@Sevda Stop wasting time on 0ad and revise
The full translation of AIEND's file is here
I didn't read what's inside the document and I don't have any idea what you guys are talking about. I will check out A26 when it releases, otherwise I'm gone, and I don't care how you guys balance it because perfect balance is simply not possible with real humans behind the keyboard and 13 different civs.
The core problem of 0AD is that some basic settings are in a half-assed state, which affects the overall improvement of various aspects, such as citizen soldiers, frontiers, stages, and heroes.
I. Citizen Soldiers
The original purpose of adding citizen soldiers was to merge most of the labor units and combat units in RTS into one category, simplifying the player's operation.
However, it was not successful in the actual setup, and eventually gave birth to three types of laborers, namely women, citizen infantry, and citizen cavalry, plus builders like hired infantry, and even hired cavalry and champions and heroes who could not labor, which in turn made the original simple and easy to understand labor/combat unit dichotomy replaced by a more complicated and troublesome distinction system.
At the same time, since 0AD is a game based on historical facts, and the citizen-soldier setting has a reliance on the premise that the basic soldier tree is common and consistent across factions, but this is not possible in the game.
For example, some factions have archers and some don't, and the game is forced to make archers and javelin throwers equal in cost and weaken archer stats in order to maintain faction balance, resulting in subsequent games that add countries that have historically had higher military technology and only have bow-like archers will tend to be weaker in faction balance (e.g. Han and Xiongnu, Serbian species), whereas in a labor/combat dichotomy game, you only need to give archers higher skill requirements and higher costs to balance.
In addition, in order to keep the types of resources needed to develop the economy less complex, citizen soldiers cost mostly food and wood, which not only makes it unfeasible to distinguish different classes of units of the same level by relatively scarce metal resources in other RTS (units such as javelinmen and gunners in Age of Empires that consume only wood and food are distinguished from swordsmen, archers and knights that consume metal with food or wood) This even leads to idle metal resources, as citizen soldiers do not conflict with mercenaries, and mercenaries that only need metal even become "cheaper" and become a balance breaker. The high demand for wood also leads to interruptions in town building and citizen soldier training, and the scarcity of wood has been particularly troubling for players in the past on maps that were poorly designed and scattered with trees.
The current state of citizen soldiers, which affects the historical adjustment of soldier data and makes labor units complicated and resources spent singularly, is very costly, so with reference to games like Age of Empires and Age of Mythology, I think the following adjustments should be made.
1. add only the cost of food male and female civilians, can be the most efficient to complete the collection of various materials and engineering construction, with civilians to replace the opening given soldiers.
2. Adjust all infantry (except heroes) to "frontline builders", which can cut wood and build military facilities and even siege machines, and the labor efficiency will not be negatively correlated with combat experience.
3. Adjust all infantry and cavalry (except heroes) to "amateur hunters", who can hunt but can collect meat no more efficiently than civilians, and whose labor efficiency is not negatively correlated with combat experience.
4. Change the cost of citizen gunners, sword and shield players, lancers, archers and cavalrymen to food and metal, each with a different ratio of high to low.
The rise of countries with the same frontier concept, whose resources are non-consumable, requires players to control more resource points to achieve by limiting efficiency, so players need to keep expanding new towns to control more ground to improve collection efficiency and also increase depth, in the process, the cost of building new towns is also relatively low.
The cost of building a new town in 0AD is unusually high, requiring 500 wood & metal & stone, a total of 1500, far more than the Office of the Age of Empires, Age of Mythology and Rise of Nations, resulting in a rare player building a second Office in multiplayer games.
As a result, it is difficult for players to expand their towns to spread out their economic and military facilities and also to spread out their risks, and to build deep lines of defense to hinder enemy attacks, and they can only build the opening town and the only town as a "super city-state" and rely entirely on the army to protect it. Once the town is destroyed or lost, the player will never be able to return, as it will be difficult to rebuild the economy elsewhere, nor to rebuild the military and defense facilities quickly.
Therefore, to solve the problems caused by frontiers, a decentralized idea is needed to improve them.
1. lower the cost of the Office and the colony, limit it to 600 and 400 resources (400 wood + 200 stone and 250 wood + 150 stone are recommended), not train soldiers, as a building that simply trains civilians and recycles supplies, reduce HP, attack and frontier influence, and no longer consider it as a fortress-type defense facility.
2. Granary and depot buildings for gathering natural resources such as beasts, berries, wood and metals, and stones should be able to be built in neutral areas as well as docks. This will first effectively use the rich food sources on the map, without having to bother to start farming in the opening game, and will also facilitate a more decentralized placement of mineral resources on the map, avoiding the collection of one or two rich mines to become close to a de facto "infinite".
3. Arrow towers, forts and walls for security and defense should be built in neutral areas, with forts maintaining a certain frontier area of influence. This way, players can block the passages between mountains and forests with few stones through the walls, avoiding the embarrassment of "surrounding one's town with a large circle of walls", and also weakening the role of carts and cavalry and increasing the role of stone throwers. It is also possible to build a "fortress zone" with well-defended and military training facilities, which can be attacked and defended, to improve the role of the fortress, so that the situation does not fluctuate greatly with the army fighting downwind & upwind.
4. Military facilities and temples, which are theoretically occupied, will not get out of control due to the loss of offices and forts, avoiding speculative tactics caused by "office decapitation".
5. Significantly weaken the occupation efficiency of soldiers, especially the cavalry should be less efficient than the infantry.
Due to the presence of citizen-soldiers, 0AD combines labor and soldier training together with the economic start-up-reconnaissance phase and the economic maturity-readiness phase.
This results in a situation where 0AD does not have P1 in the usual sense (instead of P4 as some people think), but rather advances the next three phases, putting the content of P2 in other games at the beginning, where players start with melee infantry, archers and cavalry and most of the military training facilities, and compete from the beginning to develop the economy to maturity and readiness for war.
Due to the aforementioned problems with civic soldiers, players' post-opening work is very complicated, and it is even more difficult for new players to master the skills of operation, so many players complain that they have been left far behind by veteran players in the process of P1 to P2 (actually P2 to P3), and therefore have to choose to start the war in P1 (actually P2) to have some possibility of victory (and also the only game experience).
And as a rule, the work that players should do after the opening is relatively simple, there should not be too heavy work, should not allow players with different experience to be able to pull too big a gap between them through the operation, the game should be a process that gradually makes players tense up with the stage, not very tense at the beginning.
It is because of the lack of P1 in the usual sense that the pace of the game is not only overwhelming for new players who are new to this type of RTS game, but also tricky for those who are used to other RTS such as Age of Empires - they can't touch 0AD, which hinders us from promoting 0AD and thus expanding the player base, so in this regard, we have to adjust the stage in terms of game pacing.
1. Set P1 as the economic start - scouting stage, this stage can only train civilians and scouting cavalry (to replace the original melee or long-range cavalry given in the opening), no longer able to build barracks, stables, arrows and soldiers, players can collect food from beasts and berries faster, and the resources needed to train civilians will not conflict with building construction, upgrading from this stage to P2 only requires food Cost, 600~800 food is recommended.
2. P2 is the stage of economic maturity and expansion, during this period you can build military facilities and train soldiers, and also build primary siege machines, such as punching cars and prowlers and both can be cheaper (prowlers can only attack buildings and machines with rockets), players will start attacking and defending at this stage and completely defeat other players, upgrading from this stage to P3 requires food and metal costs, suggesting 1200 food + 800 metal. 800 metal.
3. P3 is the stage where the battle is white hot, when players can use all their offensive and defensive means to fight fiercely against each other on a map that is already close to being divided up.
4. P4? After P1 has been properly set up, P4 will be worthy of serious consideration as a valuable late stage. This stage should not be set up just for the sake of being set up, and should not just move some of the original P3 content here, or extend some of the already long enough tech lines by another level (e.g. economy and shield tech).
Instead, it should provide, for example, population cap increase, upgrade and direct training of advanced citizen soldiers, faster training of stronger champions, strengthening of siege machinery and defense facilities and navy, increase of trade efficiency, and other technologies (some of which should be gains that come with P4), with a suggested upgrade cost of 1500 food + 1000 metal.
The game's view of heroes is more akin to an RPG perspective, these people themselves become "super soldiers" who provide some limited range of aura, even though most of the heroes are actually the historical kings of the various factions, but in the game is reflected more of a warrior and front-line generals, rather than generally give them and leader status macro-global gains that match their leadership status.
Ironically, however, this type of global gain is given to the same monarchs of all nations as if the king had no policy accomplishments while he was alive and only had some kind of spiritual power to bless the player when he died.
The design of the hero itself is far from being tapped for its design potential than adding an unexplained hearse, or deciding the faction gain by choosing the leader at the beginning of the game (if these appear in the game, there should not be a hero that can directly come on the field), at least the following changes can be made.
1. the heroes including cost attack and defense and other basic data to keep the same as similar champions, so that they return to ordinary people, can be trained in the Office, and the player can repeatedly train them (after death or rather wounded retirement, you can train the same hero again and can not train other heroes).
2. Each hero has at least one global gain, now used on the hearse gain can be referred to (DE module in the opening selection of the leader gain can also be referred to), but also should distinguish the heroes into front-line heroes that favor a small aura to improve the combat effectiveness of soldiers, in the policy heroes that favor global gain, and even a comprehensive hero that has both.
Different factions can favor having more of a certain type of hero according to faction characteristics, and choosing a hero also means choosing a fixed tactical route.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)