JC (naval supremacist)

.. and for how long ? Aaahahaha . When you face 1 vs 3 very hard AI, only defence leads to defeat for sure. Now i can win 1 vs 3 very hard on the Anatolian map (the one with few trees) What is your name in the lobby ?

Hello, As i'm continuously banned from the lobby (still wonder why..) , I improve my skills offline. By now, i can beat 1vs 3 or 4 hard AI . Or 1 vs 3 very hard but with some tricks (forteress map, treasures or rivers) On naval islands, 1 vs 4 or more very hard and you ?

well, a svn probably lived in those years.

You mean sharing duties among players in 1 only civ ? No , no .. its not what i propose. My idea is not a duty-division among players (who wants the boring mayor role ? ^^ ) . Read again, its different. Its more like a CC-Hero paradigm. Taking the fact that the player is no more a God (total aura) but a mortal Hero (limited aura) pushs you to delegate (make it AI) of a provincial CC to another Hero (or ally hero) _____ But the simpliest and the most easiest programmable thing should be to put a selection of units under the flag of your ally in order he can take control of these units.

Hey ! it could be cool in Multiplayer as well . While i go to war, i delegate a CC under the control of an ally or one of my hero (yes should be many hero) So, exemple : I'm hero Philippe 2 from Mace, i have my hero son Alexander, my Ally is Thebe and we want to invade Athen and Sparta in a 2vs2 multiplayer game . I let Alexander Hero rule my inner CC, i go invade Athen with my ally. My ally-theban-Hero stays at Athen (its cc) to keep it (otherwise city turns back to the fugitive Periclès) and he delegates to the hero i play - Philippe 2 - half of his army. I go invade Sparta, I produce another Hero to keep my capital and then i ask Alexander to join me in the battle with his AI army. Once Alexander penetrate my aura territory, i take control of his army Before i go to war , i schedule Alexander to AI and with an attitude (passive-agressive) in a way i want him to rule my city. To ask him to join me before battle for Sparta, i send a messenger (or a bird ? ) with simple instruction like : join me at this place. More precisely, i can see my capital, i can right shift many orders, but they will be processed as soon as my messenger comes into the aura of the responsible of the CC (alexander). Of course, your messenger can be killed. The result of this is that 0AD will turn in a game where the player is no more God but a mortal Hero (but with successors you can control) who will have to take decisions considering distances and time. Its nice idea no? It will be a downside of being too big and surronded by too many civs , as Rome was.

Sorry, i think the name of my topic is bad. This cannot be a global score but , indeed, an military efficiency score. You are right. The kill/death ratio is a definied score and not a clear in-game proprety . Despite this, everyone refer direct to that score to make kindly fun of each other ( especially me on naval maps ) That said, my proposition is just to redefine a ratio (considering the total health of the units/buildings killed or lost) but also adding an invest dimension in the score. ( total amount of health killed (units + defensive buildings) - total amount of health lost (units + defensive buildings) ) / the total amount of ressources invested (units + defensive buildings + military upgrades) As you can see, in this score i dont consider what your units did during their time (gathering useless extra food or wood, wasting time idling somewhere on the map or in a CC) but only the way the player made the best choices in his decisions to weaken his ennemies. For exemple, the size of his armies in an attack operation, the choice of units developped in each attack, the decision to build a castle rather than attack nearby wood-working females (counter-exemple : a fool who send expensive low-range cav to kill a full-garnision-castle will have poor score ; build in a distant useless tower will grow the invest denominator of the ratio but with no kill results!) This score will not judge who won and who lost . For sure not. But will be usefull in a multiplayer team-match to show each player if he was right in his military decisions. This score can be used also by 0AD dev team as a usefull statistic to rebalance each version of the game. For exemple, to detect if a too much phase3 rush leads to victory or not. This score should tend to be correlated with the final result of the game : victory or defeat. ____________________ That said, in a scenario of pure cooperation in a team where PLAYER A decide to focus on military and PLAYER B on a pure strong eco (100% females and high pop expension), its natural that PLAYER B should have a retribution in a new score for the risk taken (focus on ECO with no effective defence). For sure, this new score has to consider the fact that PLAYER B effectively support PLAYER A ! So your concept of "resource effectiveness" has to be developped in a new score showing an ECO efficiency ... exemples: decision to invest in fruit picking, corrals , fishing, females on fields rather than slow soldiers ; decision to build a new storage near wood for an enough working time ; decision to focus on long-term grow in peace zone by gathering stone to build barracks , market exchange efficiency ... i propose something like ( total amount of ressources gathered (workers + traders + killed ennemy traders) + total amount of ressources given to others (allies + market exchange) - total ressources given by allies ) / the total amount of ressources invested (units + armless buildings + eco upgrades + traders + market exchange ) Unfortunately, gathering like a silly-sausage only useless food will be the same than gathering equally each usefull ressources ; like, giving unnecessary tons of food to allies will grow the score in the same way than giving precious metal ; like exchange expensive metal for cheap food on the market will be always efficient on the score ... --> If one consider that ressources worth something only if you spend it, one can consider the score should be something like : ( total amount of ressources spend (in everthing) + total amount of ressources given to and spend by allies + market exchange(received) - total ressources given by allies and spended by you ) / ( the total amount of ressources invested (workers + armless buildings + eco upgrades + traders + market exchange(given) ) What is the dynamic of this score ? --> This score will retribute a player who are not scared in growth investing and be efficient in his eco choice: In short term, he will lower his score by investing but will be able, after a time, benefit the results and will be in position to spend more ressources. These ressources have to be spend to affect the numerator : either the player decide to invest in more growth , either to give it to allies .. the first choice is more effective on the score in long-term, but the second can be far more saviour for the team ! For sure, these ressources have to be used by the ally .. and so, only valuable ressources (i.e not tons of food) would affect the numerator. The fact that the Ally has to spend the given ressources will avoid the scenario where a little smart player give all his ressources at the end at a game to his almost dead allies and grow artificially his score. The best ECO-score player will be the most rocket efficient pop-grower and will the one who immediately after pop max gives usefull ressources to players who are able to spend those precious ressources in the right time. For sure, bidding only on ECO is risky and a rush can be desastrours on this eco-score on long term. __________________ So, we have 2 propositions on 2 efficiency scores : a military one and a eco one. The victorious may have 2 good score.

has to start with "s" ? svn ?

i remember when i launch the idea of capturing buildings in the lobby (talking to elexis), the idea was more to recuperate an empty building rather than convert it while some units are still in garnsion i dont play svn so i dont know what im really talking about. But basically , i was thinking about something which will simply avoid wasting (non-sense to destroy an empty house in an invaded land) rather than a fully tactical operation which can lead to another spam-champ game. Does it make sense (is it realistic) to capture a CC with 10 champions then leave it empty under your flag while 40 females are working around ? An empty CC surronded by ennemy city and workers cannot remain under your flag :/ --> Then the capturing-champions should remain in the CC to keep it. ____________ Capturing, local ressources and food-chrono (both discussed in another topic), are 3 components which will be related together and will define a new game-paradigm : A city will be no more a temporary dead-structure (like a dead-island in naval game where theres no more ressources on it) but something which really worth something as its capturable, but also something the player has to care about by ensuring a suffisiant production to make the city be able to build more structures and feed its inhabitants. Developp a road between CCs will be a solution to make each cities living less in autarky.

not possible, but influenced by stances

Nobody wants to join the debate ?

Hi ! (do you play in lobby ? never seen you) I'm not programmor and never put my nose in the code, but how a negative value can occur as 0 mean death ? did you try something like absolute values to avoid negatives ? abs(-3) = 3 (dont know if it make sense in the code) or boolean (health>0) * health = TRUE or FALSE * health = health or 0 for decrease : health = (health>0) * health * countdown(%) (this will return only positive decimals or 0) __ But are you doing this to each unit ? Its not just a question to affect the global food indicator only ? Thanks for your effort The food cost of living is a great idea and will put a new dimension to the game as it will cause eco penalty in case of accumulation of too much champions. This can rebalance a game.

Hi, I ve got another idea .. (yes) . Should a player be represented by a champion unit ? If so, can its death leads to a defeat ? (new way to win?) Can the player reincarnate in another champion if the previous dies ? During the game, can we delegate a champion the management of a CC with its territory and turn it into AI ally ? (not more than 1 or 2 and/or a option in multiplayer games) - In case of death of the AI champion ally, all his units come back under your control. - If your die (your champion) you reincarnate into your ally AI champion and take control of its units.

you mean, the food in storage and other ressources in virtual portofolio ? Living units should consum food slowly along their lives. (this is the second idea) I think all ressources should be stored in the CC and/or warhouse but displayed on screen in a single virtual portofolio for each city (click on the CC). A global portofolio would concern all the CC but only for a unique new ressource (money or gold ?) --> the unique ressource you can put in your pocket. This can be a great idea to develop as opponents can patrol and see if a city is rich (exemple :lot of famrs) but poorely defended , before make decision to attack and steal all ! Also, cut a road, surrond a military city but with few farms, could be a choice as the city would not have enough of food to raise new units and feed them along on time. Staying too long behind walls would act like a penalty. But the attakers would have to ensure also the food logisitic between their position and their food production : this can be a weakness. In history we have many exemples were attackers finish surronded by new comers ... Here, in the game, it would be something like cutting the food-line of the attacker The food-line could be ensured by traders or a new unit like a caravan Once again, this could avoid a typical game schema : the first CC turns into a 10 farms city and others into simple CC border-spam-tower territory. The expension will be more organic and less procedural

exactly, if one can win many ways, the game will be even more great kill pop rush & kill eco conversion starvation ...

Fully agree, to make a good RTS, you always should have somewhere a downside of a dominant position. More pop , should lead to more stomach to feed. More CC, should lead to more road to protect if you use your colony CC simply like a military position with no workers .. (if you suppress the virtuality of ressources) How many times did a see a good player resign after 10 mins just because he did wrong his grow spam combinaison (A, B and C then attack with X, Y and Z) .. its so pathetic. Each game should be different and all things who can make game more complex (but not complicated) should be considered thx

This a response to the topic 'Bring something new' but is an idea By now, once ressources are gathered, they are acquired . You can have 1 survival woman remaining on the map but still have 52000 food , 65000 wood , 23542 metal and 12555 stone ... wtf ? lol Ressources should belong to a CC and no more to a virtual portofolio up on the screen. ____________________________________ 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 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 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 deliver the goods in it - ... ____________________________________ I think make the ressources more material and less virtual can be a good way to underline moreover the importance of position on the map by assuming the consequencies a new position and NOT just the benefit (this will reduce the ennemy neigbour tower CC spam syndrom) 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 ) but could make some good pirat-strike on goods

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 )

yes and no .. in the early stage of the game, since the opponent ignores your composition , he wont always want to take a risk in a rush... But the possibility that an ennemy can rush you will force you to produce soldiers by security and this will make the 15 mins of the game more interesting (by now, the winner is too much often the one who can demography boom with womens in the first 15 mins .. and its a pitty.. its like a no-game period - as in 0ad18, rush turns into a penaly and no more an advantage !) For those who are have their workers under the fire of a tower in P2 , those early champs can be the solution to get rid of that and relaunch the game without that unbalanced situation In the late stage, the proportions % described up , should tend to be equal thanks to large numbers . But as long as Heros and Champs dont work (and veterans work slower) , the army with less champs will score better on ECO and can then buy some more Mercenaries-champ on the gladiator-market ^^ . By now, the game starts at P3 and is too much a result of the ECO in P1 and the towers in P2 . I love naval game because its complex. As long as we can make the strategy of the game more complex, its a good point for the gameplay and the fun cheers,

hello sounds interessting But, as its possible for Nation A to focus on ECO and Nation B on military, what make this so different than a team game ?

mmh, i think that a system of random abilities assignement for each units would be fun and more historical realistic (dont need to wait P3 to see super-soldiers coming out from a barrack) exemple of the proportion of the randon generator (proportions can change with Phasing and upgrades) 1% hyper-soldiers (heros) (only after P3) 9% super-soldiers (champions) (only after P2) 20% good-soldiers ( veterans <<<) 30% average-soldiers (<<) 40% weak-soldiers (<) for sure, one can upgrade armours and weapons. One can imaginate that military civ like sparta would have random generator fixed with different proportions. Another good point would be that players will no longer do that annoying-procedural routine during the 15 first minutes of the game . With this, making only females can be really risky ! The game will be less splitted in a ECO phase then a MILITARY phase. Beside this, once your empire become rich, be able to buy mercenary champions at high price (why not a good on the market ?? a mercenary-market ! with fluctuating price)

What is a champion in this game ? He cost a lot and dont work. Nearly every game starts at Phase 3 and finish as a ping pong game between Castles and Champions. The simple citizens definively stucked in a role of worker in the backyard Werent the champs only citizens with skills above average ? If no, were they mercenaries ? If so, isnt too irrealistic to have an exlusive army of mercenaries ? Why make a binary distinction between champs and citizens ? What about giving random (but ranged between 2 values) abilities for each citizen trained and give a graphic distinction for those who are stronger. This way, in order to have a big army of champions, the player has simply to produce lot of units (praying that a good rate of champs will born among them) After, the player can decide to save his best units from imminent death in order to build up a high-rated army of champs. In a kind of way, its a bit similar to the Veteran system but more oriented to something about gifted at beginning than aquired with experience. Beside this, some civs should still be able engage mercenaries.

yeah, but why then in this game Sparte champs cost as much as other champs if every citizen was basicaly a 'Champ' ? Beside this, even if they were trained since 7 and selected at birth, this cannot means that every spartan is a Champ. A champ is a rare soldier who shows unique skills in combat. Its more about a nature gift than training and Champs have both. For exemple, the immortals and silver shield were simply the best soldiers among the survivors (best of the best and trained). Spartans, by definition, overtrained common people and their champions standing among them (may i remind people that the 300 spartans were the 300 best and not the whole army) Spartans champs should be able to work as their arent professional soldiers (this would rebalance a bit sparta civ) . Or at least do something that dont let Sparta being the vanilla-minimalistic civ of the game

Many (but still the minority) wars were lost despite the better eco/military score in history. you are right .. and its precisely the matter of this topic ------------- But agree, its like playing Mario Bross, just finish the game.... but this score will be probably correlated with the final result (at least, try to, the aim of the score is to show how good you are in achieving the goal) Moreover, after a team match, it can show which players play best even among the team which lost. You can even report this efficiency score for a player on the average efficiency score of the whole team --> the score of a good player will be even more good if his allies were bad and did nothing. ---------- By now, i notice that my proposition is not perfect as a player can send his inner soldier units to go kill some isolated units. If no building or units are build (no invest) , as a result, the ratio will be a division by 0 ... --> so, to avoid this, the invest denominator should add the cost of the CC + the 9 starting units . Also, if a player resign, all the remaining health (health of buildings and units) should be charged as a lost in the score to avoid that tower-defensive players artificialy grow the numerator of the score by resign just before ennemy start to destroy his buildings So, If a active-defensive player resist and dont resign, he will score high by killing lot of ennemies attacks with no lost. His high score will prove that he has been usefull for the team. If a player thinks he can only skirmish and rush with some horses with no invest in growing, he will be quicky crushed and his kills will be lower than the lost If a player is totally passive and wait behind his towers that all allies die, he will be finally sieged by all ennemies at the end with catapults, rams and upgraded champs -> he will succeed to kill no more than 3 or 5 champs with his castle, but will lost all the health of his buildings and units in garnison once as his buildings will crawl one after another. ---------- i think the subject of the score can be very interessting and deserve the remarks and suggestion of all contributors

>suppress the champion units of sparta and rather make every units of sparta something a bit stronger than other civ equivalent but this can be an upgrade in Phase3 and the hoplites can take the graphics of the spartans champs. im a fan of spartan civ but i notice now, that sparta has no walls , no champs from barracks or castle, no slingers, mininal cav, no catapults, no archers, leonidas aura is limited, minimal navy, extra building for champs, long time prod for hoplites, and spartan champs are out-classed now by Mace silver shield champs ( ++ philippe2 global map aura) In historical sparta, there were no professionnal soldiers (no champs) but only citizen soldiers. But i notice in game that the units in Sparta civ arent true spartans citizens but sub-citizens from peripherical cities. So an option ' spartan military training ' should be an option in phase 3 and make every pedestrian units a bit stronger (even females) . This way, one can delete Sparta champs and make Sparta a civ a bit more unique and no more minimalistic

I had a talk with elexis about it . Do a sum of eco and military is the best option, knowing that you can hit high simply by making hundreds and thousands of farms ? If one divide the military score by the eco score, one have something which represent approximately the efficiency in using of ressources . Right ? I propose to define a score as the division of the (total amount of health killed (units + buildings) - total amount of health lost (units + buildings) ) by the total amount of ressources invested (in units and buildings) This score would reflect strictely the results and no more the ressources engaged to win. And so, producing hundreds of units - making them walking , idling, working ressources or even building 100 towers will have no effect on this score.