drphill

'prevent [] building rush' I am confused about this idea that building rush is bad. In order to win the enemy must be defeated. One strand to this is denying access to resources. In order to do this we need to occupy the land. History (and current affairs) shows that settling the land is a weapon of war as much as occupying it with troops. Occupation like this is often done by 'settlers' building homes in clusters (settlements) that grow to become towns and maybe cities. The thought of settlers building a city first is somewhat odd. Would there be a place for every CC starting out as a village and growing to become a city? That would be a huge departure from current gameplay and so less attractive, but it might help balance some of these concerns. How would this work? In short I have no idea but something like: Build settlement (sort of village) in own/neutral/enemy territory. Settlement is like the stage before a village. Settlements in enemy territory will need military support or be wiped out. This allows military occupation to be converted to settlement with a weak initial building. With enough of something (people?/houses?/resources?) settlement can advance to village, then town, then city.

I see what you mean, though I think it could be argues either way (Infinite are the arguments of the economists). I am not sure that this is the right place for that debate though.

Ah, that makes perfect sense. What I am doing is not new - and perhaps a little frowned upon. What I am doing: build a CC close to the front line; demolish or capture any enemy buildings in the area, thereby expanding my territory and denying it to the enemy. Fortify the new border, demolish the CC and start again. This strategy does seem to be a direct consequence of the rules 'you can only build in your territory' and 'CC has a large territory' Preventing CC from being built too close together with a hard limit may not be the only approach. Why not escalate the cost of building CC (inflation)? Or make the building of a new CC more expensive the closer it is to an existing one (labour/resources more expensive closer to a CC as there is more competition?). Maybe that would create more realistic dynamics? Simple inflation (each CC costs x% more than the last) would increase the 'cost of replacement' and so make the resource worth more than it cost. It would make capturing cities far mare attractive as a proposition. Neither side would want to demolish them. I like that idea a lot, as capturing and holding a city is more difficult than destroying it but perhaps more realistic as a strategy. Would such inflation work?

That was certainly my observation. It means that building a city on one island may prevent building a city on another. Could you elaborate please? or point me to documentation? I was using the city influence as a weapon (claiming territory) so a dock would not have been as useful.

I understand why cities cannot be built too close to each other. And I understand why a city's influence does not stretch far over water. But I had an odd situation where a city on one side of a body of water prevented the building of a city the other side of the water even though the influence of the first city did not reach the location where I wanted to build the second city. Is this intended, or is it a bug? I can see arguments both ways, but am interested in the reasoning.

Thanks - that helps. I need to read the instructions carefully. Not sure if I will ever be good enough for that - and my temperament wont suit as I hate losing units. Excellent - I am on the right track then. He does benefit from speed improvements (at the corral), but for some reason hero cavalry are slow (16.5) compared to other cavalry (17.5, 20, 22, and higher for champions and veterans). Maybe heroes are all old and slow..... not like the films atall. Well, maybe like the third sequel.

And the newest AI is very impressive - Does it increase the attack size as the game goes on? I have a modified standard map that allows for very defensive play and the AI make very good use of the terrain. In fact the AI is a bit strong for me on standard setting <embarrassed>. I need my 'defensive map' to survive at the moment. p

Another thing that caught me out - may be 'as designed' though: Select a group and RIGHT click to move them to a point. Select a group and select garrison - LEFT click is required to select building to garrison in. RIGHT click does nothing..... could both left and right click select building for garrison? I have got used to this now, but it was very frustrating until I figured out what was happening.

1 - OK will look at those options..... I thought that if the (1) badge/button on the screen had a real object in the game representing the group, then maybe some commands could be issued to the group via that badge/button. GoHome would be very useful. 2 - Probably a bit elaborate, I agree. I must learn more about the code this winter and perhaps I will find out for myself. 4 - Bolt shooters are a good defense against siege weapons, so they would be best attacking enemy seige weapons in range rather than random/nearest enemy units. Some players might want to choose different preferences. I am thinking here of bolt shooters that are firing on their own initiative - say when their assigned target has been destroyed/gone out of range. Another optimisation would be to choose the most damaged unit of the target class. My rational is that I have walls and towers to keep the infantry and cavalry busy, the threat from them is 'slow'. Seige engines can demolish my walls and towers rapidly - the threat from them is 'fast' and needs to be countered as quickly as possible. It is a pain having to go round the bolt shooters and keep telling them 'get the siege engines, ignore the infantry'. 6 - excellent, thanks those will help a lot. Now I need to remember those commands while playing. Oh, a small bug: If on the game setup screen you choose 'slow', then when the game starts on slow speed, the speed control still says 'normal'. Not a big deal but it may make an easy fix for a novice. Another small bug: I can build on a slope and the building has space underneath it. Perhaps a deeper solid plinth would counter that. I love the group/garrisoned health bar - very helpful when waiting for troops to heal.

First, this is no way a criticism... I am loving the game. Some things I would like: Groups of units (ctrl-1 etc) are great. Would be good if they could have a base (city, temple,fort,barracks) to which the could easily be recalled. Especially useful for cavalry when trying to coordinate several groups of raiders. 'Go Home' command. Would be good if the GoHome command was triggered by the alarm. I could make sure that the right units wound up in the right places Why do I need to set (unpacked) bolt shooters (roman) to 'stand ground' in order to get them to shoot at every enemy in sight? On 'aggressive' or 'defensive' they seem to spend time doing nothing. Would be good to give bolt-shooters an order of precedence for attack - get the other bolt shooters first, then worry about troops. Why does the hero cavarly unit not benefit from cavalry speed improvements - Marcus always lags at the back. Would be good if the cavalry troop centered itself on Marcus. Which introduces an interesting idea of a 'representative' of the group. the representative could be given the task without having to select all...... I love the summary screen. Can we have breakdowns of citizen types (women separate) 'occupations' - farming, hunting, mining, building, idle 'Idle units report to nearest city/barracks' command would be easier than hunting for them one by one - maybe a button on the summary screen? Just some of the things that occurred to me......

Thanks, @Lion.Kanzen. I suspected this was a 'not yet implemented' but wanted to check. I have found the 'garrison troops to prevent capture' but it is a pain when I want to ungarrison in a hurry. I need to garrison 4 and 1 so I can ungarrison the four quickly. Never mind, nothing is perfect and I am enjoying the game as-is.

Thankyou @GunChleoc, @leper. But I wont have the attention span while the weather is good enough to be outdoors. Best I learn the game and its ethos first anyway - it is a long time since I played anything similar. Cant have a developer who cannot play the game. I was playing as roman again and could not find how to access some of the features. This may be because they are not implemented yet and if that is the case then no problem, but if I am missing some trick/technique then maybe others are missing it too. https://play0ad.com/game-info/factions/ "Special Techs or Bonuses: Roman Logistics (Army Camps and Siege Walls no longer decay), Sibylline Books (greater vision for units and buildings), Marian Reforms (unlock the Marian Legionnaire), Testudo Formation (a slow formation that is nearly impervious to ranged attacks), Citizenship (armor bonus for fighting in home territory), Socii (allies gain armor bonuses when fighting in Roman territory)." I found Sibylline books, but no logistics, no marian reforms. Nor did my temple prevent my buildings being captured. Oh, and I laboured mightily to create a wonder and then activated its special. I got a 50 bod boost in population max, and felt underwhelmed. Maybe it becomes important when I get better at playing.

You are just trying to make easy now, aren't you. No fooling me.... ;-P

@sanderd17 I guess any software system gains history, and some of these concepts (expressed in natural, vague language) are bound to be difficult to implement in unambiguous code language. That it has been attempted before does not surprise me - shows it is wanted. That it should have failed indicates the complexities of which I am still blissfully unaware. Maybe the solution would sidestep the economy task impact by making the formation-as-a-unit only available to hero-level troops (which do not engage in economic activity?) . That might have implications for the UI though..... no I do not want to get into solutionising here. As a newbie, though, I would not start there. I would float a list of suggestions and take advice which to start on, and how. That would likely be the quickest route into the code. But that is for the future - personal coding is done in the cold wet dark season. For now I want to play the game and maybe get a feel for its underlying patterns.

I can do JS, not my forte but I have done some. It will likely be a winter time endeavour though. First 'task' is beating the AI on more difficult levels with various factions. Second 'task' is learning multiplayer. (Fun first, serious third;-) Good point.. Maybe civilians would not auto-garrison in military buildings? What archers? I have been playing roman..... and what roman soldier would refuse to shelter a civilian woman. I will, thanks. A formation acting as a unit would be more manageable. I like testudos for their being 'relatively immune to missile fire' (IIRC). Having the front ranks break formation as an enemy approaches is a bad idea. Having the entire testudo move forward would be much better. So for some formations/factions/civilisation-level such discipline would be a major asset. [[Maybe there would be a tension between the formation rules and the individual moods that would make an added dimension - more experienced troops would be more obedient?]] I do not like the way that battles rapidly degenerate into brawls with me as a mostly helpless spectator. Nor do I want to micro manage every infantryman. Thanks I am glad that I am not alone in thinking this.