Jump to content

Nullus

Community Members
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nullus

  1. Yes, what I had in mind was a combination of the two. However, I disagree about the cons of (1). If anything, I think it would reduce snowballing. In general, during an attack, the attacking army is closely gathered into a smaller group, while the defenders are coming from all directions. The defenders could use this attack-area to more effectively destroy the attacking army, while it would be harder for the attackers to use, since the defenders aren't gathered into a group.
  2. I think that this would be the main usability problem with a pure attack-ground, where the units fire at a point on the ground. Pyrogenesis doesn't actually simulate the physical trajectories of projectiles, so it has trouble detecting if a projectile hits a unit if the unit wasn't specifically targeted. That would make most of the arrows miss harmlessly, even if they landed in the middle of a group. The main area in which I can see this being useful is with ranged units with splash damage, such as bolt shooters. The issue with units walking to targets could be fixed if the ranged units randomly selected targets within a player-defined area. That would also reduce the necessity of micromanagement.
  3. What I had in mind wasn't quite like that, I was thinking that it would be more like a "Target Area" function. Rather than ordering the units to attack a group, they would instead target any units within a selected area of ground. In that respect, it would work quite similarly to attack-ground. However, instead of actually firing at a selected point on the ground, they would automatically target any units within the selected area.
  4. It looks like a nice feature, but the video looks like most of the arrows are missing the target. That make this seem like an extremely inefficient way to use ranged units, since most of the projectiles will be wasted. Would there be a way to have attack-ground, instead of firing at an area of ground, automatically target any units within that area? That would be a better use of the soldiers, and probably better for game performance.
  5. Nullus

    Han China

    The only issue I see with having a camp for the princess would be that, as I see it, the building is what provides the bonus, so the building could be captured fairly easily, either by the enemy or by a betraying ally. Also, it would be harder to defend. I would think that her husband would want to keep the princess safe within his buildings rather than having her stay in some small camp. Having the princess as a unit would also make it easier to transport her around the map to provide her bonus in different places.
  6. Nullus

    Han China

    As I see it, the princess's game mechanics wouldn't directly control anything in the diplomacy panel, they would just provide the other player with a strong incentive to keep the diplomatic state at "allied". An example scenario where this could be useful: a Han player is fighting against a some other civilizations, and has a strong allied player. He's afraid that his ally will betray him and take over his territory, so his sends a princess to his ally. The princess provides a bonus to the ally that he wouldn't be able to get in any other way. This bonus is dependent on remaining allied to the Han player, so he if he betrays the Han player, he'll lose his bonus. That would provide an incentive to stay allied, and not betray him. Another example: a Han player wants to form an alliance with another neutral player, so he offers to send a princess. If the other player accepts, that would require an alliance between the two of them, since the bonus couldn't be used any other way. The mechanic wouldn't necessarily be useful in all games, but I think that it would be a nice extra strategy to have available in those games where could be useful.
  7. Nullus

    Han China

    I think that it's already possible to have techs that are dependent upon diplomatic states, such as the allied bonuses for civs. The way I would plan it, the techs wouldn't have to change diplomatic states, they would just provide an encouragement for the other players to change the states themselves.
  8. Nullus

    Han China

    For the wagon, perhaps princesses could have slower walk speed and low armour, so to transport them for long distances a cart to also be trained, in which the princess could be garrisoned. The cart could have higher armour and faster speed, which would make transporting the princess safer, but also somewhat expensive, which could provide a balancing disincentive.
  9. Nullus

    Han China

    Perhaps a more realistic mechanic for the princess would be some bonus that she confers to the civ to which she is sent. For example, the princess would have to be garrisoned in one of the other civ's civic centres, and would then give that building faster training for women, stronger capture resistance, more capture points, or some other good bonus. To additionally represent a strengthened alliance, perhaps the Hans could be able to build their buildings within the territory influence of that civic centre as well, or within a certain distance of it. I don't know if that is possible, but it would be interesting. The benefit of this approach is that it actually would strengthen alliances. Since the civ to which the princess is sent would only get her bonus while they're allied with her player, they would want to keep that alliance. The bonus would have to be good enough to provide a strong incentive, but not a direct offensive military bonus that would make them too strong. This would be a more realistic, organic way to simulate a stronger alliance.
  10. Elephants are probably the most versatile units; they're fairly good against buildings, spearmen, pikes, swords, and seige.
  11. Have the recent changes to those components affected the difficulty of adding them at all? Has there been anything that changed since the last time this was proposed that would make this easier or harder?
  12. Some ideas I had for gameplay diversification. If more experienced players see something that could be better, please point it out so it can be corrected. If players like this, it could be the base for a mod for testing the new playstyles.
  13. That makes sense, and I can see why you wouldn't want civilisation playstyles to diminish options, but there are two reasons I think playstyles would be better. 1. Balance I think that the game really has to make a choice between civilisations that are mostly identical, with only cosmetic differences, or civs that, in some way or other, do end up encouraging different playstyles. Since the consensus on the forums seems to be against identical civs, it seems that civs will have to differentiate in some way. If this has to happen, it's better that it happen in a planned way, so that civilisations don't end up completely unbalanced, and each civ's direction is coherent. If the different playstyles are planned, the playstyles themselves can be balanced without making the civs identical. 2. Options. I don't think that distinct playstyles would diminish the options for player strategies. It might diminish the options available for a certain civ, but it would make more strategies available overall. As it is now, there are certain strategies available to most civs, but civilisations are played in mostly the same way. With distinct playstyles, choosing a certain civ would give you a lot more options for strategy. For example, on a mountainous, rough map, you might want to choose a civilisation well suited to raiding and quick mobility, or you might want to go with heavy fortifications. Or on a naval map, you might want to go for naval superiority, or build a trading fleet to fund a more traditional army. Choosing civs with specialised playstyles would allow any of these strategies, while right now most civs have only slight advantages for any of these plans. Additionally, this could introduce a huge variety for team games. What civ each player chooses could become a much more important decision. One player could go for a powerful economy to fund a mercenary-oriented ally, for example. In short, I think that even if playstyles decrease options for individual civs, they would increase options overall. In my opinion, that's a beneficial trade-off.
  14. Some general gameplay classes for styles I've thought of, just brainstorming for the moment Defensive civ, slow expansion, resistant to rushing Raiding civ, good at building small bases, very mobile, but weaker in a straight fight Trading civ, good at trading, other economy is weaker, vulnerable to trade chain disruption Seige civ, good at destroying cities and heavy fortifications, weak early game Economy civ, powerful resource production, vulnerable to raids destroying production structures Mercenary civ, good at amassing a powerful army quickly, but requires massive resources Naval civ, good at destroying ships, more vulnerable on land
  15. Yes, that probably wouldn't be a very good design choice, it would probably be better to have more than one civ per gameplay style/strategy. The concept I was trying to illustrate was that different playstyles would counter one another, and that each civ would be optimised for a certain playstyle. The counters shouldn't be so powerfull that it's nearly impossible for one civ to beat another that counters it, but it should provide a difficult challenge.
  16. Disclaimer: I'm not a competitive, or even particularly good player. I mostly just play 0ad casually, and I don't have too much experience. That being said, however, I completely agree with this. I think that more gameplay styles would make the game much more enjoyable. Right now, basically all strategies can be done with all civs, with only varying degrees of effectiveness. What I would do to differentiate styles while still maintaining some balance is this: I would give each civ a unique style or bonus, but each style or bonus is countered by another civ's bonus. That way, each civ is unique, while not being overpowered. For a very basic example: Britons raid, giving them strong early attack and the ability to build bases beyond their borders, but are weak in the late game. Iberians turtle, with strong walls and defensive structures, but weak offense. Macedonians have good seige, giving them the ability to destroy defensive structures easily, but a weak early game. The Iberians' defense counters the Britons' raiding, the Macedonians' seige counters the Iberian defense, and the Britons early expansion counters the Macedonian's late game. This is just a basic example, a more elaborate design would be necessary for the game, but I hope it gives a good idea.
  17. It could be that P2 champions start out weaker, but can promote with experience to their P3 values.
  18. Thanks for the information! Is there a plan to switch to a beta in the foreseeable future, or are there still too many major changes for that?
  19. @Freagarach @wraitii @Angen @Stan` I'd love to hear your opinions. If there are any other developers I missed, I'd be interested to hear your views.
  20. I'm wondering what the remaining steps are before the game enters beta. I saw the Gameplay Feature Status wiki, but the last time that anything was updated on that was at least 4 years ago. Is that page still up to date? I'm also wondering what goals the programmers have? The artists? Map designers? What are your top priorities for the game? If there are any game developers that I missed, I'd be interested to know what your priorities are.
  21. You might not have any victory conditions set in the game settings. If there is no victory option set, you can never win the game.
  22. Would it be possible for a status effect to replace the animation for a unit? For example, could it replace the death animation? If so, how would I do that?
  23. Would it be possible for a status effect to apply an animation?
  24. Thanks, I've looked at the Carthaginian buildings but I'm not quite sure how the feature works. Is it possible for only one type of attack, such as fire, to trigger the animation? Also, can this apply to units as well as buildings?
  25. Is there a way for an attack to trigger a special animation on the attacked unit? For example, could fire archers trigger a burning animation on buildings which they hit?
×
×
  • Create New...