AIEND

You think that the economy of the Iberians is protected by the city wall, so they can continue to produce food to supply the cavalry without fear of attack. In fact, as long as the cavalry is added with more metal costs, this "economic security" of the Iberians can be broken. ”, because no player will use walls to surround gold mines on the map.

Ancient soldiers usually carried logging axes. In addition to manufacturing siege machines on site, building barracks, building watchtowers, building bridges, and making rafts also required wood from nearby woods. I don't know if the future Alpha will allow soldiers to build battering rams and siege towers on the front line.

The problem is that metal resources don't work, most games solve this problem by making soldiers consume metal, and gold mines outside the initial base are easily harassed.

It's also embarrassing to accidentally hit prey in battle. I still want the soldiers to keep the ability to log, because the woods are usually farther from the CC and not very safe.

If we decouple the soldiers from the main labor, it means that the cost of these soldiers is easier to adjust. Different types of soldiers can require different types and quantities of resources according to their strength and use. For example, we can enhance the archer and improve the Its food cost, added to the metal cost, allows a group of archers to be evenly matched with javelinmen with the same amount of resources but a larger number.

In addition to Human, is it enough to add Structure, Siege, and Ship?

I want to add javelins and bows to civilians, but want ranged attacks to only target wild animals, what tag do I need to add to the RestrictedClasses line to achieve this?

In order to allow Chinese players to play, I made another Chinese mod.

Not English or what? There is no Chinese character library in the game.

I'll try to do this in my mod, you can try it then.

I suggest you play these games first. The first stage of a lot of games is not that complicated, and the second stage is not that scary. If you haven't played it, you won't have an intuitive understanding of this.

If you haven't played those games, then you think the problems that have to be caused by letting combat start in P2 are just your imagination. 0AD's current problems are caused by imperfect design. I don't think that simply making 0AD more like other games will make it better, but "keep it unique" doesn't mean it's fun, because the problems with many of 0AD's unique mechanisms are They were not carefully sanded and were in a half-baked condition.

Age of Empires and Age of Myth series also started fighting from the second stage, do you find these games boring? I don't know what's wrong with these basic designs that are adopted by many RTSs.

I agree. At present, many players in 4VS4 multiplayer games will not build a second CC, and will not try to control a larger area of the map, which weakens the value of the territory mechanism.

You know what it's like to fight in P1? ——Like two kindergarten children fighting boxing, their bodies have not grown, their strength is not strong enough, and their winning or losing is not interesting. You still have a lot of technologies that you haven't researched, a lot of powerful units have not been unlocked, there is still a lot of balance left in the population cap, and the map is huge. You haven't explored and built new towns yet. What's more problematic is that in P2, the scale of the army is larger, and the battle should be more intense, but now players ignore it and choose to upgrade directly to P3 before fighting, because P2 does not have siege weapons, it is difficult for the enemy to cause devastating blow. This makes the flow of the game look like a dumbbell - heavy on both ends and light in the middle. If P1 is militarized, then P2 should be more intense than P1, and the entire game should be a continuous increase in intensity from P1 to P3, instead of making P2 an embarrassing "peacetime".

Higher combat effectiveness or indispensable battlefield roles are the characteristics of being a mercenary. If you add the ability to cut wood and build buildings to him, it will make him featureless, which means that the design of the mercenary failed from the beginning. Well, the mercenaries of the imperial era will not be indistinguishable because they are incapable of labor like ordinary soldiers. And it must be pointed out that the reason why mercenaries are cheap is that under the current 0AD resource system, citizen soldiers basically do not consume metals, and metals have largely become idle resources, and mercenaries that only consume metals have no resource conflicts. In Age of Empires 3, players will not feel that mercenaries are cheap, because ordinary soldiers also consume gold, mercenaries are equivalent to replacing food costs with gold, and gold is a more scarce and versatile resource. Even though a mercenary might only have 70 gold, and the average soldier might need 20 gold and 90 food, players would think that 50 gold is more expensive than 90 food because they have already spent a lot of gold on other uses.

Then let the heroes not work, after all, they are more similar to special units such as doctors.

So I'm talking about building buildings and logging. The labor that the soldiers did should be related to the military, even the most elite soldiers would cut down trees to build their own barracks，If mercenaries can't cut wood, why can they build buildings? They were hired as soldiers, not as construction workers. In addition, even ordinary soldiers will not go to work in mines, because those who have money to buy equipment and become soldiers are usually people with land and property, while miners are usually proletarians or slaves.

If you think the mercenary is too cheap, which is a problem in itself, make him more expensive.

First of all, this is not called diversity, because he did not add new functions, but just divided the old functions from one unit to multiple, making the player's operation more complicated. Secondly, a lot of players who didn't like this design have given up on the game long ago, and you certainly won't see their complaints.

To complicate an otherwise simple and effective mechanism can't be called fun, it's called trouble for players.

I agree, it's long overdue.

I think the soldiers themselves also need to be unified, such as making citizen soldiers, mercenaries, and champions all able to cut wood and build buildings.

The current game shows that attempts to completely replace dedicated laborers with citizen soldiers were unsuccessful, and the original intent was to integrate civilians and soldiers into citizen soldiers, moving from two units to one. But what about the results now? Now there are women who farm, civic infantry who log wood, mine metal and stone, civic cavalry who hunt, mercenary infantry who can build buildings but can't gather resources, mercenary cavalry and champions who can 't gather resources or build buildings.

You don't need a ceasefire, P1 tests which player can get ready for battle faster. This actually complicates the game mechanics, which originally only required civilians and soldiers. Now there are women who farm, civic infantry who log wood, mine metal and stone, civic cavalry who hunt, mercenary infantry who can build buildings but can't gather resources, mercenary cavalry and champions who can't gather resources or build buildings.