JC (naval supremacist)

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.

wow, i dream of balista in garnison

I vote yes. In history, females were more likely to be "recycled" than 'wasted' . But in general, men and women dont wait to be slaughtered or captured before surendering in a 10 vs 1 ... maybe converting should be automatic in some circumstences..

how desactivate formations by default ? Shouldn t be activated when units have to walk distances together ? In formation, melee units suffer a big time penalty in deployment for attack and sometimes run away (?) . Range units can fire even in formations (brits slinger massive rush is fatal)

destroy a trade line --> u got the $$$

hi all, i m JC (best naval player so far ) . I have just a suggestion to make for Sparta civ as i notice that they have no longer a determinent strength. Wouldnt it be a good idea to underline in 0ad what made Sparta unique in history ? --> best civilian soldiers . So suppress the champion units of sparta and rather make every units of sparta something a bit stronger than other civ equivalent. This special feature could include more diversified game play or at least, let the spartan champs ability to work