submariner
-
Posts
10 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by submariner
-
-
4 hours ago, Dragonoar said:
Were you able to get it to work? Squad works much much better when units have synced animation, which doesn't exist yet in 0 AD.
Maybe at this point just make a unit grouping where you can't select individual soldier. The formation system already gives the illusion of a squad.
That's what I was thinking about custom grouping would be much more powerful than hard battalions.
@Freagarach now thats interesting as I see something with "form", "disband", gonna have to learn how to apply diff.
-
11 hours ago, Angen said:
that's because they dealt mostly crush damage and you could take down strucutres with them pretty easily so their damage have been shifted towards units (pierce)
Yes I got told so on IRC. Only made me think that different damage calculation should be applied vs organic, mechanic, structural targets as depending on terrain, but slingers had different pros and cons in comparison to archers
8 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:Actually if you look at most artwork of naked fanatics, they generally always were carrying shields. Not doing so would be virtually suicide.
Havent looked into them, but it's a bit hard to mathematically express berserker/fanatic kind of fighters capabilities, they have to be boosted by stats or to have some demoralizing/inspiring aura, but as you're historian and say that they carried shields its then again, shielded infantry should be more capable at defeating slingers yet its a bit different thing about archers because then it depends on shields.
Just to clarify I heard that initially it was aimed that crush would be siege damage, hack would be melee and pierce would be ranged. But it could be at least 9 damage kinds using crush/hack/pierce types. c/h/p melee, c/h/p ranged, c/h/p siege so as defenses which might make it a bit easier to balance without inventing more types.
-
8 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
In Delenda Est soldiers do not gather. You don't have to divide them up among different resources to gather efficiently, so it makes sense to make them just exist in hard Battalions.
For EA, that may be a different story.
I only just learned that they are as you say hard battalions. I do not approve that being a thing in a main game as for large scale total war kind of battles maps and populations are too small and it's city-building kind of RTS. I only had in mind making custom packs of units of your own choice not to bother microselecting them later so maybe groups/parties is a better word for what I mean, than battalions.
-
13 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Another option would be to give the Forge a set of template UPGRADES, the same features used to upgrade a Sentry Tower to a Defense Tower. Essentially, for a cost and a negative resource trickle, you would Upgrade the Forge to "produce" certain kinds of armaments. This would then affect the stats and costs of units.
So, upgrade the Forge to produce Swords and all sword units would be affected (the Forge would have an aura to that effect as long as the Forge remains as this upgrade) and the Forge would have a negative trickle of metal and wood. Want to go heavy on Hoplites, Upgrade the Forge to produce heavy armor for a negative Metal and Wood trickle. So, you can change your Forge to produce different kinds of armaments based on your strategy.
I want some grouping of units as well but it might be too harsh against bots. Even workers grouped in groups of 5 or any custom number for easier managing. I only play the game on sandbox learning about implemented mechanics. its complex to efficiently place field workers and even infantry gets mixed up in melee/ranged packs.
No need to turn it onto squad based RTS, just an optional grouping would be sufficient I think. And actually by the idea of opensource I think I should look into mod myself and attempt to learn something from it instead of my pointless ranting.
-
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.
-
5 hours ago, Angen said:
@submariner sadly artistic representation of unit does not reflect its stats, so you can see naked fanatics having defensive stats like armoured champions
That I understand. But Hoplite is Hoplite, not every spearman infantry was shielded.
However I've noticed that slinger does mostly pierce damage, which is also a perfect example of what you mean..
-
4 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
Introducing that many weapons sounds like a large amount of complexity for an otherwise additional thing to manage, especially for an RTS. I would maybe propose a simplification along the lines of units of equipment that work for melee units and separate ones for ranged ones.
"Weapon Parts" "Armor Parts" might be simpler than a lot of different weapons
-
While I like the idea of stronghold crusader kind of gear resources, but lootable corpses or market itself exchanging weapons would make a bit more sense.
-
1
-
-
As I'm just getting in understanding game mechanics to decide where I could contribute apart from translations.
If I may add on Spartans. I remember playing them and using their most basic civil spear infantry. As unit is shielded with clipeus it has a bit hard time in 1v1 fight against a most basic slinger.
I'm not sure what type of damage slinger does, but I would guess it should be crush and clipeus is really sufficient shield to cover against thrown rocks, but the part where spearman was approaching a slinger was not any special, it was when they got into close quarter combat and spartan hoplites had shortswords and trained for using spear and sword and I'm not talking of the animations, but that slinger seemed a bit too capable in close quarter against spartan close quarter fighter.
So I second "Peltast Tradition" I think it should add resistance against ranged crush attacks (assuming slinger does crush damage)
And ofc maybe also Hoplite tradition
Wow's Forge Rework Idea
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
No I havent really played any of those LOTR strategy games.
Games that I played a lot and enjoyed which are from RTS genre are,
Age of Mythology (classic, no titan crap),
Age of Empires 3 (amazing in LAN parties),
Command & Conquer Generals,
World in Conflict.
None of them had battalions, but also none of them had an option to have so many units as you can in 0ad, so I did not want to suggest any conversion to squad based game even if it suits very well in something like Total War series, but those are half TBS half RTS.
For me that battalionish support of @Freagarach is featureful enough, as it adds a lot of convenience, which becomes necessary when there's a lot of units.
Total War series has simulation element in those battles where formations and positioning and maybe waiting instead of charging or just walking instead of running, with polearms actually working based on impact of cavalry charge and whether it was light or heavy lancers, swiping infinfantry even if its polearmed. In Total War sense it fits but in fully RTS game hard battalions does not fit that well.