maroder

Just around farmhouses would not help that much, as you then can just build the farmstead close to the CC. So you would have to add a minimal distance between CC and farmstead, which is just a more complicated way of using a minimal distance between CC and fields.

@Stan` it seems like there are a number of people who would like to comment on this topic but they don't have access to this forum. Maybe it would be better to just move this thread to the gameplay discussion forum.

Should be fixed now.

yeah, I am working on figuring out how to fix that.

Look here: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Modding_Guide here: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/forum/443-tutorials-guides/ and here: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/21083-how-to-modify-0-ad/

To keep this discussion productive: I created two versions of farmlands, so that everybody can test how it would influence the game. It is important to note, that both options still allow you to build fields wherever you like (including directly around your CC), but the farmlands should give a strong incentive to build on them and outside of the CC range. Option 1: Player buildable farmlands farmlands.zip can be build by the player (should work with infantry and women) cannot be build in the city Option 1: Farmlands on random map farmlands-on-mainland.zip Works only on the map "Farmland", which is a modified version of "Mainland" To recap, what are the goals and consequences of this approach: more realistic city layout no restriction of player choice, you can still build fields wherever you like if you use the farmlands, farming gets more risky, therefore rushing is easier Notes: [The mods are for a24]. I choose relatively random values for the positive farming aura, so don't get hung up on those. This same is true for the amount of gatherer per field. Also, as I said, I have no experience in random map creation, so don't be surprised if they are not balanced. Further discussion points: size, number and effect strength of the farmlands. So please try it out and me what you think. Is this how you imagined the farmlands? Does this fit into the game? Does it change the strategy too much?

It does seem like a logical progression. P1: Citizen Solider -> P2: Citizen Solider + Champions -> P3: Citizen Solider + Champions + Siege. Then every phase has new options to attack and break a defense.

True. But I quite like the idea that one gets rewarded for effective rushes. On the other hand, an ineffective rush would also set you back even more. Rushing should set the other players back, so that they cannot turtle effectively afterwards (because they are already behind in resources/population). But yes it is not the only thing that contributes to that.

Great work! I really like this version. It is still sad that the original brick texture needed to go, but this looks also nice.

It does not make a lot of sense to have this discussion on a purely theoretical basis. Here are the mods: better-gather-rates.zip inrease-loot.zip Personally I think both options could work. And also farmlands or reduced number of gatherers per field. @chrstgtr since you wrote about two of your mentioned options, that you don't believe they will change anything (so booming is still = turteling), I didn't include them.

Procedural generation of buildings using blenders geometry nodes (no tutorial, but maybe someone has not yet heard about it) :

Totally forgot about that one. And there are so many nice ideas implemented: Attack and Armour: Dealing of damage is directional | Shield size defines how much damage unit blocks from front Mercenaries: need to pay them else they turn to gaia Rams: need to be garrisoned to be able to attack | can be captured But anyway, my concern with directional armor (that is equal for all units) and unit speed is that slower units will be much more affected by this change. Retreating with cav would mean you can get out fine, but retreating with ptol pikemen would kill them. This can make sense, but it can also get op very quick or would require other balancing changes.

Sounds very interesting. A few questions: Do you apply directional armor from all attacks? Is it the same for all units or can you specify it in the templates? What exactly means directional; front, side, back or the exact angle? If it is the same for all units it can have very different results, depending on the unit speed.

Just to bring the old thread up again, because it is related:

Generally judging by the screenshots provided by @Langbart here: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D1490 It looks to me like a improvement to me. But I do see the dense masses that can be formed without the formation. The solution to formations being useless would be the planned formation bonuses: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3523

At the moment most people choose the idea of DE style farmlands. One option to test these changes in a cautious way (idea by @faction02) would be to implement it on a map level first. We could include a version of the mainland map in a25 which has these farmlands, so that the idea can be extensively tested. This way, we could discuss the implementation (percentage of farmland, strength of positive effect, location ect.) without changing the complete meta. Also we don't have to touch the AI. Just adding a label which say this map is not suitable for it, would be enough.

Yes fair point, but there are also options which would not restrict player freedom. We don't need to use a hard restrictions, we could also use incentives as farmlands or auras that encourage building placement around the CC. The hard restrictions were only mentioned as an option regarding the comments that these soft solutions are to "convoluted". And of course, breaking the AI is not the goal. Depending on the solution we may not even have to change that much. Also, I guess there will probably be other changes that need to be included in the AI, as the turrets for example. So I think this shouldn't be the main reason not to consider changes, as the new alpha is just out and there is still plenty of time to the next release.

My bad, my collection of antique maps is not that good. But would you agree that generally the farming was not done in the middle of the city? As you said, maybe inside the (in this case old) city walls, but not in the very heart of the city.

Yes you can indeed do that, but the/a favored layout is at the moment this: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/15271-0-ad-on-youtube/page/84/?tab=comments#comment-422786 So what I hope would be gained by any of the proposed changes would be a city layout that looks more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wolf-Dietrich-Klebeband_Städtebilder_G_123_III.jpg Yes that is exactly what I am trying to communicate the whole time. I get that my original proposal (split cc functionality) was to far out there, that's why I included other options in the discussion. And I also like turteling, in my opinion it just looks better when it is done using actual defensive structures and is less reliant on a building that looks not at all like a defensive structure. I don't understand. There are literally open tickets regarding this topic, waiting for a design decision. That is why I opened this discussion and it seems like there are people who would appreciate a more realistic approach (see the poll). I don't try to convince everybody to pick a specific solution, this is a open discussion how we could incorporate this while maintaining a fun gameplay. I fail to see why we should not try to find a solution that looks more realistic and still has a nice gamplay. To not even consider new features only because they may influence the current meta, seems like an very unhealthy attitude for a project that is in development. Then we can just stop development now and call it a day.

I apologize if my comment on the other thread stating this sounded toxic, but you cannot disregard that this is the reality at the moment. I also don't want to make absurd changes for no reason, I stated why I would like to see these changes and I tried to argument why they seem appropriate to me for a game which main feature is that it is open-source and closely based on history compared to other RTS. An alpha version does mean that there probably will be changes, which will change the current meta. Which is hopefully for the better and if not, then the next version should try and fix that.

A problem that bothers people since years: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/4342 and https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/20406-changes-in-farms/ Yes and they will loose badly because the current meta punishes this layout. True. It will change things, but without trying how they will play out we can not decide if these changes are good or not. As I said, there are also other options how this could be balanced and I really do think that with the right option we don't have to sacrifice gameplay. I am not opposed to trying out incremental changes as Vali's idea.

First of all: Thank you for taking part in the discussion. I see people voting for the option to keep things as they are now, but no one who has a strong disagreement to this proposal has cared enough to say what exactly it is that bothers them about this. Regarding your concerns: Yes, when looking at any of the options on their own, they would lead to fields that are very hard to defend, but that is not how this needs to end up in the next alpha. At the moment most players maybe build one or two sentry towers in phase one and palisades are mostly used to obstruct siege in phase three. One option to balance the proposed changes would be follow up patches that make these structures actually useful for defense in phase one (which is their original purpose afaik). So make sentry towers cheaper and palisades strong against a p1 rush, but weak as soon as the other player is phased up. My attempt at balancing is here (not as a proposal, only as food for thoughts): https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/38007-increased-realism-mod-and-random-unrealistic-changes My point is that there are lot of options to include this change without having to cripple the gameplay. If it would help this discussion I can also propose a list of other possible things that can be used to balance this, but that seems like it can lead off-topic very quick. On a side note: I actually thought that the fact that these changes reward aggressive play and rushing (maybe even with infantry) would be a positive thing?

Thanks for the suggestions it should be doable, I will think about it for the next version. At the moment I am torn between the timer solution and the current solution of binding it the the rank of the unit. You idea would definitely required some more work.

I find it interesting that on the one hand it is always very much stressed that the game is still an alpha, which means that there will be sudden changes and cool new features will be added, but many player share this mentality that changes should be cosmetic at best.