Jump to content

Alar1k

Community Members
  • Posts

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Alar1k

  1. I wouldn't say that worker elephant is the problem because if we remember a23 - nobody was saying "mauri too op bla bla" even tho back then those worker ele could also build as well as be a dropsite at the same time - the balance issue is not the worker elephant but other things like making archers destroy siege engines, giving rams and siege production buildings to all civs for the sake of balance

    If Kushite can start with a priest and britons with a dog - why don't add something to others civs to start as well (carthage can make trade ships on p1 for example, and nobody minds that...) - athen/sparta/mace can start with extra sheep for example (like corral sheep controlable animal for scout and food)

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  2. 3 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

    weirdJokes has proposed that I increase the score of Romans and Spartans:

    Romans are well rounded and easy to play. Their sword infantry and consular bodyguards are also very effective. 

    Spartan Skiritai are now able to gather resources and attack has increased slightly, so they should get credit on that. 

    What do you think?

    Skiritai could gather resources in a23 as well - idk spartans don't have -10%pop so that's good but i don't know, now that archers can kill boldshooters there is not much to help spartans out in later stages of the game, rome can still besige with millitary camp and garrison siege engens there so it still has potential you just have to drag the siege all the way down to the millitary camp which is not that ideal, also romans have better heroes to counter ranged attacks

     

    • Like 1
  3. First of all I don't see any reason to compare a free and open source project with a corporate, big-budget product. Second - one needs to look at 0ad not just as a game but as an interdisciplinary art project that is a collaboration between different artists (IT, historians, graphic designers, translators, writers and so on and so on...) 

    If somebody is unhappy with how the PR is being managed and wants to push more capitalistic, neo-liberal path of teasing and waiting to build hype for a few months before a game is released -  one should not criticize but make constructive suggestions with some objective examples of similar types of projects - and that is for sure not age of empires 4

    In my opinion free form art like this should not be advertised by being a tease because it is not here to make you pull your wallet or make you anxious in waiting for it to come out - the community is too small to be teased like that and let down once the alpha released does not fulfil their expectations - imagine a world in which you had constant announcements on weakly basis on all social media and you get into a game and it is not something you are happy with - one must ask himself a question "is it morally right to tease people who like this project with something that they know is not a polished product and is still in development?" - after you ask yourself such a question then you might be more sympathetic with the developers choice of just putting it out - less build-up of expectations = less false promises and less overall unhappiness with the next stage of the game - because it is not a finished product you cannot expect it to be represented as such and build hype around something that will be changed/fixed in a few months or a year
     

    • Like 1
  4. In my opinion it has to be Carthaginian barracks and stable as it is now - it costs like most other barracks (200 wood and 100 stone (50 for stable)) but only lets you train spearman and an archer unit from barracks and only cavalry javelin from stables - cost/benefit is horrible for this civilisation when you can only make three maximum embassies per game - until the proposal made by fatherbushido is implemented (proposed on this topic, second page, with video example), these buildings will stay the worst unit production buildings in cost/benefit spectrum in the game - where is the balance in this? How can barracks/stable cost so much and yet provide so little diversity?

     


  5. It's this mod - when I tried to open the latest version it opened through wine automatically and wouldn't stop sending errors until I restarted my laptop and deleted the folder - now the thing is, I don't really know what to do to implement this mod on my linux distro to make everything work (thing to note here is that I installed a24 through flatpack because at the time ppa was still on a23, didn't wanna bother with snap)

  6. 7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    You assume a lot, like costs and such remaining the same.

     

    I want the ability for hard battalions so I can prove you two wrong with Delenda Est. :D lol

    Well since we don't agree on this full scale of hard battalion implementation i propose a middle ground - what would you say to an idea of making a different "flavour" inside the base game that would be called something like "battle of the armies" - in that type of game like we have an option of relics gameplay we could have an inbuild mod in the base game that would be oriented towards the battle more then on economy - unit battalions would cost less and be trained faster - this would be focused on the real-time tactics gameplay

    Personally, I don't really feel hard battalions but wouldn't mind to have an option of playing that style with 0ad factions/feel - imho single units should be the main core of the game still, but the formations of battalions should be a viable option - not standard - I really like the feel of 1 unit making huge difference, and that is something that tends to be lost in hard battalion rts-s - for example small multiplayer games on tiny maps with pop set to 50 would make the best example, especially when sparta had pop disadvantage in a23 and you really had to be economical not just with resources but with every single unit - the less the pop cap in-game the more focus on micro should be as it is now in the current stage of the game

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not against implementation of battalions, on the contrary - I just don't like the fights taking more value overall then economy/strategic early decisions made in early game so I think that the game should not become another hard battalion rts, but remain with the focus on micromanagement and economical development with the ability to group units for better mobility and add attack/defence/speed bonuses in battle through combining units in specific formations that can be disbanded after battle when you need them doing something else

  7. 31 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Your reasoning doesn't follow. Battalions inherently reduce micro, so if 0 A.D. maintains the same number of resources, then ipso facto micro is reduced. Instead of 200+ soldiers, you'd have 20+ battalions to maintain control of. The number of resources doesn't even factor in to the battalion feature. The developers of BfME2 even said in a dev blog that they use 1 resource (supply) because of the need to reduce micro even further for console interfacing. They also wanted less base building and economy management and more combat, so only went with 1 resource. 

    Yes, they reduce micro, but still it is hard to implement when units gather and fight - (and I don't really like soldiers only fighting, most rts games do this like that... I really like 0ad because it lets you gather and fight with same units  because it makes it stand out) - if there is an easy way to make units in formations/battalions not get stuck on every single tree in the game then it would be just fine to have battalions - but also, if we turn the game battalions only like bfme is - then you cannot train units one by one but instead wait to gather enough resources to train the whole battalion - that is not really a cheap and economically positive thing to do in 0ad - and we should also keep in mind that some players don't play 0ad for the massive battalion battles, but rather prefer city building and having a lot options to build

    Swiching to battalion only play-style imho is not a possitive thing because it would prolong the early game on maps where wood is hard to gather - and add to it that you could only fight with battalions and not collect as well - as things are now with economy you could train your first battalion in first few minutes (let's assume that you need to spam women/villagers to gather both food/wood to make it economically possible to make 2-3 battalions one at a time and that one battalion = (edit 10 soildier) 10 soldiers - that is 500 food and 500 wood for 1 battalion if 1 soldier now costs 50 each - and also if cav battalions are in size of 10 it would be 10x100 food and 10x50 wood for javelin cav battalion)


    And also to point it out removing food/wood/stone/metal and adding just one resource (money) is not an option I would like to see in 0ad just for the sake of micromanagement in fights and battalion implementation

  8. 1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Have you played either of the Battle for Middle Earth games?

    I totally recomend that people try out Battle for Middle Earth: Rise of the witch king community patch because it is still active and going well and the game is nicely balanced with each faction having different troops and buildings - and yes, that battalion sizes do work there phenomenally well but also one should keep in mind that in Bfme games there is only one resource to gather (money) which is gathered by farm buildings passively, so I don't see that type of battalions being good in 0ad


    On the other hand - I would really like to see battalion formations like american conquest where captain/cheef could make a battalion along with flagbearer/shaman and give troops more moral/better stats in formations (this would be neat because in 0ad we could then add generals that are a support unit kinda like hero but low damage/gives buffs to formation - and when you go to fight you form a desired formation with the general - and if your army gathering resources is ambushed you should really feel the ambush as is - not have a prepared formation because to build/gather resources general disbands units - and units can only be formed in formation if they are in a radius of a general - this would make things super interesting - the surprise attack would still have potential to do damage and instil fear

    EDIT: to add one more opinion - I think that this general with unit formation aura could really help out with ingame formation issues because then the general should be necessary for the formation, and units themselves wouldn't have that option as a given, and the buffs to formations would be based in a single unit that provides the bonus so easier to implement then in a formation code - if there are heroes with existing auras this could be just like that but "masked" as a formation bonus - like for example - tetsudo formation gets bonus armour in formation - roman general that grants tetsudo would give the bonus defence aura - and when he dies battalion disbands/bonus is gone - that way we could have buffs for formations that are easier to define (each civ gets a general quarters and can train certain type of generals for certain kind of unit formations/buffs to make things easier to code/implement

  9. 4 hours ago, Player of 0AD said:

    Traders need a lot of time before equalizing their own costs - I don't see how they are supposed to gather resources for mercenaries well. Before this works the opponent can already overrun you. At least this his how I see it, as a top 150 player.

    But I agree that the metal distribution is problematic! Sometimes one player has all the extra metal and the other player none.

    I understand what you are saying - what I'm thinking though is - it is better for mercenaries not to cost wood but just food and metal; I'm even all for it to make them cost more food/less metal but if more metal overall gets implemented on the map and mercenaries indeed get just a tiny, itsy-bisty bit of resource gathering ability - then the price for them would be fine as is and balanced - but yes, as for now, I think they are too expencive for what they provide - going champion route is much more viable because they both are not contributing to eco (yes, I know that mercenaries can build, but so can women that cost only 50 food so yea, I wouldn't say it's worth that metal/food just to make them build stuff instead of regular infantry that can do both)

    image.png.9aa7b98b428952e041aa6130a264f907.png

     

     

  10. 44 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

    I am afraid I don't quite agree with this. Mercenaries did work and did help set up military camps and gather some resources in reality. Even though their main job is to fight, you hired them to work for you, therefore the commander had the authority to order them to gather resources as a form of contribution to war effort. 

    However, since they are mercenaries, we can nerf their gathering rate to 0.1 so that no one would ever use them to gather resources for booming, but also allow extremely resource-deprived players to survive in a difficult situation.  

    This suggestion is actually quite similar to my proposal on this very post where I was suggesting to give mercenaries ability to gather at much much lover rate, just like skiritai comandos do because this non-gathering troops make it imbalanced for mercenary heavy civs (carthagininans/macedonians/seleucids/ptolemies) - I mean, come on, for example now you build a colony that is a drop spot and only women can be recruited to gather wood on the front-line while other soldiers build barracks for quicker support - Carthagininas got the worst end of the stick in my humble opinion

    Also pretty please implement the suggestion made by @fatherbushido on this thread

     

  11. 39 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:

    Actually not only the mercs seem to be pointless to get now, but also their technology because it costs much more metal now.

    Just change mercenaries back to the A23 state

    They are not pointless and super expensive if you manage tradeing/marketplace well, set up metal collection with traders early on, focus women on food and men on nearby metal mines and you can do fine - I'd say in most cases maps are more problematic with the way resources are distributed than the price of the mercenaries/techs - there ought to be small metal patches spread out around the map

  12. 10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    I need ideas for Balkan mercenaries. Essentially mercs from the Balkan peninsula and area.

    I was thinking:

    Thracian Peltast

    • Javelin Infantry

    Illyrian Spearman

    • Spear Infantry

    Dacian Falxman

    • Sword Infantry

    Getae _____ ? 

    Bastarnae _____ ?

    Paeonian ____ ?

    Need a couple cavalry ideas.

    There should definitely be dalmatian archers with poisoned arrows - there are some historical texts that speak of a poison named "ninum" being applied to arrows in the roman period, adding dalmatian archer mercenaries would be a really nice buff for Romans in next alpha to make up for all those nerfs (like not getting siege from army camp and archers being able to destroy catapults and bolt shooters) - and I think we do Rome a disservice from a historical perspective when there is no mercenaries available even though they used the alliances with other tribes a lot (for example some Berber tribes fought for Rome against Carthage in Punic wars

  13. 9 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

    Illyrian Pirates.

     

    Illyrian Light Cavalry

    https://europabarbarorum.fandom.com/wiki/Illyrioi_Hippeis_(Illyrian_Light_Cavalry)

    Getae

    (Number 2) it's a shame I don't know the Cyrillic alphabet.

    cf9957a20d3580b7f99ebf3d17043fad.jpg

     

    Illyrian pirates archers and swordmen mercenary - available from the docks like athens have theirs maybe and give them to romans because they conquered Illyrians after the Illyirian wars

    But I would also prefer if we could get a balkan civ, maybe those wars for Illyiran independance from rome might make a good basis for some campaign?

    And also make small, but faster and more deadly ships like an Illyirian pirate ship to accentuate their dominance in the adriatic sea at that time? Hero proposal: Teuta(na) -

    Queen of the people: all Illyirians gain attack speed and bonus loot
    Pirate queen buff: Illyirian ships + 15% speed and atk damage; and are made 10% faster from the dock inside aura

     

  14. 3 minutes ago, submariner said:

    Reading all these interesing ideas makes me think. That it could also be a way to make specific directions one could upgrade, like specific upgrade paths defensive/offensive and/or just less broad, more specific but cheaper upgrades. These current expensive upgrades can be justified as they boost a lot of units.

    But more specialized upgrades like upgrading just spearmen or macemen or swordsmen, would make upgrades cheaper, allowing to upgrade just the type of fighters you are planning to use on a particular match.

    Raidable storehouses comes to my mind relating to some trading/logistics suggestions, but that might need some central storage and some timers or units relocating resources determining how long there's anything stored.

    Well there is a specific tech available only to Iberians and Mauryans that buffs only swordsmen, and archery tradition for archer civs too, and I made a tread a few days ago about simmilar tech for peltasts that would make them a bit better when dealing with archers

  15. On 09/06/2020 at 9:38 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Could a status effect, say from skirmisher javelins, reduce loyalty of a unit down to 0 and make them go Gaia? Applicable to elephants, chariots, and potentially other units.

    I think that there could be something like fear/bad morale that is existing in a game "American conquest" an historical rts game based on conquest of america where you can choose between south/north native american tribes and four large conquering nations - it had trample damage for cav that could also be nice to implement in 0ad

    EDIT; basically if an enemy army killed a lot of your units quickly and was overwhelmingly powerful, units would flee in fear and be uncontrollable until they ran to safety

  16. I don't see a problem with arrows and spears sinking a ship - sure if you hit the upper deck not much is gonna happen to the ship and you might hit a sailor, but if you aim the lower body of a ship those arrows and spears that stick out of the hull when hit with large enough power (and people can shoot/throw things pretty darn hard when trained) - one needs to imagine those same arrows/spears breaking from the constant moving of the sea - oceans are pretty strong, even the mediteranian sea that is engulfed has strong waves and the sea is constantly moving and rocking the ship - those arrows that are shot break under the pressure and leave holes for water to pass - and even if it does not break the wood is not tightly insulated and can leak large enough quantities of water to indeed sink a ship without the need of fire arrows - those arrows/javelins are not weightless and can, in larger quantities, indeed sink a ship and do decent damage to the wood of the body of the ship

    I can't imagine that just 2 javelinires did sink your ship because for them to shoot it they should be pretty close to the ship for the ships arrows to kill them quickly - what is a very short order in the context of your post, can you please elaborate?  Is it 2-3 seconds or 2-3 minutes of constant javelin throwing?

  17. 13 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

    Good point. Next time I host I will give continent a go. Can you suggest some good maps that involve water? Currently I have only tried continent and Schwarzwald, but naval tactics don't seem to dominate the gameplay on these maps. Also, due to the small size of land on Continent, 4v4 games feel squashed even on large map size. 

    Schwarzwald seems like an interesting map but the initial distribution of resources may not be balanced, so probably not suitable for competitive games. Once when I tried to play on it I got 50 sheep scattered around my cc while my teammates had completely no hunt nor berries. 

    Yes, that continent map is really interesting but quite squished out for a 4v4 - it makes game a bit more intense on the borders but also leaves the potential of naval backdoor at any moment 

    About other naval maps - maybe latium, but it has less potential than continent because the water is on far edges of the map - but at least it's somewhat balanced and water is not saturated on one side of the map in one teams' territory - as for naval dominated maps, maybe islands are interesting but since the ships are so laggy/easily stucked - I wouldn't really recommend naval dominated fights - one in 10/50 games sure, not every or every other round though - but all in all, naval dominating map seems like a nice challenge from time to time - kinda like all Kushite challenge I was in in a23 hahaha

  18. 14 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    See @ValihrAnt's blacksmith rework thread here: 

     

    ====================================================================

    As always, Wow is here to propose something innovative and cool.

    My Forge rework idea is that the Forge now acts similarly to a Market, in that it is used to exchange resources for something else. In this case, the player exchanges Raw Resources (Food, Wood, Metal, Stone) for Secondary Resources: Swords, Shields, Spears, Javelins, et al. So, now Soldiers don't cost Raw Resources, they cost Food and secondary resources:

    Roman Hastatus

    • 100 Food
    • 5 Shield
    • 5 Body Armor
    • 6 Sword

    So, those numbers mean something. For example: for every 1 hack resistance, they cost 1 Body Armor. For every hack attack, they cost 1 Sword. For every point of health, they cost 1 Food. The Sword resource had been bought (exchanged) at the Forge with the Metal raw resource (and possibly Wood, to account for the firewood necessary to forge and temper the weapons).

    This seems like a really interesting idea and I quite like it - one thing that came to my mind is this - what if this forge/smithy could be available at p1 and then every civ starts with some predetermined number of shield/body armour/sword (for example war civs get more swords, eco civs get body armour (better pockets/loot bonus) and defencive civs get more shields at the beginning of a game)

    And then when one builds forge/smithy one could invest resources gathered into those secondary resources to balance out the resources on the map - on maps where there is less wood this would help out if the forge/smithy would use more minerals and just a bit of wood like 5/10 per 50/100 metal for 1 sword - and also this would allow more viability for the market and economy in general would get more nuanced - there would be more flexibility for getting units and less pressure on grinding wood like it is nowadays

    One crucial thing that would really make this gimmick forge/smithy work is to implement more metal on all maps - not those huge 5000 chunks but some small, scattered metal ores of 500/1000 around the center end periphery of the map and I would even like to see a new tech in marketplace named "currency" which would buff trading that each resource trade gets a bit metal for exchange like tax - for example traders are set to trade for wood 100% on low wood maps - here every 100 wood would provide 3-10 metal based on the distance travelled by the trader when the "currency" tech is unlocked - I really think that economy would be much more interesting and realistic in that way - and it would give more viable flexibility instead of just grinding resources and keeping part of the army as constant workers to not lose momentum


    And also while I'm at it - this "currency" tech could be a prerequisite for bribing tech in CC - so that the bribes can be made through currency implemented by the civilisation - and then make the bribe something like for 5 minutes you see the other traders but your collected tax goes to bribery (i.e. when you bribe the time bribed locks passive metal trickle made by currency)
     

  19. Main problem with ships is they get stuck easily and the path-finding around narrow shore is frustratingly hard to manage when you really need your units to follow through with orders to be efficient in battle - when the ship is carrying half of your troops is stuck on your allies fishing boat... it really is annoying to lose a game like that

    I would really like to see more maps like continent being played in multiplayer to break the same old mainland spam because on maps where there is no water some civs, like for example Athenians, lose out on some key units (mercenary archers/sword champions in this case), and some civilisation bonuses like Carthaginian naval traiding bonus, really don't give the civilisation to live up to it's full potential 

    • Like 1
  20. 14 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    Rando thought: Make sure if you give the Celts some village phase forge techs, then make them somewhat weak so that they're not too OP early on.

    That was exactly what I meant with my (I admit, not the most coherent) post here haha

     

    • Like 1
  21. On 13/03/2021 at 4:30 PM, borg- said:

    In fact my original idea was that only Gauls could have access to the forge in the village phase (I did it in my patch), I think it would be a great differentiation, with a historic backing to be a good rush civilization

    I would like to add to this that there could be even special village phase tech only for celts - and make their units cheaper by 10 resources and weaker for 2 points of damage - and  those techs would make them, when unlocked, cost the same as every faction but with +4 to damage so they get extra 2 points - I posted similar proposal for celtic/iberian javeliniers to make them initially cheaper and weaker as to differenciate them from helenic peltasts - but then to add special tech to make up for this nerfs
     

     

  22. 49 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

    I would give Sparta a Mercenary Cretan Archer to duel with the archers of other civs

    I would also rework the Skiritai and Spartiates. Make the Skiritai into fast hoplites, with greater pierce armor and hack attack (but lower hack armor), while the Spartiates are slower and super super tanky meatshields. 

    Hmm this seems more interesting than my proposition - I would like to add to this "forking" of the skiritai comandos - there could be two types of units - one, weaker, p1 swords that would use xiphos blades that would do small mixed but fast mix of hack and pierce damage like daggers and one elite champion swords, true successor of the current skiritai that would use kopis type of sword - and those kopis champion swords could have an anti-champion bonus like the kushite champions have

×
×
  • Create New...