AIEND

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.

if we limit the kinds of jobs CS can do, we don't even need to make CS labor efficiency negatively correlated with combat experience. In my opinion, the main producers of resources should be civilians, and slaves can highlight metal and stone mining capabilities. CS is actually to complete the work that the civilians and slaves who collect resources can't find time to do, such as building buildings, especially building new CCs in an unsafe environment in the wild.

We need civilians of both genders who can do all the work. In addition to fighting, the main job of the infantry should be logging and building buildings (especially barracks). And the cavalry should stay in the stables to gain experience rather than hunting.

As a result of the game's separation of women from male commoners, it limited the kinds of work women could do, and they were not as good as men in logging wood or mining metals and stones. Even higher farming efficiency than men's is just an unrealistic "compensation". Otherwise, if women lag behind men in overall labor efficiency, who will train women laborers? But in reality, women can often cooperate with men and complete a lot of work efficiently. So I hate this division, because the result of division is that women are marginalized, and many players will delete women in the later stage and replace them with citizen soldiers.

On the surface, it seems that 0AD merges civilians and soldiers to make the mechanism more concise, but in fact it shapes three different laborers - women, infantry and cavalry, making the mechanism more complex.

But actually if you can build granary in neutral area, you don't need cavalry to have meat gathering function. In my opinion, because civilians are inconvenient to hunt -> need cavalry as fast meat gatherers -> cavalry needs to be trained in P1 -> need to consider the strength of cavalry in P1. It's not a strategy, it's just creating more problems that wouldn't have arisen in order to solve some small problems, making the whole mechanism more complex and difficult to balance.

I also prefer AoE3, which has a lot of interesting mods despite its imperfections. Also I think Microsoft is really lazy, they have time to make more DLC for AoE2, but they don't have time to give each nation's soldiers a look that is more in line with the historical display, this is partly because AoE2 is not a 3D game, making A moving soldier model is more troublesome than making a building model, but this does not exist in AoE3, you just need to import a 3D model.

AoE3 came up with a lot of new ideas and game mechanics, and like Age of Mythology, Age of Mythology is the game that really gets overlooked, even though I love it.