Ryze
-
Posts
42 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ryze
-
-
46 minutes ago, maroder said:
@Ryze it never did build walls in any of the recent alphas, cause it is not trivial to decide where to put them without blocking itselfself at the same time. So it's just not implemented (yet)
Thanks for the info.
As someone who likes to turtle and then in the late-game enjoy the feeling of crushing through the lines of fortifications of my opponents (even if just an AI), eventually having it implemented will be amazing
-
1
-
-
-
'Ziz' if no Chinese civ, else 'Zhū Què'.
-
I've observed a handful of AI-only games in A25, with Petra bots on Medium difficulty and Defensive attitude.
In none of those games have I ever seen the AI build palasides or walls, leaving it extremely vulnerable to small-scale raids even in the very late game (e.g. 1 hour in...).
Is this a bug, or has the AI for this been disabled in A25 for some reason?
-
Archers would have larger range and no armor, so be better from the outside.
Why "no armor"? Various civilizations had archers with varying degrees of armor protection...
-
I think that in order to have a proper unit balance analysis we need to factor in cost-effectiveness. Thus a unit may be admittedly stronger than another as long as it's price (and, dare I dream, maintenance) is proportionally higher.
E.g. horse-archer vs foot-archer
This would allow tthe existence of heavily-armored horse-archers, which did exist as an elite component of several armies, instead of the suggestion above of nerfing their armor as part of a purely gameplay consideration rather than an historical example...
-
I think sword cav be countered by spear cav and be efficient against infantry. It makes no sense to me that if you have a lance someone with a sword can hit you
Simple, the lance is too cumbersome to waive around and duel with swords...
-
3
-
-
Of course the game time depends on your opponents. But be aware that the main concept of 0 A.D. is built around cities, not empires. The game-mode you suggest would be more something for a campaign idea (with a large strategic map like in Total War?)
Also, currently 0 A.D. heavily relies on multiplayer games. For most people 1.5 hours is too long to spend on 1 match (especially since we can't save and rehost it later at the moment).
Yes, it would be more like a short campaign. The inspiration is more Empire Earth, which has a nice concept of "territories" with different resources which you had to dominate in order to exploit it...
-
The 20 to 45 minutes part kind of puts me off...
A game with such level of detail should be savoured like the finest of meals, not devoured as if it was fast food
Would you consider adding a second game-mode (Empire Building?) where the game takes between 40 to 90 minutes?
Then people could have time to develop more cities other than a huge metropolis and epic fights could ensue where one defeat in open battle doesn't mean total destruction, since even if that leads to the loss of your best city, you'll have places to retreat and try to claw your way back to victory...
In short, a mode where (grand?) strategy is as important as tactics
-
2
-
-
As stated in the other thread, I love the idea and I hope the team seriously considers this, if they think it feasible...
-
Indeed, growing the map will make rebalance the game in something more strategic than tactic . But a virtual solution will be to make units walk simply ... slower.
This can lead to make games very long and, i'm afraid, more likely to finish in a kind of statut-quo situation ( very slow ping-pong game between detected champions invasion and full garnisoned fortress ).
_____________________________
If you want to resize the importance of the positions on a map (its a good idea) , you will have to consider NO LONGER that a new CC build is simply a extension of your inner CC territory..
By now, you ressources gathered are just available everywhere for every of your CCs . Its irrealistic, and doesnt make you pay the consequencies of a long ennemy siege attack.
--> This makes me think that if we want to underline the importance of position and make the game more macro (but without slowing the game in order to keep the micro) , one need
to make ressources less Virtual after they have been gathered.
Here some idea.
- Each ressources gathered belongs to the CC where it has been gathered
- You can delivery more ressources to a CC (even to allies ones) thanks to traders (with added values?) and ennemies can steal the value by killing it (like now). Roads existance in the game will be then relevant.
- Rather than make each unit a one-shot investment, make them a charge for your city : each unit work but also consum food on time ! As a result, garnision cowardely unlimited units will lead to starvation.
- Buildings and units can be convertable : convert units to you, but also convert buildings or siege engines or even make them a source of wood and/or stone (like ruins)
- Make a lake of ressources a reason to revolt (some units convert to gaia ?)
- Each CC detroyed/captured will offer the goods in it
- ...
I think make the ressources more material and less virtual can be a good way to underline the importance of position and put an added macro value to the game and even a micro ! as the player would have to
protect the cities but the roads as well ! (like did the succesfull Romans )
THIS. Local resources.
Please make this happen
-
Love the idea
As a player, I totally fall in the "Imperial" category.However, having recently played a lot of AoE2HD multiplayer, I do worry about the time necessary to "build-up" before actual fighting occurs...
My suggestion is gto go for the two separate game modes ("Arcade" and "Imperial") and then, in "Imperial", starting with a map 10x bigger and with far more costly/complex Age upgrades, so that player can still enjoy early Age fights...
-
the closest thing to steppe civilizations would probably be the Huns, Parthians, and maybe one or two others. notably, the Mongols fall out of 0ad's timeframe, much like the Vikings, though i'd say they're another case of anachronistic elements which would still work as part of the game, just not as a default part of playable civilizations.
You are forgetting the Xiongnu. They were sort of "proto-Mongols": they had a big emphasis in horse archery and tribal structures. Their confederation was so strong that it took the Han (at its heighest) nearly one century of 'total war' to subjugate them. Thought I'm not certain, I think that the Hun migration was (partially?) caused by the confederation's defeat against the Han.
P.S.: Please correct me if I wrote something wrong. 0 - 500 AD history is a rather 'foggy' subject to me.
-
1
-
-
Those were rather isolated. Some discussions have resulted that it would be best to keep it to civilisations that have fought with each other. The eastern civilisations didn't fight with the western ones (the Himalayas were too big), so they aren't included.
Sorry, but that argument is flawed. Britons and Mauryans never fought each other and they are in. Don't get me wrong: they should be. My point is the eastern civilisations didn't fight with the western ones BUT the Chinese and the Koreans fought the Xiongnu, the Xiongnu fought with other steppe people, those steppe people fought Persians, Seleucids, Macedonians, Romans, etc.
Therefore, the eastern civilisations are isolated because, to put it bluntly, the in-game civilisations stop in the steppes.
What do people think? I think that those civilisations should be in. Maybe in a late patch (afterfall, game development does need priorities).
P.S.: Playing a steppe civilisation would be lots of funs.
-
In my opinion, the lack of Chinese, Japanese and Korean civilizations in the base game is a bit of a "flaw"...
-
Abilities system reduces create hybrid units.
As long as the problem/issue is solved, I'm fine with it...
-
1
-
-
You must need a Mod team. The best way is wait to final Release and do it.
I know. But until I have loads of free-time, it's pointless to think about it any further (because I won't have free-time in a LONG time xD).
-
This depends on the type of map you choose. One some you can afford to turtle, on some others you can't.
You need to adapt your strategy to the terrain.
To some degree, yes. In Acropolis-style of maps, it should be highly viable, while in a flat desert map, rush would be more desirable. On the other hand, with too few resouces you are forced to rush in almost every map because your rusher enemy will otherwise have an overwhelming advantage in resources that can't be countered with farming and trading.
To reaffirm my point: I just want enough resources available on the map so that a turtler still has some time to challenge a rusher's map domination. Key-word here is SOME. If the turtler fails to achieve it fast enough, he'll lose.
What I ask is an amount of resources that will allow, for example, a 30 minute time window for the turtler to try it... Because, if the rusher strips the map of all resources, attemping to destroy and occupy is territory is a rather unprofitable endeavour (don't forget the population limit and the diminishing returns from farming).
P.S.: Check out my topic about minable rubble; it would help a little in solving this problem.
-
The limitation of resources should probably be something possibly managed by the pre-game settings, but scarcity of them introduces two important aspects of the game which characterize different phases of it. The first phase, (not as in the village, town, et cetera) which could be called mid-game, is a period of intense struggle for territory so that nations will be able to exploit the resources which they fight over. When practically every resource is exhausted, there initiates the late game phase, where resources are acquired through trade, farming, and bartering. Thus, by having very limited resources, the game has stages which make it develop into a different game experience from one moment to the next.
I agree with the OP because the scarcity of resources constrains the player to a single tactic: rush the resources faster than your enemy or lose (assuming an equally smart opponent, like a multiplayer game).
A higher abundance of resources would give the choice between rushing and turtling:
- If you rush, you can gather more resources from various locations on the map (giving you a distinct advantage over your opponent).
- If you turtle, you sacrifice wealth for safety BUT, thanks to the abundance of resources, you still have time to challenge your opponent for control of those resources' locations.
This^ would allow a greater variety of tactics while still favoring the rusher. The difference is that a very good player that turtles may be able to challenge the rusher's map domination. On the other hand, a very competent rusher will be able to overwhelm the turtler most of the time due to the disparity of resources gathered.
What I say is, don't make the game with a 'One Tactic To Rull Them All' -style of gameplay (hooray for my totally uncreative pun).
-
The game is very moddable (in fact, almost everything is moddable). You should just take into account what amount of work you'd need for something. Of course, you need all-new art (models, animations, textures, sound ...). After that, you need to search similarities. There's not a lot of difference between an archer and someone with a musket (they aim, shoot and hit or miss). Or between rockets and ballistas. You will probably have problems with fast-moving vehicles though. That's something that isn't implemented yet. Car's aren't supposed to stop immediately, and have a turning circle.Those are things that would require major modifications. Luckily for you, we also need parts of that (like turn circles for ships).
Yes, I know the absurd amount of work I would need to do in order to pull it off. What I really wanted to confirm was the modability of the game.
Perhaps once I find myself with huge amounts of free time I'll begin something along these lines. Some cannon models, for example (I'd really like to learn a bit of modeling and animations, it's strikes me as useful knowledge...).
-
Like AoE3, from the invention of the arquebus to the invention of the machine gun.
How moddable is the game? Is this possible? I mean, the addition of muskets, mortars, rockets, ships firing broadside, etc...
-
I like the idea. I don't know about Carthage or Athens, but I'm almost certain there is a site with a 3D recreation of Rome. It might give you some inspiration
-
Also note, there's a big difference between Java and JS (JavaScript). If you ever use google to search how to do something, make sure you end up on pages explaining JavaScript, and not Java. Although it looks similar on first view, there are enough differences to make you pull your hear.
Thanks for the warning.
-
Check out Modding Guide and Finding Your Way around. Most of the data files (XML, JS, JSON) can be edited with a text editor, I would recommend Notepad++ on Windows.
Thanks.
I actually already have Notepad++, so all will probably be alright...
AI never builds palisades or walls
in General Discussion
Posted
It's not the same thing, nor are the starting Iberian walls a substantial enough challenge for a turtler (I imagine they are simply intended to deter early rushes...).