Sundiata
-
Posts
2.332 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
60
Posts posted by Sundiata
-
-
13 minutes ago, borg- said:
Spearmen: medium health, low/medium attack, medium move speed, medium hack armour, high pierce armour, bonus 4x vs cavalry. Very effective against all cavalry. Great unit to protect ranged units and absorb damage from a distance. Win fight solo vs ranged infantry
Is it possible to reduce that bonus to 3x or 2x vs champion cavalry? Armored horses should be able to hold their own against a weak/average spear unit, I think.
-
1 hour ago, borg- said:
But if they will have different resource rates I'd rather be separate. Example: if i need fast food i can focus only on women.
What's the rational against a simply villager unit as the main economic unit?
I don't completely agree with giving dedicated male and female workers/villagers different stats. In some civs men did a lot of the hard work, but in other civs women worked just as hard or even harder. In most societies agriculture is a family operation, involving men, women and children. So were many other small scale economic activities (and most economic activities were small scale) as well as things like building homes. I'd caution against gender specific stats in this regard, because the stats would probably differ quite a lot across different culture groups. Some of the reasoning behind different stats might apply to Greco-Roman civs, but probably won't apply at all to others. In my opinion, plebs are plebs, and I think gender differentiation only becomes really relevant for higher social classes, politically or militarily.
I think it would also be interesting to differentiate laborers/workers/villagers (whatever you want to call it) by using a more slender body type, perhaps even a teeny weeny little bit shorter than soldiers/warriors, and use different walk animations, with a slightly hunched over look, face looking down, instead of straight or up, like the higher ups on the social ladder, who brim with confidence. The lower classes laborers/workers/villagers should have a humble look. Less meat, fish and diary, and a hard life of back breaking menial labour makes them look a little more scrawny than the average "citizen" who would have looked a little more "plump"/less hunched over. ( @Alexandermb, don't know what your thoughts on this are).
-
2
-
1
-
-
And raiding... Cav was used for raiding... Quick in and out... Burning down the countryside... (Burning enemy fields should be a thing).
-
1
-
-
@BreakfastBurrito_007, Check out the Xiongnu in the Terra Magna mod. They're pretty cool...
Also check out the following threads:
-
I think in the real world the primary weapon of melee cavalry has always been spears/lances. Swords were a secondary weapon: when the spear broke, or was dropped/lost, close quarter mosh pit style combat, or when the unit was dismounted making the long spear unwieldy for 1v1 combat. I think dedicated "sword cav" is mostly a game convention. In antiquity cavalry was primarily used against other cavalry, scouting, and chasing down retreating/fleeing units. They're particularly useful for their speed and manoeuvrability, exploiting weak point in the enemy lines. They perform very well against lightly armed units. They perform very poorly against disciplined heavy infantry. If the cav is armored, they can perform well against ranged units. If not, they're very vulnerable to missiles.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Alexandermb said:6 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
even one day I was without power (energy) and Internet.
It's nice to be part of a community that understands the struggle...
I woke up this morning with no power like:
Spoiler
-
1
-
1
-
-
@ValihrAnt, @borg-, @Boudica, Am I seeing a game balance department in the making?
If you're able to reach consensus on things amongst yourselves, then convincing the community probably won't be that hard.
We need some experienced people to take initiative on this, because there currently isn't a balance department in the dev team.
If you work as a team on this, you'd effectively become that department, and I think the devs might/should be amenable to this.
Even if they're not, we'll just start a small riot on the forum (and by riot I mean a public poll or something
)
Just make sure the documentation is on point, so that everyone can easily see all the changes (even if there are hundreds of changes, we just need a list).
-
2
-
1
-
-
IbexHorn1 sounds good with 2X playback speed.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, sphyrth said:
That's indeed rare of you @Sundiata. I was already expecting you calling it out the moment it was posted in the Forums. I was honestly cowering under my blanket, hoping that you'd go easy on it.
Hahahahaha...
5 hours ago, badosu said:I am concerned about incentivising turtling.
Legitimate concern, and yes, the towers definitely shouldn't be OP... Maybe they should be significantly expensive/strict build limit?
Currently turtling isn't the most viable strategy though, although it should be just as viable as rushing. So the towers could actually help balance offensive vs defensive play. I tend to play very defensively myself, especially in early game, but it's really just a good way to get clobbered (although in a recent match one of my opponents referred to the 20 minute final battle in my base as "Stalingrad", which filled me with a little sense of pride
, artillery towers would have made a difference, but the three invading armies would have defeated me either way).
-
2 hours ago, Stan` said:
on the other hand it's totally not historically accurate XD
Freestanding towers in general just weren't really a thing outside of the Roman Limes (although I don't know where that second pic from LordGood comes from. Is it actually an example of a freestanding tower?). But every civ has towers because it's an RTS convention. That said, artillery towers (attached to walls) were indeed a thing. Of all people, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm kind of in favor of waving historical accuracy for these things because they are pretty darn cool (Alistair's reaction says it all), and they're not super unhistorical because artillery towers did exist... They shouldn't break the game of course. And if I understand correctly, they're only for Greco-Roman civs, so it would feel relatively believable.
Spoiler
-
1
-
-
Spoiler
-
9 minutes ago, wackyserious said:
- @Sundiata Did the looting of Roman chainmail only occurred during Hannibal's period, or was this a thing even in the previous Punic Wars?
A good question for which I don't really have a ready answer right now. Hannibal did indeed probably equip his troops with captured Roman chainmail, but I don't know about the possible use of it before the battle Cannae. Osprey's "The Carthaginians 6th–2nd Century BC" says this on the matter:
QuoteThis Ksour es-Saf find is a dramatic reminder that the equipment of an army might also include elements originating in other regions; armour was valuable, and a multi-ethnic army campaigning abroad had many opportunities to acquire it. For example, at the battle of Cannae, Hannibal armed the Libyan and African troops in Roman fashion with equipment taken from fallen enemies, probably including ringmail and Italic armours (Pol., III, 87, 3 & 114, 1; Livy, XXVIII, 46, 4): ‘The Africans were armed in the Roman fashion, Hannibal having equipped them with the choicest of the arms captured in the previous battles.’ Such captured weaponry replaced in part that given to the Carthaginians by Braneus, appointed by Hannibal as leader of the Allobroges (Livy, XXI, 31, 6) before the passage of the Alps. These weapons, which replaced Carthaginian equipment that had become worn with age, were definitely of Celtic type (Pol., III, 49, 11). Thus, while we know from the ancient sources that different peoples were characterized by specific weaponry, we should not interpret this information too rigidly, i.e. ‘Celtic weaponry = Celtic warrior’. The sources in fact confirm that weapons of foreign origin might be used not only by individuals but also by whole contingents.
Perhaps there may have been earlier uses of chainmail/ringmail through a Celtic connection. Celtic mercs would have almost definitely used it. But I'm really not certain. Carthaginian arms and equipment are still quite a hotly debated subject.
-
2
-
1 hour ago, DarcReaver said:
yea and while we're at it we can also add more economics like Graders, miners, iron smelters, blacksmiths, millers and bakers and rename the game to "The Settlers: 0AD".
Oooh, great idea! Let's do it
But, yeah, in hindsight, that suggestion is indeed a little too bloated. I'm still 100% in favor of a dedicated economic unit, simply called "labourer", or whatever. The lack of something that approaches a real economy and and real civilians is sorely missed by a lot of casual players and leaves competitive games with only one real strategy to win: spam the most efficient unit(s) as quickly as possible.
1 hour ago, DarcReaver said:The point is that economy takes attention from the player, and the more different economy units and gatherable resources are available the more complicated the economy becomes and the more it distracts from the game itself.
The question is... why.... WHY?! must the most boring aspect of the game be bloated up with even more unfun unit management and click orgies?
There is a logical flaw in that reasoning, in the sense that a lot of casual players (who constitute the majority) want a more in depth economy. A lot of people think town building and economy management are super fun, and consider the military aspect only as the cherry on the cake. In single player, I often play to build the most beautiful, and realistic looking town, and only start wrecking the AI once I'm satisfied with my little kingdom. But without an economy and the associated hustle and bustle of a town, the game looks a little sterile for casual players, who want to see activity in their towns. We'd even like beautifications like statues, shrines, more unique monuments, even the ability to plant gardens etc... Doesn't even need to be functional. But having the option would greatly enhance the visual pleasure in SP, and enhance immersion. Granted, Delende Est goes a long way towards this, and does offer more replayability for SP, we'd just like to see some of that in vanilla as well (cult statues, villagers and slaves, mercenary camps, farmlands etc.). I understand that's not for everyone, but I'd like to see a little more compromise to facilitate SP. At least DE puts to use those amazing new stables, siege workshops, elephant stables and archery ranges, which would be super appreciated by single players in vanilla (diversifying the look of their towns), but would also please a lot of multiplayers (more interesting strategic choices to make). I'm not saying that the vanilla version of the game should become some sort of economy management game like Banished, but we could have a semblance of an economy, even if it's only visual stuff, like animated buildings, merchants selling wares in the market stalls, blacksmiths hammering at the anvil anytime you research a new tech, some scrawny hunched over NPC slave units scurrying back and forth with supplies and materials, children playing in front of their houses, stuff that doesn't actually affect gameplay but makes the towns look alive, even when your whole army is on the march somewhere.
1 hour ago, DarcReaver said:Just automate the economy by placing buildings near resource spots. The the according farmers, slaves, builders, millers or watever can do their duty without the player having to worry about having too much of either type of unit.
So, I'm not actually opposed to this if it means the towns will look more alive. It just shouldn't be dumbed down to the point of pointlessness. In this scenario building diversity and placement should become even more important, especially with regard to building farms only on suitable soils, logging camps being built in a forest, with their income determined by the number of trees in it's radius, mines and quarries, maybe even fishing huts, and maybe even storage yards to emulate a virtual resource cap (just like you have to build houses to increase your pop cap), with animated NPC suppliers going back and forth between the storage yards and resource and construction sites, just for the visual kick. Just brainstorming here, but it would make the game a lot more visually interesting/engaging, while at the same time eliminating the micro of economic units. It think it would make 0AD a more mature game, less constrained by the AoE legacy.
-
2
-
-
Man, Romans really need a special 4th tier... Imperial Phase... Mmmm... Ok, don't mind me, bye
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, kizito said:
Any Progress? I cant access lobby still
I just connected to the lobby without a problem. Maybe it was fixed in the last 22min?
-
Server update in progress
-
1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:
Why Jimienez?
Marcos Pérez Jiménez...
-
Just now, Imarok said:
Sorry, but couldn't resist to fix the head
Hahaha, no problem. Alexander "Jiménez" mb looks way better now.
-
For cavalry:
SpoilerCheck out how African cavalry rest the butt of their lances on the ground:
Heavy cavalry from Sudan, Mahdist revolution:
others
Horses, especially stallions can be rather boisterous, making them a little difficult to control sometimes. Horses jumping up, trampling it's feet on the spot and making short, 360° turns are all common. Sometimes the does some show jumps on the spot just for fun.
Rider looking back would be a nice animation as well:
-
Just now, Alexandermb said:
@Sundiata you can share some opinions and references if kushites may have another "idle" like gauls, you are the most appropiated for reference them visually in their life time.
I think they can have similar/the same animations as the other factions. But for something more specific, here are a bunch of ideas from mostly Sudan, idle and ready mixed. Some of the melee ones would require the units to put down their shield, and let the shield lean against their body, freeing up their hands.
SpoilerFor archers, resting the bow on the ground would be good for all civs:
Excellent reference, this one
If you want to get really fancy, the archers could even do a small simple dance, lol... There's actually reliefs of Nubian archers doing some kind of war dance. Don't know if it's possible to synchronize across a group of archers in close proximity to each other. Probably way to complicated huh... Anyway...
For something typically East African pastoralist style, this pose is quite popular, good for spearmen.
Another typically African pose is that African squat. I believe ancient writers even commented on this position being a natural resting position for Aethiops, (lol, I squat like this a lot). Basically like those squatting Slavs, you know, the ones with the adidas attire.
For swordsmen, shield hanging down, leaning forward:
More stuff that I can't really be bothered to sort
Check out how the old man is using both hands to lean against his spear with his full weight, almost as if he's hanging from the spear
Maasai, Kenya:
I liked this one a lot of a Beja horsemen standing upright in his stirrups to get a better view, but then I remembered that they didn't have stirrups back then... Would still be cool for a cavalry man to sort of extend his body like this, face up a little, trying to get a better view. I dunno...
-
1
-
-
Just now, Alexandermb said:
New walking for pikeman to make the sarissa heavier in the view:
Looks nice, but I think it would look a bit better if he holds up the sarissa a little higher so that it doesn't look like he'll bump the butt into every low obstacle on the way.
Spoiler
-
Just now, Alexandermb said:
i wonder if i should change sarissa walking to 2 handed instead of 1? i think a 2meter spear not because its weight but because of the lenght it should be annoying to hold with 1 hand unless it rest on the shoulder.
What you think? @wackyserious @Sundiata @Lion.Kanzen @Stan`Some idle and march poses that might be interesting:
Spoiler
-
Just now, Stan` said:
Well it could mean be able to rotate the camera which you can do, tilt it which you can do. Also could mean the user wants to span the game on three screens. So with no screenshots it' hard to tell
Interestingly, someone on the facebook page posted this a week ago:
-
1
-
-
Just now, Alexandermb said:
Ingame
Honestly, that's supercool. All these animations really add a lot of personality... The "units" are slowly becoming characters...
-
2
-
Borg Expansion Pack Mod implementation in 0ad alpha 24 release.
in Game Modification
Posted
I'm sure @wackyserious could help in this department. It's just a thought though. Would be cool to have because it provides a good visual indicator for the role of those units.
Makes sense. So champion cav is still useful against citizen spears (especially lower ranked ones)?
I think spawning and/or capturing slaves is not a good mechanic. Seems too un-immersive and will result in super weird micro (separating newly spawned or captured slaves in the middle of a battle doesn't sound like fun). If we could eventually develop mini-civs we could have map-creeps as well as a conquerable location from where we could "acquire" or buy slaves. Slaves should be really cheap, but also super weak and should work very inefficiently.