaming arrows and the flaming javelins would of course also be able to damage buildings. My idea is that the regular ranged units can't use the torches, and that upgrading to flaming arrows or in case of the Iberians flaming javelins grants these units the ability to attack buildings. Wikipedia, a disputable source, says Assyrians used flaming arrows. I can't find which other civilisations use them. Maybe Persians could have flaming arrow upgrades? I read Romans also used them, but since they got no bows and since the Iberians already have flaming javelins perhaps not give them this?

I hope I'm allowed to bump & double post, if not, please tell me and I won't do it again. I will not post after a double post but edit instead. _________________________________________________________ Ok, I read the thread again. Faction idea (very radical, I don't know if you guys like and I have no idea if it's possible/balanced): Scythians start with the regular units (1 cav, 2 archers, 2 melee, 4 female). But no civil centre, this will only become available in the city phase when they will settle down along with farms. This is the nomad phase. Scythian citizen soldiers can unpack houses (huts) which costs 40 food 10 wood since they are tents and not wooden and stone houses. The tents can be build in neutral territory (not enemy territory I think), and can be unpacked, to unpack order a citizen-soldier to get in the building and click unpack which will grand the rescources back. These huts are very weak and so easily destroyed. I think it would be too annoying to have these tents lose health, but maybe they should. The huts do not make friendly territory. The Scythians can build a larger tent, which will be able to store both food and wood, not stone and metal (stone and metal will be able to be gathered in the city phase). This building can be build in neutral territory. I think it would be good if it would work like the houses (pack unpack). Like houses it would be cheap, like 80 food 20 wood, but weak. I have no idea if the Scythains would have herd animals, if so they could get acces to these in the larger tent. I think they should have acces to cavalry in here. The city phase is when the Scythians will be able to settle down and farm. (I read some Scythians did settle down and have archiculture, and the name city phase makes sense this way). They will have to build the civil center, which only costs wood, and then they can build a building that gathers metal and stone. That's the idea. Additions? Opinion? Bad idea? Potential good idea? Forbidden units: -slings -skirmishers (throwing spears) -?siege ram? (balance problem?) Forbidden buildings: -watchtowers -pallisade -wall ______________________________________________________________________________________ Other idea: Special technology for the Scythians is barbed arrow heads and poison arrow heads. The Scythians can choose between the two, the poison arrows I explained above, the barbed arrow head could work like this: -arrow damage buff -arrow damage buff + damage over time for a very limited time (unlike the poison arrow, which would do damage over until the unit dies unless healed)

It's great to see crowd-sourcing so more factions can make it. Hope to see Germanics and Scythians eventually with the help of crowd sourcing. I love the Mauryans, especially the worker elephant. It's a really interesting "gimmick". Great idea. Can't wait for them to have the right elephants and the elephants functioning correctly. It will be my favorite civ, besides Gauls and Britons.