Romulus

Couple features of game play that bother me. First not being able to build in neutral and claimed territory. I think this really needs to change. The one reason I think the rule is there, is cause if you build in an enemy zone you will get attacked? Well yeah then let the player get attacked then. This should be allowed. Second thing is the Roman fort. Its life should not deteriorate if units are gathered inside. And wtf happened to repair building? Lol... Come on. Third thing is that forts are to weak.... Think about what it is... A wooden structure that's solid as heck, how can a hand full of units cause so much damage? ... Those are the annoying things... But now on the bright side..... The in game sound needs a bit more tone to it......... More birds... Animal sounds, ocean waves... Forest ambient, and wind... You know .. Something that compliments Gaia I'd like to see more different types of bushes, trees, and whatnot. it will certainly make a huge difference

By being smart Never waste your men on a stupid attack. As in, don't throw your army in chaos where the enemy is guaranteed win. Always gain hold of geography that the enemy needs (mines/wood/food) and defend it. Here's another example, I played this now. Me against two allied AI on hard. First half hour, both teams kept pouring into my city, hundreds of hoplites.... You see Iphicrates 847 but only killed 163 of mine lolz ... Athenians are lame Sparta (green) was more difficult. Few units but very tough to be. Their hoplites are very strong. If Sparta trained more than 800 units, then I would of probably had many more units killed, maybe 500 :/ I never built walls. So the end is Romans 363 VS Greeks 1138 1138 Greeks dead. 283 Romans dead 80 Romans remain victorious

I think he was referring to your quote. Here's an example of "The Roman way" Some dev member, (I can't remember who) mentioned stats recorded for individual battles... What I want to see is stats of how many soldiers VS enemy Say I have 30 soldiers, enemy fought with 60 but lost 60 units, How many soldiers did the battle have? Then we can ah I had 30 fighting your 60 ... understand?

Hmm this map was lake. I never actually played it before. And yes docks are good to have. Although, haven't had a need to use them much. But, the way I like to play is having few soldiers and take on many others as possible. Get more kills and less own kills for military score The Roman way

Yes This is only one of several methods. If there was obstacles, I wouldn't of used this strategy Or I would, but then, I'd flank the city from both sides, clear one half with rams and cavalry, and then attack the other side with infantry The rams will be expensive, but worth the cost.

ALL YOUR FARM ARE BELONG TO ME Firstly, I do apologize for the crude screenshots etc, I just briefly did as pointers, because lots have asked about tactics and "how tos". So this is aimed to just give you an idea of this strategy. Firstly, this is a blitzkrieg (storm the castle) gung ho method which probably won't work with beginners, because you have to be quick and know the game. The worst is that you may lose countless men and not be successful launching your assault. And you will need many many more units than what I used. Now the way I did this was about 3 battles later, in which (blue team my enemy) had at least 50/70 units to my 20 How the odds swung in my favour was deploying my cavalry to entice them to a fort near my zone, then let them get shot to pieces by archers. After this attack, the enemy had to revert and start unit production, and this time is the critical phase because at this moment you march straight through their town. With the remnants of my 20 unit army, I forced and rammed through to breach a path to the clear land on the other side. Assuming of course there was clear land, (I was lazy to send out scout Once your men have reached the clear land, immediately establish fort. This serves as an anchor in which to retreat to protect your men, or make more. (In this example I didn't create any, just my 20 Once a fort is built, repel any any attackers and immediately march out to attack the CC. After the CC has fully been demolished, immediately start building your CC on the site. Once that's done, a successful compromise has been executed _________________________________________________________ Key Notes: Veteran Spearmen have the best infantry attack on CCs, and WITHOUT being attacked by enemy units, I recommend at least 25 to fully bring a CC down, and that's withstanding heavy arrow fire from the populace inside. WHY DON'T YOU JUST USE RAMS??? Because rams cost huge amounts of metal, and once attacking a building, one enemy unit is enough to kill it. So it's a waste. Units VS buildings is the name of the game in this strategy. Against an tougher opponent, the only thing you do, is X-times the amount of soldiers you use

Okay then that is considered a group session. Like I said, I haven't tried

Hmm yes but then messages will be in separate in boxes as opposed to one. Still maybe the webmaster can run an addon if there's one for the forum software

Firstly the mods can put this post where they so choose as I have now idea where this will go. Now, is it possible you can implement a group session PM with more than one members on here. Why? Because this (my preference on doing things) makes easy especially for a modding crew. Also if correspondence is done mostly by PM it helps keep clutter from building up in threads with useless "general" info. So if you can understand my point... IRC you might add? Yeah, but not everyone finds that convenient. The last time I looked you cannot group chat on, so clarify that as well. Lazy to look

No.There should be no time limit for peace. Reason being is cause its not realistic. What this beautiful RTS needs is something Skyrim has The AI's relations is strictly dependent on your actions and will be effected in every way. Skyrim has this but not like the intensity I'm referring. Ill be coding an AI for my mod sometime as it will definitely need one. But what I'm doing now is putting all my ideas on paper how I want this AI to be, how it should act and how it relates to moves you as a player makes which then either from a random set of sequences issues an effect... Either happy or angry, etc, etc. Difficult to explain now as I have not really compiled it all in my head yet. My first procedure with this is... Delving deep into the psychology of the times and perceive it as it was then.... " How would I act if was an enemy?? What would I do if you sent your soldiers into my region??? Or how happy I am that aided me battle with some of your soldiers. I'm thinking about a meter level for this... A measure of loyalty... But its effected at what you as the player does. Creating a good AI is not an easy thing. Its as diverse as psychology.... Because is psychology.... Our brains trigger thought patters much the same way of how binary is created and processed. The only thing we has humans have is the ability to program ourselves... Machines have to be told first, then it does, but at what level its sophistication is at depends how well and how much you tell it

Then why does 0 A.D. look so beautiful? /me thinks you lying

Hi I've never had the need to go and look into the stats as of yet, but in my experience, logic applies. Spear units vs cavalry Archers weak vs all Swordsmen strong vs all except cavalry Skirmisher units strong vs archers, but weak vs the rest Woman strong in bed but weak vs the everything else sadly. So its really simple

This is NOT a continuation of the infinite farming thread because its served its purpose beautifully. This is a note from the author/op. Firstly some staff have felt I was being a bit unmannerly in my argument. I do apologize to all the staff members for giving you that impression. I never intended rudeness, unsettled-ness or lack of any respect thereof. And specially to Erik, my posts were strictly for arguments sake (constructively speaking). But in the light at the end of it, it had accomplished its purpose exactly how I wanted it too. Let me explain. The thread shifted back and forth, up and down, no way for either side right? This is actually referred to as stalemate And the thread is was the exact reflection of it. Infinite farming was like the convosation, never ending, no way for each side. Very much at a constant, something doesn't happen and is not natural in a game like this. As much as you might say, the thread served no purpose, so does infinite farming, serves no purpose. Because if we accept infinite farming, we can just accept cheating so there is NO POINT precisely. The Centurion thread about infinite farming is one of the most beautiful played out threads you'll see with an obvious, yet hidden meaning of the argument in full. Thanks to the dev for sharing your ideas and for your time, and may the argument live now in the back of minds... Eagerly inducing, provoking a reversion to the older system. The thread was the plague, the pest that attacks the harvest of the farms mechanic, and probably remain till it eats the infinite mechanic dead... in the minds of the designers and then they plant a new seed.... One which will center 0 A.D. On the tallest mountain of RTS genres in history.... Thank you

Yeah. What should also happen, is every faction starts the game neutral. Not like in aoe where neutral only protected villagers, but essentially, just 1 down from being an ally. Like Rise of Nations "peace time" concept.

Exactly, and here you have a clear reason of why infinite farming is unrealistic. It's because the reality is that the Enemy will ultimately starve and surrender. Not have an infinite amount of food coming from nowhere. @quote in highlighted in red: You kidding me right? This was a tactic deployed by the Romans and countless of empires. And prominent during castle sieges.... wtf.... The reason? --- Please honestly tell me, should I explain what the reason is? Don't you think it's incredibly obvious? Maybe. I feel this discussion hasn't reaped any fruit. The sad reason for this is, that no one has actually understood the reason for this argument. Yes I can make a mod for it, but my personal preference is it being official I hope to see this RTS be the best. And I have no hesitation to try and influence it as such. If the dev would only listen.

? Could you be more clear on this One mechanic can influence an entire game. Its that sensitive. With this infinite food thing, you can see how. Yes agreed. Dialogue. Not a mono convosation with fixed ideas. And so far out of this argument so far, I don't feel it has been addressed. Addressed in the sense that the dev have actually said, we'll, how about "this" or "that"? Either a compromise or a backtrack to mend balance issues or the like. None of it has happened. So how do conclude this? By all means. Your previous post shows you didn't really understand what I said, so why were you in here to begin with? I really did not start this thread to upset people. I brought this forward to state the mechanic is unacceptable. Not for 2 devs here trying to find a loop hole in my argument to try and justify this thread as been otherwise. Exactly what you and Enrique are doing If you not interested in being constructive in coming up with a means to at least bring sone sort of balance then why the hell did you 2 engage in this thread to begin with? I don't understand your logic. It is as weird as infinite farming...

Read my post again and go over it. Its easy to understand the reason me getting that idea.Companies cater for the masses. That's why quite frankly there's @#$% on the market So yes I will stick to my definition of what's right thanks. Then that just as easily means your description is floored and proved contradicting. Really? then this isn't an RTS ... Simple No I am not.What a few balancing code got to do with changing the core? Or eliminating unbalanced mechanics for that matter. My argument is not centered and aimed changing the game. Its here in hope it doesn't change! I will hate to see it go down the same rout as RTS hybrids on the market. Your opinion. If that's the way you feel you are free to leave this thread really... You will always find an excuse or something against my argument. So why should I debate with you if you not at all inclined to listen? Instead trying to say that now all of a sudden I can't be serious ... ??? Well guess what? I am. So you can leave if you want.

I have Uninviting tone such as yours to the players of 0 .A.D is surely frowned upon. Think before you post in retaliation. To me that's pretty biased wouldn't you say? Totally un lenient towards one side, and totally devoted to the peoples reviews... Lol this is not what open source is about. Mainstream preference is catered for by companies... The open source movement catered for what's right This is an open source game not a company so why fall into the same mindset as them? And why do I have to explain this to you in the first place? I'm with you on your description of what you call fun 100%. However again, we do not agree to some factors if we break it down a bit. Firstly, according to you, you say that infinite farming is balanced and there's no reason to change it. Well I say you wrong. Probably the reason is that you play it in a standard way and totally different to how I play it.... As evident in you not acknowledging the reason for this argument. The reason to name a few... How do you effectively apply a strategy to starve an enemy that has a bottomless manner pit right on their CC's doorstep? But you still haven't confronted this question, bevause probably you don't play that way and therefore it doesn't matter to you. Again a biased sentiment... And Erik what you fail to understand is that some of us on here have become fans of this game by always monitoring it and sticking to it. We grow with it just like you the team that's in it. Think about that for a second. All 3 of you do that. What's with this condescending vibe like ((oh well if you don't like it then play and go some place else)) ????? Uncalled for, atleast try and show a little courtesy to the fans than treat them like some outcasts for crying out loud... I've been with 0 A.D. since the early Alpha days... Ill be darned just to forget about in a drop of a hat and go play something else. I've become to attached to it for that. What all 3 of you need to realize. This isn't fun when you expect a voice from the players/fans BUT then tell them go play something else???? Why don't you close the doors then and become a corporate game brand??? There we go problem solved! Then you don't have to put up with the players, this forum or the die hard fans

Ok so I was maybe out... How about 59 minutes? Yeah, which is I said a Gaia mechanic. Gaia automatically grows trees after long periods of time. Okay let me be honest and tell you why I had this idea... Think of AOE days... I love keep the match going on forever. I'm just like that... I love to maintain a game and keep it from ending. But in AOE you get those times where look at the deforestation, and land been stripped of everything that was on it, and you think... Man... Its a shame. How nice if you could see the trees grow back and animals respawn... (Specially the fish for the love of christ) but you always feel "darn" that sadness that there's nothing more but barren land. Kills the game... Imagine a game that lives like nature....... Think about it

How would you define fun then? What is fun? What if I said that micromanaging and taxation is fun? Because it is to me.

Yes I know. So trees can take 3 hours in the game

I was accused in The Centurion thread, for starting this topic as if I was being contradicting lol No. This seems to be a good idea, but only if its done right. But it should be a gaia process that takes a long @#$% time to grow. Otherwise yeah unrealistic. No go.

It's not that I fail to see that farms cost 0 resources. Its about the never ending supply chain of units getting made from that infinite food, which isn't realistic at all. And if you want to talk about being real, the farmers have to be paid??? There's taxation right there! Okay.... We have reached a break in this argument so how's this? The way to effectively combat this disposition, is by implementing a totally new feature. How's coinage???? A monetary system which could be called gold? This cuts the balance issue and sorts everything out. It will cost gold to keep armies, it will cost gold to run an economy... It will even cost gold to run the farms. Say that I'm not wrong?

Well for now with the current lag, this is a big no,no haha But maybe close to release, it would be nice to see us able to plant things too. But I can see what would happen here..... the AI planting trees right on their CC like those darn farms :| I changed my mind, no planting!

The queue bit of the farms at the granary/mill bit I'm in full support of. Why not just make 100 limit in the queue section? this I think will be a win, win situation for the micromanagment folks and those that aren't. I want to influence the game based on logic that applies to real life situations for the better promoting good gameplay. I also feel just to be a voice that maintains purity in 0 A.D. and not let go down the tubes. Despite what anyone says. This is my story and argument, and I'm sticking to it. And importantly to out-root the infinite resources because this borders on cheating... And excuse me is just complete fantasy. Also unfair to a besieging army that has to kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill and bloody kill just because they getting a bottomless pit of darn food which turns the scenario on its face, and eliminates the fun invovled. Anyone in their right mind will get this point. At some point, the player HAS TO RUN OUT OF RESOURCES because this is exactly what happens during a real siege. The enemy behind walls DOES NOT get sent infinite manner from the heavens to keep pouring and pouring people out. My input on this subject will be a proposition.... First if infinite farms are to carry on, reseeding is an absolute imperative. Further more it has to be taxing. Seeds, labour etc,etc WOOD for tools and harvest equipment... Something realistic that will eventually make the enemy/opponent run out of resources. I'm quite serious when I say this is unacceptable to continue with infinite resources. Where does infinite resources feature in this quote? Sacrifice the historical bit for fantasy gameplay ... Nice way to kill the game. Yes precisely that.The way we interact in strategic way againts players................ This means that how can we apply strategies which simulate real life logic with fantasy mechanics such as infinite resources??? You cannot! That is the point. To conclude everything mentioned here, Yes I understand these are early (trial & error) days. Yes I understand that not everybody sees this view in the same light. That is why there's an argument or a debate rather. Personally I don't want to see 0 A.D. Becoming like Empire Earth, RON, WoW etc ... I want to see it retain that same realism that AoE had, that's what makes it special. Don't kill it with these unrealistic gameplay features, it will a darn shame to see waste away down the same path of those rubbish RTS games. When I discovered 0 A.D. I thought Jesus at last!!! A real RTS has come from heaven, I was really thrilled. But the I started seen this bit with the farms and immediately, I started shaking my head. Don't kill it.