LienRag
-
Posts
207 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by LienRag
-
-
On 04/02/2024 at 6:42 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:
Egyptians (Ptol)
Shadoof.
In AoM reduces the farms cost.
Should improve productivity of farms that are next to water...
-
1
-
-
On 25/01/2024 at 9:25 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:
For example investing a little bit of meat does not make babies.
Well, that depends where exactly you invest your little bit of meat...
-
1
-
3
-
-
Well, in the roman army and in the Greek hoplite armies, the sources seem to say that line-to-column formation was a simple 90° turn, as the back-to-front spacing for marching was the one from one man to his fellow on the left in standard formation.
Also, in greek and macedonian armies, standard order to synapismos was just the second rank advancing into the space left in the first rank; and reverse for synapismos to standard order : the (former) first rank moves one step forward while the (former) second rank stays in place.
And in Astérix Légionnaire, we see the Roman army doing the quinconce and testudo formation, but I reckon that it's a less historical source (though the authors did research well what was known at their time about the Gauls and the Romans, they used their knowledge for comic effect, not for realism)...
-
19 hours ago, sternstaub said:
But - is this not the case already? The units have to always walk the distance to their new formation.
From my experience, yes, and they do it very awkwardly, especially in combat.
My take is that inside the same formation "branch" those movements should be smoother and not imperil the formation's coherence.
Changing from one formation "branch" to the other should be done outside combat (in the preparation phase) and if done too late, should indeed bring catastrophe to the army doing that, as was historically the case.
But movements from one formation to another one in the same "branch" is exactly what the soldiers were trained to do in combat, so should not expose them too much to enemy action.
-
1
-
-
On 09/12/2023 at 4:45 PM, Grautvornix said:
DIdn't check in detail for all civs, but I believe once an enemy's CC (or barracks) has been captured you can train your own units (not the enemy type of units though).
Yes, I know.
But having one Civ getting the tech to incorporate conquered enemies (and consequently being able to recruite enemy units type in the conquered barracks/stables/ambassies/whatever) would be interesting imho.
-
1
-
-
Shouldn't one Civ get the ability to recruit enemy units once they conquer their town center ?
Wasn't it more or less what Alexander did during his conquest ?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Grautvornix said:
build more wells
Thing is, if you just need to build more wells, then it's just another resource to manage, there's no real tactical implications, so it's basically boring.
And if water is a more clearcut constraint (like it was historically) then game balance is quite hard to achieve...
-
1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Heroes and generals could make the difference.
That's indeed a good idea.
The rest of your proposal isn't enough, though.
One thing that could also change the gameplay in an interesting manner is technology : let's say that once you control the province with the Temple of Artemis, then you begin all your tactical battles with "Fertility Festival" already researched - that's something that would provide for quite different strategies.
Even if you only got it already researched in nearby provinces and get it for half-price elsewhere, by the way.
Maybe you could also start the game with one Relic if you hold the province that holds it - beginning with Brutus or with Bindusra do indeed play differently.
-
On 30/11/2023 at 4:42 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I think there could be a Strat Level of resources that you get from holding territories and winning battles, and then you can translate those resources to upgrading your territories and choosing bigger amounts of starting resources for the next skirmish match.
So, let's say the campaign map is Greece/Aegean/Asia Minor. The Campaign resource could be called "Talents." It's a nice neutral, but historic money designation. Each territory you hold could either grant you more talents or cost you talents. Holding Laurium, for example, where historically there was a very famous and productive silver mine, would grant you talents, but holding Marathon would be neutral or cost you talents.
Yeah, that's the way you do it, and I like the resource name.
On 30/11/2023 at 4:42 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:What you use talents on is you could buy starting buildings for each territory. So, if you erect a Storehouse in the Marathon territory you'd start any skirmish in that territory with a free Storehouse. Buy a garrison with your talents and that territory will start with extra soldiers or defend itself against an enemy attack even if you have no Hero or General there. The enemy could take it before you get there, but it would be costlier for them to take it in deaths.
You could even "store" talents in specific territories so that you start a skirmish map there with extra resources.
Thing is, 0ad is already repetitive enough as it is, if there's to be a Strategic campaign it would need each tactical battle to be interesting and somehow different.
So more work and imagination is required for building a good "initial conditions depending on strategic map" part. In maps with scarce wood (and minimum starting resources), one free Storehouse is interesting and changes gameplay, but otherwise it's "meh". Apart from a free harbor, or maybe some fortifications (if there's going to be early battles), or maybe a few cavalry for early enemy disruption, there's not much that I can think of that would really make things different enough...
-
On 26/11/2023 at 7:12 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Have a map of the ancient world and you move armies and characters around and take cities, etc. There would be the high level "strat" map of the Mediterran, Middle East, North Africa, Greece, or wherever the campaign takes place. You'd drop into RTS level to play out the moves. So, if you want to take a province, you'd drop down to the level of a skirmish map and play it out against the AI. If you win the match, you're given the province.
Thanks, I understand.
I played Shogun : Total War for a while and yes I loved the concept.
I believe that it's a bit complicated to do it right in a RTS where you can build armies in the skirmish map rather than on the strategic maps.
I didn't really like Age of Kings campaigns, for example, they're more "farming" that actually strategic or tactical.
Maybe with time limits (not hard ones, but for example the sooner you finish, the more troops you can take with you to the next map), or if you know in advance how scarce resources will be on the future Skirmish maps, or even better if keeping untouched resources on a Skirmish map will provide for strategic resources afterward ?
-
Could you explain what you mean by a Strategic Campaign ?
-
The idea is clearly fitting, but I haven't seen any proposed implementation that seems to do the job...
I may try Al-Mansour's mod as I don't understand his explanations so far, but I'm not really convinced from what I've read.
-
On 12/11/2023 at 11:12 AM, man_s_our said:
if implemented without the planned additions, then it would increase only few micros because supplies quantity is still big.
So, like in Age of Empire ? Where it actually served no gameplay purpose ?
One way that could be interesting strategically is if farms could not be regrown on the same location after they wither (the soil being exhausted).
But that's not easy to balance on so many different maps...
-
On 12/11/2023 at 8:25 AM, man_s_our said:
it doesn't add micros. but adds more tactical choices.
How so ?
If units don't see their back, it means that the player has to make them constantly turn around so they don't miss anything.
A real recipe for micromanagement disaster in my book...
-
1 hour ago, man_s_our said:
for the vision, I think there should be inputs other than range.
1- instead of making the vision being simply a circle with the entity in the center, there should otherwise be more realistic. for example, a man shouldn't be able to see what's behind him. while some animals can. this can be tactically used to distract defenders or even wait for the perfect timing for sneak attack.
Can you do that without inciting very tedious micromanagement ?
-
1 hour ago, man_s_our said:
what I did is simply making the fields have finite amount of supplies and need water + grain to plant new ones.
Do you mean micromanagement hell like in Age of Empires ?
Or do I misunderstand your explanations ?
-
On 28/06/2022 at 4:34 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:
in another discussion, it was suggested to increase garrison space to 16 on the largest wall segments. Part of their apparent weakness is that only 8 can sit on a wall, usually against many more units.
I think their existing armor bonus is enough.
I don't know the numbers, but they clearly die much, much quicker than they should. So quickly that it's usually useless to garrison them there if you don't intend to sacrifice them, as getting them out of harm's way when wounded is a hassle.
I also never understood the armor formula, so I can't say what would be the right values, but basically they should be heavily protected against anything thrown at them from below.
-
13 hours ago, alre said:
- what if it's a substantial temporary bonus for units that have just been trained (buff to reinforcements)
???
-
Note that if you want to use greek Archons in the game, and can do it in a way that is historically credible and, in terms of gameplay, sufficiently different from the Han Ministers, feel free to propose your original ideas...
-
1 minute ago, Grautvornix said:
Interesting idea! Would roads then be built by romans (only) or would that be a map feature?
Could anyone use them? (and move faster)
They would then not be destroyed...
Romans building capabilities would be nice to have, but that's a huge change to the game (and probably to the game engine).
Having maps as a map feature is easier to do.
Everybody was able to use roman roads afaik (if you can overcome roman fortifications along the road).
Making movement faster in own territory and slower in enemy territory is currently not possible with the game engine (from what I've read elsewhere) but should be a very interesting feature...
-
1
-
-
On 26/10/2023 at 1:30 PM, zozio32 said:
Could i ask why? I mean, building do need maintenance otherwise they decay in the real world ?
You may be interested by my last suggestion to have buildings outside of territory cost maintenance.
-
35 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
In DE, the map has interesting capturable items, such as Shrines, Cultural Artifacts, Pirate Docks, and Farmsteads.
I've played DE once, and found it too weird for me.
Can't say it's bad, but it was too much of a change. And though slaves are an historical feature, I'm not comfortable with them.
Also, farmsteads decay outside of territory if I'm not mistaken ? That makes them nearly useless...
-
Possible solutions :
1 - I believe the fundamental way of solving it is by enforcing the formation systems.
Units should be (as it was historically the case) basically unable to fight (except against soft targets like women, or when outrageously outnumbering the enemy) if not in formation.I suggested "formation trees" elsewhere; that would make choosing a formation for a group of units a real tactical choice, with consequences, as changing formations out of the current branch would generate penalties.
As I already wrote many times, formations will really thrive once we have a moral system, but it's still possible to make do in the meantime.
If the AI use simple formations and knows not to change from one branch to another (except when reorganizing behind its own lines) it should be able to be good enough to keep the game playable (it's always a nice experience to outsmart the AI, as long as it's not suicidal).
2 - It would be probably good to introduce basic rams (tree trunk carried by a few men, without protection, and no garrison possibility) in P2. These would be vulnerable to arrows, so they won't be an option against heavily fortified enemy, but still a way to make a quick and devastating raid.
It would be nice if shielded units protected units behind them when the shooter isn't on a higher ground, too. Both in general and to make these unprotected rams both usable and vulnerable, depending on the tactical skill of each player.
3 - Range of siege engines should never be superior to the range of vision of military units or buildings.
Long-range siege weapons should have few hit points, normal armor against arrows, and basically no armor against melee.
Protected rams should keep their armor against arrows, but have much less against melee units (I mean, not only swordsmen or axemen).Basically, if you can't protect your rams all the way to the enemy fortification, your offensive should fail.
Note that this suppose another thing : that some formations could be given orders to block passage of enemy units, and some other formations could be ordered to try to break a blocus.
As of now, it's quite easy to slip a few cavalryman through the enemy lines, without the defending player being able to prevent it except through extreme micromanagement.
So, we want to have a few cavalrymen (or any melee unit, actually) to quickly destroy a siege engine, but we want that result to be achieved by good tactics, not by AI failure.4 - Terrain should be highly strategic : heavy units hindered in swamps or shallow water, higher ground giving multiple advantages, forest hindering tight formations, ...
Line of sight should be a factor, so strategic placement of watchtowers and outposts would be of the utmost importance (and blinding the enemy by taking out some of its outposts, too).5 - This is harder to tackle. One way would of course to have more treasures on the map, but these should be tactical objectives, not random boni to the first one who gets to them.
That the first one to get to them gets an advantage in exploiting them is good, that he gets all for nearly nothing (except the cost of exploration) isn't.
Another could be to have less resources just around the Town Center, so the player would have to carefully balance risks and rewards of expanding.Maybe give just enough stone and metal in the base territory to build another (or two other) Town Centers ? With some little surplus so that losing one extension would not mean total defeat ?
This while making P1 techs not cost any metal nor stone.Also, make farms host fewer workers ? As of now it's possible to have 8 farms around your Town Center, so 40 women, which is nearly enough to provide food for most of your needs.
Or have farms' yield depend on soil fertility, and make the soil around the town center moderately fertile.
Or (combining the two ideas above) make the number of workers on a farm depend on the soil's fertility.And have only a small berry patch in range of the town center, with one (or two) more farther away, near the frontier : that would allow for more devastating disruption raids.
6 - That is even harder to tackle. There are a lot of propositions on the various subforums, most of them resulting in basically removing the interest of territory...
Would a tiered territory aura be possible ? The core aura would work as of now, the second tier would allow for watchtowers and resource buildings, the third one would allow for non-decaying outposts (and maybe fortresses in P3).
Basically, what we want is to make possible for a player to make a move early towards some strategic point of the map, while making it possible for the other player to counter it.
This without removing the distinction between inside and outside territory...Maybe more varied out-of-territory defenses ?
Someone proposed a maintenance cost for buildings, I'm against this idea inside territory, but it could be interesting to implement it for buildings outside of the territory...
Especially if the maintenance cost is exponential with the number of each of these defense buildings.Basically, these defenses would need to :
- Warn early about an enemy attack
- Fend off the enemy for long enough to bring in reinforcements from workers nearby (but not from the main town center, if it's too far)
- Give a tactical advantage to the defenders once the reinforcements are in
- Help concentrate on the tactical level of the battle (i.e, limit the micromanagement of the defense by creating choke points/ taking out single units that were trying to slip through)
- But be vulnerable to a well-planned attack with superior forces
Also, could it be possible to have roads/lanes where movement of units is quicker ? That would allow for counterattacks and a more strategic game (as of now, if you try to counterattack, by the time you're there the enemy has usually reconstructed its defenses).
-
On 01/11/2023 at 8:28 AM, man_s_our said:
I think the best approach is to reduce sword damage against walls for significant amount and make the infantry prefer targeting units over structure.
Yes. Taking down walls with infantry should not be doable if the walls are manned, but still doable if there's nobody around.
Would it be possible to reduce damage to near zero when attacking from only one side, but to multiply it drastically when the wall is attacked from both sides ?
-
1
-
Default unit behavior: capture or destroy?
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
Or understaffed.
Quick raids against an unprepared enemy are fun and strategic.