DarcReaver
-
Posts
335 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by DarcReaver
-
-
6 hours ago, Grugnas said:
I still can't see any advantage of a battalion system over a single units with formations system.
Isn't just simpler, and even useful, to indroduce a "lock" button on the middle panel allowing the player to maneuver the whole formation by clicking on an unit within formation and eventually disrupt it and rearrange troops by "unlocking" them?
Battalion system is just a limit intended to obtain a massacre-like effect and imo its not very versatile, you couldn't even merge different rank battalions.
What you propose is to use a battalion system and, on the other hand, remove the population limit deriving by units death in it. Are the different rank battalions intended to be merged? if so, how are the troops within it arranged? And, if the xp is shared between all the units (thing that i may agree only on loot exp), will the lower rank units be deployed in the backlane and benefit from the more experienced units in frontlane or will they be deployed in the frontline for an easy death?
Supposing that you will decide for a single unit combats, a kind of "duel" between units within formations resulting in a big brawl, I guess that in case of a cavalry group that outflank and goes for the ranged units, the player is not allowed to move some spearmen from the on going combat and cover the ranged units in the backline because they act as a batallion and, by conseguence, as a single unit.
Afaik the current game is setup in a way that promotes macro oriented manspam strategies, just like AoE II. So the actual veterancy does not do much for the individual soldier. No proper healing/unit preservation for the unit itself, and it's hard to keep them alive because individual units are ant like small. -> pointless clicking/searching for units -> no fun.
And, as a general sidenote: why would somebody want to merge different rank battalions in the first place? And furthermore: Why should individual soldiers in the battalion receive experience? And why should the combat performance vary within a battalion?
It should be pretty obvious that a battalion system should exactly remove these inconsistencies to make the game rely less on individual pointless clicking and instead focus on getting the correct army composition without the manspam effect...
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Servo said:
Oh yeah but you haven't presented and reason why my argument is not valid.
As Saladin said in Stronghold and I quote "Your mind is limited you're not fit to command an army".
So, which aspect did you read and understand? I posted multiple times why your "suggestion" or whatever it's called is crap and has nothing to do with the game itself. If you fail to understand that it's not my problem.
13 hours ago, DarcReaver said:"pop hack" ? Are you serious?
That's not related to the "gameplay". It's related to performance. And sloppy programming.
To use BFME as example - it uses C&C Generals SAGE engine. Generals had no pop cap and so it suffered from bad performance in team games. Since BFME used a heavily modified engine version and had stuff like "global weather effects", Aura particle FX and whatnot, there was Pop cap used to reduce bad performance in team games.
And tbh if you would've done this in a real game your castle is destryed even before you finished to reach your maximum pop cap. This is irrelevant to a point where I say that the same is easily done by adding a higher pop cap limit. Or even a "no popcap" mode that will simply crash with an engine error when too many units are on the field.
11 hours ago, DarcReaver said:So? doing this in a remotely competitive game - be it against (multiple) hard computers or against a "real" player will lead to a defeat while you're trying to accomplish that. It's just a random exploit of coding weaknesses under unreal condititions and serves no purpose at all except for showing "it's possible to overcome the pop limit of the game".
In case you didn't notice : It's certainly not intended. I have no idea why on 0 ad there should be something like this be considered to be put in "on purpose". This is so irrelevant in terms of game mechanics that I don't even know why you bring up such a random thing tbh.
8 hours ago, DarcReaver said:So, you're saying that exploiting a programming exploit is good and should be possible for 0 ad aswell to beat the AI?
Wtf...
Ever considered that beating the AI behavior has NOTHING to do with battalions, pop cap and other stuff? This statement is just beyond me to be honest...
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, Servo said:
Lol you are assuming that it can't be done?! I guarantee you I can beat the AI in 0AD with that 1000% resource gathering rate. I already held 3 hardest AI to phase 1 while I'm at phase 3. I just don't prolong because I'm worried that their behavior might change and not advancing anymore. I remembered playing against 7 brutal AI on Red Alert and still won.
Medieval people are not dumb to use any possible means to achieve what they want to. Armies just don't collide like there was a magnet that attract them towards each other. They should have a military structure and programs to enhance their capability.
You have never presented reason why the thoughts I presented were not possible you only say no it's not. You should present your arguments with logic if you have any.
Let me repeat once more:
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Servo said:
Well I have no issues with pop cap at all. Whether there are safeguards or not. In fact I could neutralize 3 very hard AIs in 0AD before I can even have a hundred units including economic units.
I think I very clear with my previous posts. My little knowledge in military structure battalions consist of companies, platoons, squads etc and each group or unit can perform different tasks. A squad leader can assign an individual to recon a target area for any purpose. Etc, etc. These are sample things that adds strategy that will be lacking when you do a fixed battalion unit. The more strategic activity an RTS game can have the more it becomes interesting.
Guess what. We give AI a +1000% resource and build speed modifier on high difficulties and you'll not even be able to beat a single computer.
Battalions have nothing todo with the AI at all, not how it's building units, engaging the player, playing in general. It neither has to do with "strategical activity". And towards the argument "Squad leader can ...". Ancient time combat worked differently and is not comparable with this kind of "commando operation" at all. And this also has nothing to do with the AI either.But furthermore, and more importantly:
So... just stop it.
-
1
-
-
So, you're saying that exploiting a programming exploit is good and should be possible for 0 ad aswell to beat the AI?
Wtf...
Ever considered that beating the AI behavior has NOTHING to do with battalions, pop cap and other stuff? This statement is just beyond me to be honest...
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Servo said:
I don't know about the technicalities of making games but I can make more units than allowed during gameplay and in BFME there was no safeguard. Here is how to do and it's very simple.
Spam units as much as you can and send them to battle. In BFME I used and like Gondor units. Micro units so that you don't totally lose the whole battalion. Keep the survivor inside the castle and away from the healing building. You might end up having so many unheald single units either cavalry or foot soldiers. Once you reach maximum population which I think 200 then begin healing those units. As long as units are not promoted they won't auto heal. Once you have the banner carrier the units self heal.
If 0AD has this kind of mechanics I can just make a cage get a wolf and put the units until the battalion has one unit left. As long as you don't upgrade the temple for organic units to heal you can spam more units than allowed.
So? doing this in a remotely competitive game - be it against (multiple) hard computers or against a "real" player will lead to a defeat while you're trying to accomplish that. It's just a random exploit of coding weaknesses under unreal condititions and serves no purpose at all except for showing "it's possible to overcome the pop limit of the game".
In case you didn't notice : It's certainly not intended. I have no idea why on 0 ad there should be something like this be considered to be put in "on purpose". This is so irrelevant in terms of game mechanics that I don't even know why you bring up such a random thing tbh.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Servo said:
BFME not BFME 2 my bad. Though I never had the game installed anymore but just in case I can still activate it. I bought almost 3 sets of each cd/DVD almost 2 anthology and one individual cd/DVD and not to boast for the love of that game spent almost or more than $500.
BFME has no safeguard for pop hack. RoN has 3 heads of1 infantry unit but probably since there's no promotion the pop hack won't work
"pop hack" ? Are you serious?
That's not related to the "gameplay". It's related to performance. And sloppy programming.
To use BFME as example - it uses C&C Generals SAGE engine. Generals had no pop cap and so it suffered from bad performance in team games. Since BFME used a heavily modified engine version and had stuff like "global weather effects", Aura particle FX and whatnot, there was Pop cap used to reduce bad performance in team games.
And tbh if you would've done this in a real game your castle is destryed even before you finished to reach your maximum pop cap. This is irrelevant to a point where I say that the same is easily done by adding a higher pop cap limit. Or even a "no popcap" mode that will simply crash with an engine error when too many units are on the field.
-
1
-
-
On 8.4.2017 at 7:42 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:
I like many concept but restrictions..: aren't good. Even if have sense.
dont restrict civic buildings even by territory , the people says things like, "I want build limitless of temples..."
example the restriction kills some games like AoE3.
AoE III was "killed" by many things, but certainly not by the restrictions..
But I do agree, idk whether it's a good idea to add such a harsh differentiation between eco and military tbh.
-
13 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
All right, after playing some more test games I can't seem to get over the ingrained idea that the civic center should be dropsite. I get frustrate like why is not my dude dropping off his stuff instead of walking all the way to that storehouse across the base? Oh, I forgot, again, that I changed it. lol, very frustrating. Will probably put it back unless there's more discussion pro. I admit that maybe more playtesting could be done, but the feature is not that important to me. Keeping the farmstead unlocking fields though!
I think this may be related because it's your only building at the start. To fix that you'd be required to have another dropsite type building.
-
57 minutes ago, Servo said:
I don't think you understand my point while most others do.
He actually sums the point up pretty well. Reinforcing troops can be accomplished in many ways. Either automatically when nearby a barracks, or in owned territory. Alternatively for resources with a timer and so on. This doesn't really have to do with logics, it only depends on how much effort is put in the reinforcement mechanism coding.
I'd suggest you actually look how battalion gameplay concepts are realized in other games.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Servo said:
@DarcReaver I have no problem with pop cap in fact I like it. I even reduce my pop cap whenever possible just to find a better AI behavior(note: I play single player mostly except RoN).
What I'm pointing out is battalion production is ok but units can individually detacth and it's normal and real. I found BFME 2 as a better application of an undetached battalion because I think I was able to make more units than the pop cap(I guess I can make 260/200) and AI behavior is nice too but not real. Its fine too with games concentrating singly/more on military strategy. But with economic activity there are so many strategy involved and creating a disciplined army are almost possible only in the beginning of aggression and when the opponent is neutralized and you relax.
Pop cap over maximum depends on the game code. If the pop is used from the point when the unit training starts it's harder to create situations where the pop cap is above its maximum.
Overall I don't get your point. AI has nothing to do with either pop cap or battalions itself. The last paragaph doesn't make any sense either. I think you're mixing several independant aspects which do not belong together.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Medics may be, in that time the baths are the more close to clinical, even is in the Bible , the people seek sanity.
The medics visit you. You are proposing things that are from XIX or even XX.
####warning a strong scene#########
Romans uses hospital but aren't similar today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine_in_ancient_Rome
This would be part of a simulation. Not a strategy game.
-
2 hours ago, Servo said:
My point of having units created in battalions is that a unit can't detach from it. If the battalion is almost wiped out some remnants could go back and heal then regenerate into the same battalion? If this is so then it's not Real. In BFME 2 I like it in such a manner that I could produce more units despite population capped and units can be coupled with ease because you produce only 5 units. But in RoN it's not because the 3 units count as one even if two units out of 3 died.
When I play 0AD I make sure that I have 10 units of each citizen soldiers that can be fully promoted so they can operate in battalion formations. I produce battalions of champions but guess what does the AI fight in battalions? In multiplayer the players play to win in many ways real battle between huge armies doesn't occur unless there will have mutual agreement as to when and where battle occurs. Or in scenarios where players are to follow specific instructions. But when the battle commences units scatter all over the place. In real battle it's the same units could end up fighting individually.
In 0AD when I put my units in formations it's so hard to extricate wounded units if they are attached or it's very hard to maneuver when marching in tight spaces. I hope a hot key can be provided to deselect the heavily wounded units from a group like the one in RoN which i select all units then I think press "alt-number" and heavily wounded units are highlighted.
So... what is the problem to add a population popcap to the soldiers? Battalions can of course have variable pop cap. Each soldier counts towards it, with an individual value.
-
1
-
-
On 1.4.2017 at 10:51 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:
Counter barrack can be nice for Imperial Romans and their auxiliary.
For example, yes.
On 1.4.2017 at 9:03 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:It's true. I like how the Persians have a barracks and stable, while the Spartans have a barracks and military mess hall, and further the Romans only have a barracks. Maybe just have a basic rule than any civ with more than 2 cavalry types is to receive a stable building. I can't imagine forcing a stable building into the Spartan civ building roster.
Side note: About AOM, I never understood the Barracks and Counter-Barracks for the Atlanteans. Why would you ever train any barracks units when your Counter-Barracks units hard counter everything? Especially if you're a good twitch gamer, microer, just always train the hard counter units. But I was never a fan of the Atlanteans. Zeus4lyfe.
There are several military buildings for civs afterall, Stoas, Barracks etc. The military buildings should be tied to the faction type. I.e. Hellenes use barracks and counter barracks, Romans use barracks only, other cives use counter barracks and stable etc.
-
It would be logical to have civs that require multiple military buildings and other civs which start with a generic barracks that trains all unit types. Take AoM as a reference. Either specialized hardcounter units in a single building or multiple different soft counter units in multiple barracks types. Creates gameplay diversity.
-
1
-
-
On 30.3.2017 at 10:39 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I hate hate hate hate committees. It's the reason I do not offer to work for or with the wfg team.
IMHO, I don't care what analogues the Civic Center has with Age of Empires buildings. We are way beyond Age of Empire here. I want to make clear distinctions for buildings and units. It's why I want to alter the citizen-soldier concept. It's why I want to remove soldiers from the Civic Center and refocus them onto the Barracks and Merc Camps. It's a big reason I want to split the Civic Center from the Dropsites.
In a zero resources at start match, first 2 dropsites can be free or something. Place them wisely.
Agree. Comparing to AoE doesn't help. Having slaves buildable in dropsites would be a compromise between my "early CC" concept and your "offshore drop sites". I think as long as stragglers are nearby the main base there is no problem with drop sites costing resources though. it would only become a problem if gatherers have to travel a lot to harvest wood.
20 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:Try to play polar sea.
Tbh, map types can be swapped, reworked or in worst case removed if they don't fit the game. First comes gameplay, then come maps.
-
1
-
-
On 30.3.2017 at 7:25 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I'm going to stick to my proposal of:
- Slave - pure econ, very slowly dies when gathering, perhaps has male and female versions with slightly different roles
- Citizen - who can muster into militia when called; has aura that boosts slave gathering, aka "Slave Ownership"; who is the primary builder unit
- Citizen-Solders - these are your cheap barracks military units that you use to mass for attacks or defense, who also boost slave gathering rates because they are citizens with the "Slave Ownership" aura; who can build military buildings, but do not gather; who are trained as battalions
- Champions - trained in battalions from fortress or special buildings; your professional soldiers; can upgrade each battalion individually with cool units to boost their battalion effectiveness or boost nearby citizen soldier battalions; limited training in some way, either hard limit or some sort of soft limit.
- Heroes - some, usually fighters like Leonidas or Scipio Africanus, are trained in battalions, while others, like Chanakya for example, are trained as singles; number of auras is reduced and/or rebalanced.
Actually, this layout is good. Units have clear roles, economic and fighting units are separated from each other. Would support that for sure.
-
3
-
Idk about "youth warriors" - might become a political issue with Child Soldiers (there are retards on the net who'd gladly start an argument about this, I'm sure of that).
I'd simply split military into a later phase and be done with it. Military isn't the main topic in here anyways. Most stuff that I'd propose is pretty similar to Wowgetoffyourcellphones proposals in his design thread.
-
Okay, glad to hear that.
One thing about wonders and "uber techs" - remember one thing:
If you balance "extreme lategame" techs by making them very hard to obtain, it's unlikely that they are used or reached in a competitive game. Most of the time those techs are only used for "noob stomping" and create issues in large teamgames (where resource gain is much higher and players can tech up more easily).
If you don't get what I mean, take a look at CoH or war 3 for example. Some lategame units on axis side (super tanks, buyable veterancy, mass air in warcraft III etc.) only kick in very late, and thus make axis much stronger in large team games, up to a point where it's almost unwinable from allies at some point. This concept is called "asymmetric balancing" and is a pretty weak one. Means: it works in 1v1 because most upgrades are not available at all times, only under certain circumstances, thus they're "luxuries" and not a central aspect of balancing. In team games this is different however.
It would be more of use to make them situational, and the upgrade (wonder) itself cheaper. I can't get that specific because I don't have something in mind right now. I'm also not against "super techs" at all, I just want to put up a warning that "high cost delay" for techs is a weak design element and creates problems while being of limited use in "regular" games (because not affordable).
Also while thinking of that: Titan tech/unlock in AoM : Titans - uses that pretty lame concept aswell. Get up to Tier V, build a titan Gate and then it's either win (titan can be summoned) or loss (enemy raids your base and you cant get it).
C&C 3 Kanes wrath also does this crap with MARV, Super Bot thingy for nod and that Spider mecha hexapod scrin unit, which makes the game much less enjoyable compared to regular AoM/CnC 3 although the game mechanics of the add-ons themselves are better apart from those super units. (like easier access to myth units in titans and better eco management in CnC 3 + the sub factions). C&C Generals did it pretty nicely - lots of new content, overall many aspects polished in controls, and the core gameplay is similar without adding unnecessary stuff. Wc3 did that aswell with Frozen Throne - new units/damage types to counter the meta present in reign of chaos, lots of new content and finetuning of gameplay aspects, which makes Frozen Throne superior without being too different.
-
Maybe the concept could be more like a "domination" gameplay type. The wagons (or maybe temples/wonders?) are on the map, can be captured and decrease the enemie's timer until it reaches zero. Like
3 wonders on the map
take all 3 - enemy team looses 3 ticks per ... idk 10 seconds
take only 2 - enemy team looses 2 ticks
own team has 2 and enemy has 1, enemy looses 1 tick per 10 secondsHowever, unless you'd make it the "default" game mode I wouldn't put much effort in this, because most ppl play annihilation/conquest anyways in multiplayer.
-
I do agree to many points of wowgetoffyourcellphone - afterall we share lots of viewpoints and the direction we're trying to progress towards is basically the same. The difference is that wow sort of maximizes the current 0 ad layout - similar to age 2 - while I propose to apply an approach more similar to AoM or wc3 or cnc or bfme type games, with faction groups that are more unique.
I won't mess with every point proposed, I think the "coin" approach is a good idea for trading, although I'd favor a different implementation - markets generate coins regardless of trading units, they simply are added in fixed time frames, and selling goods on the market allows to gain additional coins. Buying stuff requires to spend coins. That way coins are not linked to regular economy directly by affecting popcap.
the "glory" resource is certainly interesting, pretty similar to favor in AoM - research special technologies as a reward for fighting.
I'd still favor the "strong core - weak countryside" with "settlement" - weak civil centers though, available from Phase I (instead of phase II) to emphasize the "multiple village/city" approach with capturing mechanics in place so outer villages switch their ownership on raids more frequently. Same with gathering sites - more eco spreading and map control, but at the same time with more options for early defense.
The main issue that I see is that once military is on the field one player looses if he is raided. Since players are forced outside their country it's hard to defend and claim new settlement spots. An alternative wiould be to provide neutral, capturable cities early on.
I would however make regular military not available at phase I, only citizens. regular Military at phase II and champions at phase III. Apart from that Wonders should be reworked in general. Too expensive and no use (even though they would generate glory here). Wonder defense win condition is pretty lame anyways (which is why most ppl play conquest game mode in AoE).
I'll go through the document and put some thoughts in it aswell. Maybe a middle ground could be found to make 0 ad great (again).
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, wraitii said:
Correct, CCs are available in phase 2.
You'd build a CC to deny resources to your opponent and to build buildings. I think it's not too much of a nerf.
It's a problem on RMs because some are just terribly balanced, so you end up without metal or stuff. It also sometimes forces you to place your CCs in a braindead way, not as strategical way.
Ok on the worker elephant I guess, it might need a buff.
Actually main reason is to build Civic Centers is train additional workers. But since the training times are so short in 0AD and you can gather with hundred villagers/soldiers in your base area there is little need for another economic center somewhere else.
In AoE II it's usually 30 pop villagers when you enter Castle age to start booming after like 15-20 mins. In 0 Ad you have like 100 women/soldiers within the first 15 mins of the game. Which is a problem in itself but a different topic.
I'd go that route: multiple early Civic Centers which are actually captureable with small armies early on, less gathering spots (lower worker hardcap on resources in general. 2-6 gatherers instead of 8,10,12 or 24 ) and delay "real" military in phase II.
Edit: also who is voting "keep as it is"?... wtf srsly..
-
3 minutes ago, Imarok said:
Isn't that the case too, when you need to build a CC first?
6 minutes ago, niektb said:@Imarok: it makes the early stages of the game more interesting and less about creating champions asap. Combined with the reduced amount of gatherers per resource entity it highly encourages the players to expand early. This in turn encourages scouting, raiding, positioning your defensive armies (since with the reduced LOS and speed your army requires some time to move around) and whatnot...
@wraitii: yes, but as said I think you can't limit your scope on this particular topic. It requires an agreement on the bigger countryside concept first before you can step into implementation details
1 minute ago, niektb said:@Imarok: no, because you need to be in Phase III before you can build a second one (and it's expensive too)
Actually, instead of using storehouses - I'd really suggest to give players an option for Civic Centers in phase I.
Reduce hitpoints, capture rate/points, number of units garrisoned, make them cheaper and allow them in phase I and reduce their influence radius by 40%.
-
1
-
-
I'll replace them with Alpine civs then. It's just a term afterall to unify them in one category.
-
1
-
wowgetoffyourcellphone's gameplay design
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted · Edited by DarcReaver
Just like in TW.
Build a battalion, fight with a battalion, individual soldiers can die and can be healed / reinforced at your barracks. Battalions get experience as a whole for fighting, and if the last soldier was killed the battalion is lost. Reinforcing a battalion costs less than to train a new one.
If you dont know games with squad based unit systems, here are some examples:
Company of Heroes
Battle for Middle earth
C&C 3+
Praetorians
Warhammer 40k games (DoW 1,2,3)
There might be mroe but those are the ones that come into my mind atm. And once more: soldiers_do_not_gather. Soldiers_fight. That's what soldiers are used for.