Jump to content

Grugnas

Community Members
  • Posts

    324
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Grugnas

  1. heroes have auras with some effect
  2. One of my favorite civs are Persians since they are very versatile and probably is one of the civs that doesn't force a mass spam of units (which, for counter-system reason should be avoided) and probably it is the most fun to play. Despite their relatively weak hero auras, persian are able to train champions directly on the battlefield thanks to their hero Cyrus and their cavalry is one of the strongest in game. Plus they have sieges and elephants, skirmsiher infantry champions. Same for seleucids who have a great diversity of units. Indeed briton slingers mass and macedonian champion mass are the most powerful strategies, while ptolemais are one of the weakest civs because they lack on champions and pikemen move too slowly for any action out of own territory.
  3. Like someone proposed already: Vesuvius is a sleeping vulcano in Napoli, Italy. Its eruption in the 24th August 79 d.C. destroyed Pompeii and Ercolano. Vino Veritas saying the truth while drunk. Vadio duel Valitudo good heath Vireo full of vigor I know it won't be used for sure, but i have to: both Vagina and Vulva mean the same thing since they are latin words
  4. Cleaning the workspace then updating SVN worked fine. Thanks for the help
  5. Hi, yesterday I upgraded my Ubuntu distro from 16.04 to 17.04 and now the SVN client won't update nor run. I get this error whenever i try to run svn client: error while loading shared libraries: libboost_filesystem.so.1.58.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory I even checked on my installed packages and it results that i have the liboost-all-dev.1.62.0 installed. Should I really disinstall it and get the older one? I don't want to make a mess.
  6. I didn't want to denigrate your work, inventing things to implement probably requires more creativity and effort than simply changing something exists. I am just a player looking for news on going stuff which is always interesting discussion. F.e. the idea proposed by an user few pages ago is interesting (allowing an outpost to have territory influence in order to have strategic gathering points), but if you consider mauryan elephant workers designed by someone, it would just kill mauryan peculiarity (if the elephant won't grant territory influence too ). Indeed promoting an expansion-wise direction could finally depose the annoying self trading strategy (70k metal in 1:30h of game with 54 traders in a FFA game). The mercenary camp is an amazing feature to add. Did you ever play Popolous the beginning? there were savages strolling aroud the map able to be civilized with a sorcery or with priests who used to convert units. Taking spark from that, strolling gaia women could be captured and enslaved. Slaves could lose efficiency over time instead of losing hp which probably would be out of control.
  7. I really enjoyed BFME but i never liked the autorefilling battalion system. Imo allowing a player to merge different battalions would have been much better, this never happened obviously because of the battallion Rank system. Anyway in BFME units die like fly there and a continuos refill of your lanes is needed and battalions are convenient, and as far as i recall this isn't in 0AD current design nor in the design you proposed (i recall you proposed to increase the battles duration). Making selection groups let you to micromanage different units. As you said, it is a feature of the game; matter of fact i can select more buildings or soldiers using SPACE + 1-9 (alt + 1-9 by default) and eventually click ont the icon of the type of units i want to micromanage in the middle panel. f.e In the screenshot you posted, you can simply click on the slingers icon displayed on the middle panel to move all the slingers of the previous selection. None forces you to look for your units in the battle mess and double click them in order to give an order. This is one of my fav rts: this is not purely combat oriented but you can notice how the units are managed. the units are trained one by one and automatically merged into a big battalion, btw having pure control on them by reducing or increasing the battalion size (there isn't a drag and drop selection area). The difference is on the versatility of disrupting and reforming battalions, even of different size and, in the case of 0AD the formation adopted and the type of soldiers within it. The main differences are: 1) if you notice, skirmishers always get a half moon shape deployment when they attack because their range is very limited. The effect is reduced as the attack range increases, still avoids idle units in the backlines. 2) a single formation can be disrupted, resized and modified with different units. You could simply select a type of soldier, put them in a different formation shape and bind any battalion to a different hotkey 3) the micromanage you fear, which is even unnecessary as i already showed you by using selection groups, would just replaced by a PLACEMENT micromanagement, basically you have to give different rally points to any battallion which would be unnecessary if ranged and melee units could simply be part of the same battallion. Using a metaphore, Ubuntu and Macos have totally different philosophies. While the first has an open source philosophy, the latter is an extremely closed system despite they both are based on a UNIX system. I can't have Ubuntu and pretend to have a Macos despite they are both based on the same system. A simple introduction of a "lock formation" button is the nearest form of battalion you could obtain without going to drastically change the whole concept. Improve instead of rewrite something that won't have substancial differences but different philosophies.
  8. What you call "manspam" its nothing more than a numerical advantage. Using a sneaky group of cavalry for a raid while the enemy troops are busy elsewhere is possible though. While the number of barracks built depends on the time the player wants to wait before refill his army, batches of any size of units can be trained. Formations can be composed by different types of soldiers and can be distrupted or modified with versatility. Imo healers should be indivdual units healing in area and not single targets because they are very hard to micromanage and often they heal injuried ranged units who rarely take damage. Anyway, since the design foresee a battalion refill by garrisoning barracks, i guess that healers role would fall off. Individual soldiers gain exp on the amount of damage they deal to individual targets, imo experience could be calculated by ignoring target armour avoiding pointless complexity. Whenever a target dies, the Exp loot could be shared between units near the killer as far as they are inspired by the successful kill, this would create a sort of chain in exp gaining, limiting the individual promotion as you pointed out. Honestly battalion and formations are similar concepts but, while formations require an higher micromanagement at start for setting up battalions (which increases the skill cap), a pure battalion system will only increase men on the screen.
  9. 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.
  10. Thanks for the replay, the nickname is pronunced like you did the the second time at game start, like Lasagna Watching old replays is always interesting, expecially with commentary.
  11. I think that berries are a great feature because they are a nice start for different strategies on how gather food ( corrals, fields, fishing boats). The bushes could even be incremented from 5 to 6-8 as standard starting resources, since they aren't enough for starting corrals efficiently as alternative to grainfields. An economy based on grainfields and corrals mix without delaying phase up would even be more interesting.
  12. Removing units from the CC is a drastic move. Consider some alternative modes: Regicide: you can't defend your women from enemy heroes rush if no ceasefire time setted up. Survival of the fittest: higher resources needed and probably even wave spawn rate should be modified by conseguence. Unknown Nomad: you can't defend your units from gaia lions / tigers with no soldiers.
  13. you could use this statement as advantage by letting Cavalry still be trainable from Civic Center (because it is a basic hunting unit) but requiring a previously built structure for having access to it, like Corral. It would delay cavalry training start and would require extra wood. The amount of time required for building a structure is relative to the number of builders used, in my opinion this is a tactical and individual choice.
  14. The point is that if we talk about 1v1 games and in particular about small maps, you can notice that smaller the map size is, the lower amount of wood is avaiable. Building wooden walls or building towers won't prevent cavalry from rushing. Walls are too expensive and building rate is too low for walling the civic center and protect the food production, at least. This doesn't help against Spear Cavalry rush. Sentry Towers in phase 1 don't deal enough damage for protecting gatherers from Skirmisher Cavalry rush. The sentry tower deals the same damage of an archer and it is pretty easy to destroy or just damage and capture. Garrisoning it isn't worth it because women wouldn't have any soldier protecting them. Probably yes, cavalry could train with an higher time size or just requiring a previously built structure like Corrals.
  15. indeed it could be broken, but not necessarly. Map size and resources distribution also play an important role on which strategy can prevail.
  16. Researching "Wicker Basket" technology and having animals nearby to hunt are enough for a cavalry rush already. Didn't say it is a bad idea, but if i can obtain food faster hunting animals than working fields, i'd feel more incentivated to hunt and train cavalry instead of women.
  17. Actually cavalry rush is already a popular, if not a must in 1v1 games for earning an economy superiority. The idea is interesting but the grainfield is the only non-random generated food income aviable and reducing the intial food amout would result in a game where the players are more dipendent from huntable gaia (considering that even corral usage require enough amount of food). You might want also consider that in order to have a decent amount of food income, women required will be more and they will be harder to protect by garrisoning houses (reason why i proposed a house tech that increases garrisonable units in the houses). Actually spear cavalry (roman and macedonian) rush is the most efficient tactic, and looks like with this grainfield income change it will be even more effective.
  18. I strongly agree with this. Resources should be very symmetrical placed otherwise the difference between civs could be even deeper. Gathering resources outside the territory control MAY have sense but, in my opinion, it is not possible for 2 reasons: 1) it would remove the Mauryan worker elephant advantage 2) I really can't see the difference between building a houses wall or just a storehouses wall in neutral territory (assuming that, in order to build storehouses in neutral territory, they can't be captured no more).
  19. Ptolemaics and britons rely on stone for early units to train, removing iron and stone from the proximity of the Civic Center will be a penalty for those civs and incentive the training of a more limited variety of units. It is true though that in savanna biome where wood amount is low or sparse, slingers have too much advantage from gathering the nearby stone. Probably reducing the total inital amount of such resources would incentivate players to move on and expand for further resources and better plan how to move on, if create an army ready for attack or defend the area with towers in favor of a more defensive tactic.
  20. Actually trade is an hard feature to place because it goes from being the main income of resources ( personally speaking, it upsets me when players even trade food for more income) expecially in turtle games with only 1 narrow passage and water in middle to a more than convienient option to expanding for a strategic resources guarantee. Also depends by the random generated map resources and a hard to find solution. I think that trading should be the feature to rely on when there are no more spots of the desired resource, and clearly less rewarding than gathering for 2 main reasons: 1) it is very profictable despite the common "no walls" rule of multiplayer games. F.e. if a player spends 80 metal for a trader, he will regain that amount in less than 2 minutes or just bartering goods. 2) it kills the strategic expansions that should / could have a big impact on the economy of your opponents. Expecially in 150 pop cap games, expanding requires control of a wide area of territory while trading relies on allies attention. Market usage has too high impact expecially in 1v1 games because while player gains control of a metal mine for having advantage of that or any other desired resource, on the other hand the opponent can just comfortably barter obtaining metal. He may obtain lower amount, thats true, but it is an instant gain that would require several workers / time for the gatherer player tho. Trading has a high impact on team games, and barter has higher impact the lower number of players in a game.
  21. I may agree on the fact that buildings required for phasing up should be reviewed because I may vary my strategy sacrifying what i believe is more worth to, population included. Probably giving a population cap increasing per phasing would make a phase planning more researches wise and maybe even realistic. F.e. a village per definition couldn't have more than X villagers or it may be classified as town, city and so on. Increasing HP as overall bonus when phasing up is a penalty for those who plan a strategy relied on the initial units, f.e. if a player focus on phasing up it should be for having access to a more variety of units, or for researching valuable technologies, but if a player phase up just for an hp bonus, in most of cases that player will still be in advantage because even cavalry (in any unlocked phase) will have even more advantages (infact as darcreaver said, skirmisher cavalry can lure spear infantry and this is a big advantage in the first stages of the game) revealing already the result of the game. I think that this phase rush may be one of the main reasons of this women spam, while an eventual hp bonus for citizen soldiers may be for example researched as tech aviable in house just like happens with "the loom" tech. I like the idea of a feature like "call to arms" applied to men that should lose their carrying resource as penalty for be ready to fight resulting as a tradeoff between attacker and defender because an infantry raid will not pay back expecially if the map is too big, but probably the looter should just gain more resources by killing the units. Plus, the attacker units must recover and idling near a temple isn't economy wise and healers are useful only out of battles due their low healing range and vulnerability. Probably units fight duration is fine and i can't really imagine a battallion retreating orfomation change without showing their weak spot to the enemy. Looks more a penalty than a bonus. It is true that the Civic Center has 4 units to choose, but since 1 woman is for food, 1 melee and 1 ranged unit, 1 cavalry for food gathering. Repairing buildings could cost resources. Probably the sieges should be enfatized even more, f.e. Athenians actually can "exhaust" enemies because of their champion archers and their slowly damaging catapults but that siege is too hard to defend because enemy units can easly pass through the first line and destroy the catapult, considering that archers are supposed to stay on back of the catapult for not taking damage and they are an obstacle for the catapult retreat. I like the idea of capturable ships and it could be seen more in depth.
  22. Thanks for have noticed my error, but that 21.2 whitin formation is clearly not intended because as far as i remember, units whitin formation move at same speed of the slowest unit. If you try to move Iphicrates' formation and a lone skirmisher, you'll notice that the lone skirmisher will move faster. Probably units in formation should show all the same movement speed.
  23. Agree with Finch because f.e. Brasidas from Sparta grants +1 armor to the own skirmishers / champion skirmishers in range and Boudica gives +25% movement speed to all Champions in range, but since champions infantry and cavalry have different movement speed each other and from Boudica, it could be messy manage units in order to always get the buff, and it would make sense having a movement speed buff in formation because all units will move at same movement speed, in particular to the slowest moving speed unit. Also notice that Iphicrate has a formation bonus auras and a global aura that applies to javelin units only, and since they could even be in another formation with another kind of units, the hero aura is restricted to very limited situations. Themistocle bonus could even apply to champion train time because they are trainable only in determinated situations (f.e. in mainland or savanna biome often there is no water at all). Agree on Pericle too.
  24. I must agree in part, but for example if you kill a woman carrying 10 wood you will gain 1 of each resource and 10 wood that the woman carried plus your soldiers will gain experience per successful hit resulting with being promoted and having higher stats but lower gathering rate. The only downside is that the unit has to stay near or inside a temple in order to regen health, but this can be avoided with cavalry which has a really high food gathering rate while hunting and it can be used as advantage when massing cavalry and get as many animals in the map in order to have a discrete vision of the map. Consider that it may result hard focusing the already damaged unit when many other are around. Building a stone wall may be a solution but it is aviable in phase 2 and it requires a resource gathered at a slower rate compared to wood when talking about soldier citizens, plus building a wooden wall may be faster but can be risky because you could lack on wood and be forced to train women in order to pump up the wood production and being vulnerable to possible scouts and cavalry raid. Not talking about traders in a "walled" game because it is an entire chapter apart. I agree that using soldier citizens isn't worth for early attacks, thats why cavalry is nice for slowing enemy eco down, since they can be used for corrals when wood is abundant or for hit and run attacks just to annoy enemy and slow down his economy in order to prevent a possible wall. Indeed a game can be won with more strategies: a player could focus on sieges / elephant training, champion spam or building civic centers around enemy lines in order to prevent gim to gather further resources and force him into resign. None force you to booming as said above (constantly training 1 unit at time is more worth in terms of eco growing in my opinion but extremly hard) and the batch size change is an interesting feature since it allows you to optimize phasing, eco growing and units choice. F.e. 2 players could reach different goals because one trained per batches having time to comulate resources while the other constantly trained units and, since the sieges are the most impegnative to fight for units... guess who'll have advantage? Indeed number supremacy is better than quality. In some games some units have different population cost despite the effectiveness thay may have (f.e. in starcraft demolisher costs more than a marine but marines are easier to mass and they counter demolishers despite their price / stats), but this is a too wide discussion since 0 A.D. games haven't a standard population cap and finding a balance or any other concept that fit any population limit is really complex and since as you said "balance can be achieved", a citizen soldiers system can be reasonable.
×
×
  • Create New...