AIEND

You can basically think that the combination of the two is China's battering ram.

I totally agree with this point of view.

Under the current attack method, if soldiers attack rather than capture buildings by default, they will only stab with spears, chop with swords, or throw arrows, javelins and stones on the walls in vain. And I don't want that, I plan to use mods to add specialized siege damage to soldiers, such as throwing torches.

I think that since Yamatai can be accepted, the backwardness of American civilization in military technology is not so prominent. Well, we might as well give it a try. I don’t know any other outstanding representatives of American civilization in this time period two thousand years ago besides the Maya, but if we decide to do it, we might as well take the representative American powers of this period All show up.

That's not enough for them to replace the cavalry's mission. The important thing is that they don't have bronze weapons, and it's difficult to gain an advantage even if they get close to the enemy.

I think agriculture can only appear in P2, because the planting industry in nomadic countries is often not the individual behavior of herdsmen, but the requirements of tribal chiefs, Shanyu, and Khan, and the start of agricultural construction in nomadic countries generally requires nomadic cavalry Farmers are captured from villages in other countries, and these people who have mastered agricultural skills are allowed to reclaim the land, instead of training herdsmen who know nothing about farming from scratch.

There is no doubt about it, I am also looking forward to it. But we still have to consider balance. If possible, it is best to make a pre-colonial American civilization mod (such as one without water resources) that can be used in game mechanics with the 0AD main body, so that we don’t have to worry about things that are not in the main game The balance between American civilizations and Eurasian and African civilizations. At the same time, it also means that we are not limited to only one or two American civilizations.

If those civilizations have at least entered the Bronze Age, then I have nothing to complain about. Aren't we already planning to join Yamatai, which doesn't even have cavalry and doesn't have many iron weapons?

The gameplay needs to take into account both historical reality and the balance between factions. Perhaps it is an interesting scene to let the native American civilizations fight against the civilizations of Eurasia and Africa in the game, but considering the reality, the balance is difficult to grasp. So I hope you can focus this part of your energy on creating a pre-colonial mod with only American civilization. The same is true, such as Xiongnu I said.

For fragile nomadic production methods, planting is no different than a necessary means to increase the ability to resist risks. Therefore, some developed nomadic countries, such as the Khazar Khanate, the Bulgar Khanate, the Uyghur Khanate, and the Mongol Khanate ( 16th century) all had large-scale agriculture.

We cannot assume the possible development of a civilization after encountering other civilizations. Our games cannot assume history, but only reflect the history that has actually been experienced. If you assume that the Native Americans in BC obtained horses and domesticated them to produce cavalry, then 0AD becomes an alternate history game, so how can we represent the real and unique native American civilization? Secondly, Native Americans mainly use natural copper to make copper utensils, but rarely can process bronze, and copper is very soft, not suitable for weapons, nor can it replace stone tools, so American civilization has been in the period of copper and stone for a long time, Tahuantinsuyu There is a technology for processing bronze, but that is very late.

Xiongnu would import iron farming tools from the Han Dynasty to cultivate, and some archeology in the Mongolian steppe has confirmed this.

This is what AoE2&AoE3 does. This type of infantry is called "shock infantry", but to be honest, in 0AD, a game that is more realistic and does not favor hard restraint, we cannot make infantry really replace cavalry. If it is true that humans can outrun horses with two legs, why did the native tribes of North America domesticate horses and become the best riders?

The progress of American civilization, such as city construction, may be reflected in some construction and operation games, but it is not suitable for RTS such as 0AD, because in the final analysis, this game is about fighting, and the problem of American civilization at this time is There are no domesticated horses, no metal weapons, no wheels, so there are no cavalry, chariots, and battering rams, which makes it difficult for them to compete with the existing civilizations of the game. In addition, AoE3 appears in the 15th century and later Native Americans , and if we try to join American civilization now, its level of civilization is still far from the most mature state in 1,500 years. I am more optimistic about the pre-colonial American mods that only have American civilization, because the combat modes of all factions are similar, without iron, cavalry and chariots.

But in fact, we do not only look at the age, but also the level of civilization. The factions in the game must at least reach the late bronze civilization to compete with other factions. Otherwise, like AoE3, let the civilization of the Stone Age and the civilization of the Gunpowder Age Civilization (fortunately, the current highest level of 0AD is only the Iron Age) confrontation, the sense of violation is very strong.

Indeed, for example, to strengthen the technology of swordsmen and archers, you only need to give civilizations with corresponding units.

More often than not, refining the enhancements to different units means enhancing skills rather than weapons, and these technologies should be dispersed in the buildings where these units are trained, rather than in the blacksmith.

In theory cavalry can do all the work that infantry can do, as long as the horse is tied aside while working. But in fact, this has a great impact on the balance. If it is not a nomadic country purely composed of cavalry, it is not suitable for this design.

I think the main difficulty lies in how to achieve boarding and occupation of enemy ships, and how to make the melee soldiers carried by warships play a role in boarding battles. It's not contradictory to make range soldiers work, the important thing is how to distinguish the attacks caused by different types of ranged soldiers, even if the soldiers are not displayed on the deck, they will not be injured. I don't know if it is possible to add a variety of different turrets to the warship, corresponding to archers, slingers, and javelins. The default ammunition is 0. Adding corresponding types of soldiers will increase the corresponding projectiles. The different kinds of range soldiers have their own specialties in land battles, and I imagine they should do the same in naval battles. If this is not possible, like in Total War: Rome II, train a warship carrying soldiers of the default type range, fix the firepower of such a warship, and the additional range soldiers carried are simply transported.

I think we need to add such a technology to range soldiers, of course, the premise is that we have to weaken their firepower, or further strengthen the melee soldiers, so as not to kill them all before they can get close to the range soldiers.

I suggest doing this, it is very necessary.

And I must say that naval design principles are not only used in navies, we also have to think about how to modify siege weapons. For example, the siege tower, if we realize that the archers in the warship shoot arrows and the melee soldiers board the ship to occupy the enemy ship. Then we can also realize that the archers in the siege tower shoot arrows and let the melee soldiers climb the city wall to occupy the city wall.

One point I mentioned earlier is to let the soldiers on the ship play their own combat effectiveness, not just increase the number of arrows on the turret of the warship. If the Greek/Roman warship carries javelin soldiers, these javelin soldiers should be like fighting on the city wall. As above, throwing at enemy ships can only be done at close range, and will be damaged by enemy fire. Then the Greek/Romans should let the warships approach the enemy quickly so that the firepower can be used while ramming or boarding the ship, instead of saying that in order to show that these warships are better at melee combat, we have to cancel their projectile firepower or put Firepower reduced to irrelevance.

Obviously, a Greek trireme with a ram is more suitable for melee combat, but this does not mean that we need to split the functions of boarding, ramming and archery from the same ship to different types of ships, just according to different civilizations Just focus on the corresponding aspects. For example, the warships of China, Persia, and India are obviously more prominent in archery, while the Celtics and Romans are more prominent in boarding.

There should be a basic template where each civilization has at least one light ship and one medium ship, both of which can shoot arrows and board ships, because obviously we don't need to specifically design so-called "melee ships" and "range ships" ".