Radiotraining

That's also true. Good observation. Another aspect about units that can be improved (in my opinion) is the hard differences between each type of unit. For example, spear units are so weak against infantry compared to sword units. And, as much as it's appreciable to have differences between units, I think the disparity shouldn't be so wide, because it makes the game a bit too mechanic and less creative. Another example is about destroying buildings. Units are a tad too weak on destroying any building and this also force you to use the same predictable mechanic of relying on siege units before any attack. So this again makes the game a bit too linear. Just my impression, but I haven't played much the most recent update, so things may be different by now I defer to more expert players to find the right balance in these micro differentials

I don't know if the intentions behind this comment are legit or just for trolling, but I think there's a degree of truth in these observations. I think 0ad overall is a pretty solid game (and is still incredible that such a game is still around!) but yeah, it as some limits. I think one of the limits is a bit of predictability in the gameplay and lack of flexibility for crazy strategies, like sometimes you can see in AOE 2 online games. I think there are a few threads that could potentially tackle this issue. Like this one: I think that breaking the status-quo by differentiating more the civilizations can help a lot to keep the game fresh and unpredictable, even after a lot of matches. I'm talking as a complete noob. I guess that for competitive players less differences would be better to ensure a fair match. But I think that shuffling the cards a bit could still make some difference without compromising too much the balance. In that thread there was the example of Scythian as a good example of nomadic civilization that can make the game fun and unpredictable with a set of special bonus and weaknesses that keep that civilization reasonably balanced with others more "canon". If you have some specific ideas on how to improve the gameplay I would suggest to participate in the discussion with constructive feedback, so the game can slowly adapt to new changes and ideas

It's a bit random, but I tried to throw a couple of ideas for the missing Umayyad buildings, based on the references in this thread. As I mentioned here, I would be maybe interested to help pushing a bit this mod, to make it on par with the main game. But my 3D skills are pretty basic and I'm totally not a developer, so I was wondering if there's still interest around this mod also by other more experienced users, or where should I start to look around just to experiment a bit..? Anyway, feel free to use the image below as inspiration for a couple of buildings, just in case

Oh..! I guess you would be right too bad! I actually like the concept cos it would make territory area strategically relevant but yeah, I see the problem. Maybe a compromise could be to have it only as a special bonus for some civ, so the effect would be limited to civ choice and not dominant in the game? I don't know, I imagine competitive players wouldn't find it necessary at all. I remember something similar was conceptualised for the Romans, but in that case was a speed bonus inside the territory. I'm not sure that will be implemented, but I thought it was a cool way to differentiate that civ from others.

I don't know if it can properly answer the problem, but I suggest to check out the mod Delenda Est (if I'm not mistaken it has been updated to the current version of 0ad). It still follows the main game concept of territory restriction, but it allows to build some economic buildings (storehouses, farmfields ecc..) outside the territory, so you can grab already some strategic resources in the map. I find it's a pretty cool compromise of keeping the features of the game, while allowing some freedom. Otherwise I know this mod was in development: But I don't have informations about that. @wowgetoffyourcellphone probably would know better

Guys .. super random question : what's the status of Millenium AD? Looking at the forum, it seems like it's been a couple of years that it has been abandoned, but I don't know if there's still interest in the mod. I think it was pretty cool to have a medieval version of the game and - not gonna lie - with AOE around it would be very much needed! Thanks Yekaterina for bringing it up and working to optimize it for the current version! But also: is there a way to contribute to keep it alive from an artistic POV? (meaning concept art/modelling/visual design..) . I'm considering this possibility, but also I have no idea if there's some interest behind, or if the focus of the dev team is on the future releases and optimizations of the main game? Sorry for the random comment ehehe I'm just trying to understand how it works here, I'm a total noob

I was thinking that an integration that could work well with Vanilla could be to keep units loose as it is at the moment, but maybe have a button to form a "battalion", once you select them into a group. In that case the whole group would start to act as a "single unit", and assigning actions could become even easier with a single click to select the whole block. And hopefully this would help to streamline the pathfinder when you manage big groups. This would allow to manage battalions, while at the same time keeping the same costs/properties of single units, so there's no risk to create some weird unbalances in Vanilla and would help a seamless integration of the feature. If I'm not wrong (it's been a long time tho), the series Cossacks worked in this kind of way. I have no idea if this complicate things even more from a coding standpoint, though. So take this idea for what is worth

Hello! I'm upping this thread because I think there are a couple of interesting ideas going on. None of this is highly a priority in the dev schedule, but maybe is a worthy discussion idk.. Anyway I was recently messing around with map building in the atlas editor and I've realized there's a lack of proper "villages" in the game. Especially if you want to simulate the aspect of a rural countryside, you're forced to drop a CC to place other buildings around, and this "ruins" the purpose. I like the DE alternative of giving free room to dropsites even outside the player territory, but I was thinking that another alternative could be to consider a "village center" for early expansion. I think it may have been mentioned also in other threads, but basically this would be a cheaper sort of military colony with some root territory around that can substitute the CC effectively. Some people have mentioned that great game of Imperivm in another thread (happy it enjoys some popularity!), and that's basically what I'm thinking of: a small center dedicated exclusively for economic activities that allows you to expand further and have more room for farms and dropsites. Possibly, military buildings can't be built around this territory (so to not exploit this), unless such village is upgraded to full CC, gaining then full features. I think such a feature can maybe encourage expansions earlier in the game, and, again, make more use of the whole map. What do you guys would think of this? Too dumb? Unnecessary? I'm curious to hear some opinions!

Personally I would think : - gameplays like Newbierush help a lot in my opinion - I like a lot DE (yes i'm a DE fan ) eye-candy pictures but those are also limited to the forum and little else, so they can maybe spread more around - some teasers about civs like what has been shown in AoE? (There are some small videos with a focus on Britain or the Mongols..) this could keep the momentum beside the main trailer only - work on historical campaigns for the game that can become also a powerful storytelling tool with videos/gameplay? - twitch stuff? (Idk, seems popular) What do you guys think is really effective? I'm not a heavy gamer, so I have limited knowledge of that kind of world and what spikes the interest. I'm more from the design/advertising world so that's why I personally get excited by a cool trailer or eye-candy stuff, but maybe those may have little impact outside and not being worth the effort. Just brainstorming, I don't know ..

This is a great topic. Thank you for bringing it up!! If I'm not mistaken, I think I've seen a similar discussion popping up months ago, and one of the issues for an effective communication strategy was the disconnect between devs (and their -sometimes- hectic work) and any social media manager that would take this role. So for this reason it has always been hard to struck a balance. Since I'm only a simple fan of the game and I have no part in it, I avoided to delve deeper into this. But yeah, I agree with you that 0ad could deserve much more attention from outside and I suffer a bit to see it only relegated to a niche. Even the fantastic gameplays of Misticticjim are AAA stuff, but only enjoyed by a small circle circle and that's unfortunate. I would think that more presence online, beside the sake of visibility or popularity, could help to raise the stakes of the game by opening the pool of potential donors, devs and modders that can really contribute to raise the bar further. However I'm not aware if it has been reached any consensus regarding the issue of communication and what should be done about it. But maybe we could still take this opportunity to brainstorm further..? What do you guys think could help to expand views and awareness of the game?

Zarathustra is my personal favourite. It sounds epic and majestic Otherwise, if Chinese are approved, ZhongGuo? That's how the "central kingdom" of China is called

yeah, that's fair, I haven't played that much the latest version, so I was probably stuck a few releases behind Anyway I was just shuffling a couple of ideas/variables from the concept of interactive sites on the map, but I defer to you guys for a deeper knowledge of the game. I apologize to Lion.Kanzen for having maybe misused this space that was more meant for references and concept visualization. Sorry for chiming in

From the sneak peek I've seen I confirm that's the format: 3 sacred sites in each map to conquer, similar in concept with CoH capture points. Is an alternative to the wonder, or in AOE terms, when you capture all reliquiaes of the map and starts the countdown to victory. I also thought it was an interesting variation in the gameplay but I was wary to not propose something similar for 0ad, to not make it look like an AoE rip-off. Beside this, I think is possible to draw also a useful lesson from this concept: how to make the map more playable and interactive? I think DE works well in this sense, introducing more Gaia elements and mercenary camps. AOE also have conquerable markets in the map that can be used to trade. I think that having some mid-objectives to conquer and hold in the map, could maybe lead to some interesting situations in the gameplay: something like a bridge on some chokepoints, the already mentioned markets, or some fortresses/fortified outposts in the map that can be conquered. What do y'all think? - sacred sites however are pretty rad EDIT: an idea could be that some sites, if conquered, can generate resources (like reliquaes on AOE), so taking them could be decisive for a strategy and maybe prevent too much turtling?

this is looking like the most interesting civ so far! Key takeways (to me): - Reward of high risk strategies (let's see how it translates in the game, but is an interesting indicator of how the civilization has been set) - the "Khan". Very interesting, brings some special bonuses like a hero, but is still a common unit - "Yam network" tech to improve speed in your area: that's something been discussed for the Romans in 0ad and I find the concept really interesting in my opinion!

I agree a lot with this. Is one of the things that make the late game a bit boring, to be honest. It makes you feel you're playing "world of tanks" instead of ancient warfare and is immediately game over. Also I feel like these features kill a bit the creativity in the gameplay, because is kind of a shortcut to victory. Ideally elephants should be regarded as support unit to the bulk of an army and not viceversa, so economic restriction or pop cost could definitely play a role here.

ehehehe you're also right .. it was only a simple suggestion off the top of my head Maybe I would add that "unlocking" it could add that little engagement with the action, otherwise purely passive and automatic. It would become then a choice. But yeah, is totally not necessary if too redundant

maybe a shorthand solution for this case could be a tech "training" to be unlocked in the barracks, so it requires a deliberate choice from the user, making it obvious at that point. As a feedback to the previous comment, to be honest I personally can't imagine much to build a structure only dedicated for training. I mean, maybe could be useful to differentiate from the barracks and perhaps add some new tech and features, but it sounds quite a bit of extra work in terms of design and animation for each faction and it would still have some "passive" role, since you just station soldiers in it and wait. Is great visually tho! that's for sure

nicee!! always a great show to watch!

I think that's probably the point raised by this thread: how to give civs more "flavour" beyond the basic rock, paper, scissor dynamic? As you describe in the example, it doesn't really matter which civilization you choose, you can simply ammass champions to make your army stronger and invade your opponent. I think that's what lies beneath the feeling of uniformity among the civilizations. They're carefully balanced together, but in the attempt to make them even they're more or less replaceable from one or another. Now, I'm a completely casual player and I enjoy the game as it is already, so I have no complaints. But I find the discussion very interesting and one of the things that can potentially increase the longevity of the game! Maybe the options that can be explored shouldn't be only exclusive to warfare, but could encompass other game dynamics. - Scythians are definitely a good example on how to bring a unique flavour of gameplay to the civilization. - But I also personally like the idea of a "trading civilization", that can be built specifically on trade and less from conventional forms of income. Protecting the caravans would then become a particular meta playing in this civ and add a new layer of difficulty - Another civ (Chinese maybe?) could instead get bonuses from farming extensively, but this would require also a lot of territory control on the map - A civilization strong on mercenaries can have a stronger army than the counterparts, but needs A LOT of resources, so you have to make sure to sustain a florid economy to use this potential to the fullest - On the contrary, a rush civilization may have cheaper and weaker units, but this gives the advantage of the big numbers. Maybe the can have the advantage of a cheaper/quicker expansion to other territories, so they can rely on map control in the middle/late game. - Other civs may rely on population bonuses for big numbers and others on social/culture bonuses with moral boost if they fight in their own territory (or some unique aura units like, idk, a priest or a standard bearer?) I'm just basking from previous ideas here, but I find some of them quite interesting to shuffle the game and make it less linear, depending on which civ you chose. Some civilizations have already their uniqueness with some special buildings/units and maybe is more a matter of making those small differences even more obvious, so is less about micro differences between single units, but more in broader, macro terms on how each specific gameplay will unfold. In that sense, I've found AOE 4 interesting from the sneak peek I've seen, with the choice of specific buildings to pass to the next age. It gives exactly that feeling of a deliberate strategic choice. Another game that comes to mind is C&C Generals, with the choice between generals in the beginning, and their respective "doctrines". The roast of basic units and counter-units was always present, but each general gave a different "extra" that made the game extremely variegate even by playing the same civilization. So yeah, maybe civilizations in 0ad could simply have that role instead.

I just found this exact video a few minutes ago on youtube! I don't know... calling it a "masterpiece" is a bit too early I think, but overall is interesting to see the different reactions on the game. So far it has been pretty divisive: Some people love it, some people hate it. But surely is bound to stay and probably become a relevant title in the rts universe. Personally I would say it looks fun to play, but is not particularly memorable. On the contrary, it would appear a bit "anonymous" if it weren't for the heavy legacy it brings with it. But is definitely not a bad game as some people try to depict it. Optimistically it can still offer both opportunities and threats to 0ad. Is not the groundbreaking game it promised to be, so there's still space for 0ad to shine as direct alternative. Especially by catering the frustration of old aoe2 hardcore fans disappointed by the new release. Is still a potential threat because it's going to naturally steal the spot from 0ad for a while and set a new gameplay standard that we'll have all to deal with. But at the same time it can offer a new opportunity by fostering some innovations in the game. It would be pretty cool if in the future will be possible to have features like "ambushing", or switching weapons feature. Or the battalion idea in Delenda Est. The competition may push for some cool changes and hopefully can bring a new energy and momentum on 0ad. But as always, this depends on the effort and desires of the devs and I can't thank all the crew enough for all the work and passion they put behind the project! All the new attention from the rts world made me want to get back playing with the good old 0ad even more!

Speaking of siege rams, one of the things that bothers me the most is the extreme discrepancy between melee and spears to counter. I mean, I get it they can have some different efficacy, but shouldn't be as extreme. This really is a turn off for immersion. Maybe this is going to be already patched in a25 tho, i'm not in the loop. Besides, I think rams are already tanky enough and I wouldn't favour to buff them even more. Instead, maybe is possible to tweak a little bit the state of elephants so they're not so OP as rn

Hey hello! I was browsing around the many ideas flowing and I've found this. I just wanted to bring it up, because I think it offers some interesting points to spicen up the diplomatic game I think diplomacy is usually neglected but maybe there's potential for some interesting variations in the gameplay if expanded a bit more .. why not? Definitely not the priority at the moment but I think is worth considering .. what do you guys think?

Wow very cool! It definitely lives up the expectations .. knowing the franchise, I couldn't expect anything less than some AAA title. However, strangely as it may sound, looking at the images and previews, I have to say I kinda prefer more 0ad look and feel, more solid and realistic. As many have also observed, that "cartoonish" look makes units and structures appear a bit disjointed together and I think it takes away the immersion and atmosphere of the historical period. Ahahahah probably the day it will come out an updated version of Millenium AD I won't look back for a while One thing very nice from AOE, though, is the extension and openness of the sceneries. Also the cities, is visually interesting how they expand, taking full space of the map

I like this! Sounds like a good mid-way to prevent the misuse of the autodestroy button. I would argue it could also be a "middle-step" in the conquering process, so to incorporate something similar to the RoN concept, but in a more consistent way to 0ad gameplay: 1. First you neutralize the buildings, they lose owner and return to gaia. This is often the primary goal when it comes to conquer the enemy, especially with turrets and defensive stuff that can be annoying and you just want to have them out of the way 2. Then you can actually "conquer" (or annex) the building to your own. If you fail to do so, the buildings will remain neutral but eventually return slowly to their original owner and you lose your advantage. This would lengthen the overall process of conquering enemy's buildings and prevent too much spoilage of the feature, but still retaining all the original mechanics and without penalizing siege/conquest. I don't know, just throwing ideas there I don't use much the auto-destroy strategy, but I agree is unfortunately prone to be abused in a competitive setting :|

That's exactly what I was trying to say and you said it perfectly better! Ahahaha Edit: maybe, instead of a time-limit I would suggest the upgrade is cheaper than building a CC on its own, but maybe takes more time to develop, so there's an incentive to follow this way if you want to expand quickly and cheaper on the map, but there's also a small time penalty so you have to consider your choices