Hannibal_Barca
-
Posts
410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Hannibal_Barca
-
-
Harassing someone early game shouldn't be about destroying the Civic Centre
It's about attacking outlying gatherers and denying the enemy wood or extra berries
The real reason there's no fighting in the first five minutes is that people are reluctant to sacrifice a strong start in economy and don't want to divide their attention.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Nescio said:
0 A.D. already has priestesses (e.g. Carthaginian healers).
Iberian skull priestesses
Anyway this topic is drifting a bit
Are we seeking to make women even more insignificant by adding male servant/whatever counterparts, thus having them as either unique units or aberrant variations of one?
Or make women the only ones to set X and Y buildings.
Doing both will basically limit civic to civic and military to military (at least laying the foundations part?
-
21 hours ago, amanita said:
all work and military squads for the 15% aura which seems a good mechanic
Military squads?
Unless you intend them to soak up missiles which isn't nice, the 10% aura is only for gathering/building.
Anyway, it wouldn't change much, same mechanic as building a fortress with women, just have to set it with the correct gender and all is well.
So I'm fine with seeing it implemented
-
72m isn't far for someone trained with a bow
-
6 hours ago, Sundiata said:
Having Briton/Gallic women being able to build military structures doesn't actually sound totally terrible to me... It's an interesting idea for a civ-specific bonus.
Like Spartans currently in main game?
But perhaps that would make it not-so special
Peasant men get equipped with spears and swords
The women get kitchen knives or something like that
Anyway sure support units don't have to be all female, it's just easier to visually define who is who currently
-
1
-
-
Time to start training sword or even spear champs, sword cavalry, heroes and plain swordsmen
25 rams would cost 8750 wood and 5000 metal, are you sure of their number and if so then something went wrong
Perhaps they were left to their own devices for too long or the starting resources were too high
5 hours ago, kianb said:A person can develop their skill to create more rams than the other side and beat them at their own game, but what's the point of that?
Not really, no. Not if the enemy is prepared. You drain yourself of resources for rams and find you can do nothing as your rams get hacked away.
Although it would be nice to see rams capturable again
Either garrison or lose them to even ranged units
-
1
-
-
-
On 8/19/2018 at 9:59 PM, amanita said:
Boadicea could have scheduled projects as easily as male chieftains.
She is a hero in this game and all heroes are purely military (can't build nor set foundations)
We're basically talking about peasant women (no offence meant) who might not be really qualified to oversee the planning of a military structure - something which perhaps a member of the local militia might comprehend
Therefore there is no reason to make some foundations only placeable by women, why should a militia soldier (however lowly and uncouth) be unable to set a grand civic centre when his wife/other can?
Sexism is a frequently recurring term nowadays but I'm guessing it wasn't so back then. It's actually a decently accurate depiction.
If you're looking for equality then there is evidence in the fact that mauryan Maiden Guard (both sword and archer variations) hold their own very well against their male counterparts.
The developers of 0 A.D. did not decide to create a sexist game just because they can, they just thought that perhaps it's best to leave military matters to the soldiers (who were on average men).
While it may be argued that soldiers don't build their own barracks or workshops, the citizen-soldier concept of 0 A.D. makes it so.
Although as @(-_-) mentioned it is perhaps not the most thrilling to set foundations with a soldier then order the women to build it.
-
29 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:
Buildings whitout any cost (correct me if im wrong and this feature is desired).
This is indeed a feature, you thought something of this magnitude could go unnoticed?
Instead of costing wood, several buildings (House, Storehouse, Farmstead, Corral) take extra long to build.
In case you were wondering, this feature isn't OP.
-
1
-
-
If you could, next time please tag us
Also, proof is required in the form of the game replay
Please locate the relevant commands.txt file (see path when selecting the given game [Multiplayer/Replays]) and upload it
-
Although if we dispense with that then it should be renamed, hacking for spears is not appropriate
This subject has drifted off-topic
Rams could be slower but they should get a bonus something instead
-
45 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
How can people pushing a heavy device outrun infantry?
Perhaps in crutches or lazy
46 minutes ago, Sundiata said:A siege should feel like a siege, not a steamroll... First you kill/clear the enemy army, then you send in the siege-equipment.
A siege doesnt involve really clearing the enemy army, which is holed up and defensive unless otherwise.
48 minutes ago, Sundiata said:I always get the very strong feeling that many people here are forgetting the masses of single players (more than 90% of the player-base)
Never forgetting, just not taking into account
Invisible majority is just that.
49 minutes ago, Sundiata said:isn't a pro-player (99.9%)
This is a weird term, anyone who got basic skill can have welcome insights
And while siege might be realistically weaker, one must face the facts: Alpha 23 has seen rams seriously nerfed due to the appearance of the Teleportation feature, in which units materialize around the offending entity and terminate it before it scratches the plaster.
Rams are weak, needing tons of care and effort to be kept 'alive'. Slingers, swords, spears and even other rams are all factors which drastically reduce the chance of success.
Rams are theoratically best kept at the back with a steamroll army defeating all opposition and weathering missile fire while rams work feverishly to remove those obstacles (need to defend very carefully)
Thus, even while we might be gratifying the lusts of the greater masses, we'd have christmas card greetings listing why rams are so abysmally weak.
Sorry for the unfunny humour, it's a bonus
-
13 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
In the like 100 matches I've seen casted on Youtube, I can't remember a single player actually building a curtain of walls, but I'm not sure if that's a whole other discussion or if siege weapons should be discussed in concert with walls.
I agree that 100 matches is sadly insufficient to form any conclusion on gameplay strategy
Also, players don't tend to record such games as they are laggy, stressful and perhaps not the most beneficial to anyone trying to learn something
12 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Is that even a problem anymore?
Umm.. no - its forbidden in most games
Otherwise yes it looks awful and if backed by an able defensive force can take a decently long amount of time to get rid of (most hosts just end the game)
And while I may not recall the identity of that player, I am sure he is still around
11 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Perish the thought!
10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:Or removing that weird pierce attack given to spearmen and make them hackers instead.
Currently spearmen are so effective vs. cavalry due to the horsemen having low pierce armour and the multiplier boosting it all
And what would be the main difference between spear and sword then?
10 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:another type of attack
Sounds messy but I guess would solve many problems as possibilities multiply and soft-counters become easy to do
-
22 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Barely anyone even uses walls.
Not helped by the "no walls" rule established in alpha20 (due to some miscreant blatantly abusing wall turrets)
Of course rams are faster than it would be historically plausible
But so are all siege, and I agree with this unrealistic aspect.
Just imagine playing with siege towers when their crawl is barely noticable, rams plodding along and getting nowhere compared to the distance needed to reach cities that don't have walls (rams vs houses yay!)
Then an elephant comes along and wrecks everything in 2s, goes on to demolish everything in sight (great siege in this game)
Change this and you'd need to change half a game to get things right
And at the end someone is not going to be satisfied and suggest we fix this
80% chance that it'll take several releases to get something of this magnitude done, finally leaving us with more grumpy (sorry) people
-
1 hour ago, (-_-) said:
Or perhaps we can make building destruction more realistic. All units (melee and range) could throw torches or something at buildings from a range. AoE3 mechanic for those wondering.
edit: I might actually do some experiments in a mod.
Like total war units firing gates?
-
1 hour ago, (-_-) said:
Speaking of which, is it intended that Mauryans can train rams if they manage to capture a fortress of a faction which can train rams?
Perhaps not, fortresses when captured can be used for construction of the same units that were available to the previous owner, provided that the current owner could train such a unit anyway
Since mauryan rams are recently made available, they can be accessed from other fortresses
Might be a deliberate bonus (like macedon training sword champs)
As for archers hard-countering melee, that's ridiculous
Given the fact that ranged just keep shooting even at point-blank range, it would mean melee losing even in so-called close combat, which is unacceptable
And if the swordsman is heavily armoured, perhaps equipped with a shield, I don't see the point of the counter
-
Hopefully the next release will see Kushites splitting away from ptolemaic-pattern gameplay
As for limited siege, mauryans only have elephants (kush still has siege tower)
-
1
-
-
How about civilizations with small houses?
-
If you unzip public
binaries/data/mods/public
audio folder there, can find from basic selection sounds to civ music
Depending on what pics you want, you can find them in the art folder, just browse around in art/session/... for mappreviews, tech portraits, unit portraits
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Feldfeld said:
Each hero is now trainable only one time through all game. (Thanks @(-_-) )
BEST EVER!!!
Thanks face for finally solving this issue.
Heroes are just arrowfodder or cheap but strong raiders to be sacrificed.
-
1
-
-
If you type @ and start typing nick then you can select right one
-
1
-
-
Walls don't stop attacks
Stone walls are thicker so most melee can't attack through but pikes can
-
1 hour ago, JC (naval supremacist) said:
Explain me. I miss something
Good players get eliminated too and pushed down
Basically loser's bracket gives you 2 chances
Go as far as you can on the winners', then try some more in the loser bracket
But if you wish to squander your chances then sure
-
1
-
-
Congratulations on thinking this up and putting it into action.
It gets people interested, perhaps some singleplayer users might see the fun side of competitive 0 A.D. gaming.In response to numerous pings (while I was afk sleeping) asking me to advertise this tournament on the Welcome/Lobby panel:
Wildfiregames does not host/control this event, which was created by a user and his/her friends.
So therefore while it may indeed happen in the future - with the consent of the moderators etc. - I must decline this request unless @elexis and/or @user1 chooses to support this venture.Perhaps something semi-official as a New Year special...
Glad to see some other maps listed beside Mainland, especially African Plains.
Good luck!
-
1
-
Navy Game play
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted · Edited by Hannibal_Barca
Heavy Warships (assuming you mean the catapult ones, not medium warship triremes) can be garrsioned with up to 9 catapults to increase fire
Such a ship fires 10 rocks and is very powerful - it can level shoreline structures
Protect them from garrisoned triremes though, while they can take on 2 of those any more will risk losing the catapults and the ship