Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LienRag

  1. I started one of my first games of 0ad KenWood (I tried the game a bit in 2010 and found it unplayable) with Maurya, I think by random start Civ. So I agree that the starting Elephant is a great advantage that balance-wise should be removed, but if I had not the starting elephant as a beginner I would never have understood what their use was. And I believe that many beginners would also have trouble figuring it out, as it's not intuitive at all. Maybe making the Elephant have a maximum carrying capacity (like 500) and needing to drop it to a dropsite would be good ? But it also would be quite difficult to figure out for beginners, and also is a double-edged sword : you get more worker efficiency, but also you don't get the resources when you drop them at the elephant, only when the elephant drops them at the dropsite.
  2. Fine by me, but the whole thread comes from the fact that these two objectives apparently contradict each other. And the important point for the game experience is that Civs are unique, so when balance goes against uniqueness the point that makes the Civ unique should stay and balance should be sought by other mechanisms (like sets).
  3. I don't think so, where would the typo be ? I wanted to write Go and Mo but these are French units, so I guess their equivalent in English are Gb and Mb (gigabytes and megabytes) ?
  4. Anything that has actual historical accuracy should be added, yes. About archers, from what I read there is a serious misconception on what musculature is necessary to use a military bow of the period ; Katniss Evergreen would never be able to wield one with the muscle mass that she shows in the movie. So barred historical precedents of female archers, no, popular culture should not be the basis for including them in the game.
  5. Coming from KenWood, I don't see the problem with some civilizations not needing to mine stone if they're not going for defences ? To me it just brings more variation in gameplay, which is a good thing... Of course, the economic advantage they get from that should not be overwhelming over the disadvantage of having less defence... The only problem I could see is with Maurya whose walls are made of wood. They (and probably only they) should have some techs that need stone (like techs available only at castles or elephant stables), or not having access to champions if they don't have a castle.
  6. Do they fight for 1 full minute ? Anyway I'm not the balancer-in-chief, the number I gave was just an indication, it certainly can be changed.
  7. I've read that fishes on 0.25 are way more easy to spot now, that's a good thing. Are fishing boats now also able to get to a new fishing point when the one they were on is depleted ? There's a lot of pointless micro-management there that could be removed (or be optional ; there could be a stance "pick your fishery" or "ask for instructions" if having fishing boat pick their own fishery exposes them to enemy action).
  8. Night and day can be strategically fun (if their duration is long enough to achieve something during them) but totally incompatible with the game timescale ?
  9. To make treasures/relics/whatever more prone to generating interactions, they need to be made way more visible on the strategic map... Right now (I play KenWood since I'm on Debian Stable) the only thing easily seen on the strategic map is animals (bright pink) and trees (green), and secondarily stone (grey) and thirdly metal (yellow, but not bright enough to be easily distinguished on the map, depending on what surrounds it). Even berries are quite difficult to spot (slightly different green) ! There at least should be a map mode that shows only resources, and probably a way to toggle which resources to show (so it could be possible to show only berries, or only metal, or only treasures, or only relics,...) making very easy to spot whatever the player is interested in. And relics are not visible outside the vision range of a unit, which means that if you send cavalry to scout the map, you need to micromanage them in permanence (checking if there is a relic in their area of vision). I never played multiplayer (I'm too old to play on faster than "slow" and I don't think anyone is interested in playing at this speed) but on single player I found treasures stressful (if you don't get enough of them you lose) and tedious (it's not only a matter of exploring the map quickly but to be lucky enough to notice them which means spending not only cavalry but also constant player's attention). And they never lead to any interesting cavalry combat (either I get first to them, the enemy gets first to them, or I get to them too close to the enemy so that his infantry chases my cavalry : the later case may need some micro skill but usually no real tactic involved since I have very little chance to defeat them as my cavalry is stretched thin in order to find the other treasures). Maybe make treasures either more numerous and smaller or needing more force to capture ? On some maps they're defended by Gaia soldiers but I'm not a fan of it especially when the treasures/gaia forces are too close to the starting point. Maybe have the treasures/defending-forces under a non-capturable building (but not impossible to destroy without siege engines) that sounds an alarm horn (audible/visible by all players) when attacked ? That would leave the option for all players to go try to get them or to attack enemy cavalry/citizens/women (if women get a "dismantle" ability) trying to get them... Or make the treasures visible to everyone at the start of the game ? Especially if they're defended (so that it's not the closest player that gets them, but the most committed), that would allow for real strategic interaction early game... Is it technically possible to have treasures be carried by the unit that fetched them ? Or to have one trader unit at start (trainable in Civic Centers but with a very long time, like 60 seconds, so it's not unremplaceable but still not a good idea to have it killed nor possible to spam them) which would be the only unit able to fetch the treasure ? That way ambushing the units carrying the treasure would be a possible strategy. Actually, the One-Trader-at-Start option would make collecting treasures a real strategic endeavour, and not a lucky grab (to get more than one treasure the player would need to defend the others while s/he manages his travelling salesman), so if it's technically possible it's probably the best option... (and no, I don't know how to make a mod)
  10. Then why not have Civilizations for balanced multiplayer (they don't need to be so many, actually if people want perfectly balanced multiplayer they can just all play the same civilization) and other Civilizations for fun (that would not need to be reduced to the 8 actually available in vanilla) ? As you wrote, it can be done as "sets", and even have some historical background to it, as actual civilization tends to standardize their military equipment and tactics after they get beaten by a superior enemy... So have a "Roman Imperium" set where all civilizations will keep their distinctive skins while getting the roman roster and technology tree ? (minor variations available if they are not unbalanced) Also, Civilizations being unbalanced is not necessarily a problem if there is not one Civilization constantly superior to others; it can even be used as a handicap game (giving the best Civilization in a match or a team game to the lowest ranked player).
  11. Really ? How ? In the "In game" tab of the Settings - Option (in KenWood) I don't see anything of the sort.
  12. What about having some Civilizations getting (either from start or through a tech) the ability to hire mercenaries on promised pay ? These mercenaries would cost metal upkeep (if they don't get paid they risk to stage a revolt or swithc side), limited while they're idle, higher when moving/building, and more important when fighting (maybe with higher costs when wounded). I'm thinking of 1 metal per second when fighting ? Their fixed cost would be set somewhere on the trading or diplomacy panel, with a button "pay the mercenaries". It would not be possible to hire new mercenaries as long as the debt to the first ones is not settled (even the dead). There could even be some heroes still able to hire mercenaries while a certain amount of debt is still owed, so as to vary the gameplay. Once paid, these mercenaries could either leave the map or be re-hired (probably at a lower cost). The amount of mercenaries that could be hired on a promised pay will be fixed either by the Civilization, by a Tech level or by buildings, or by random - or timed - events (they'll need to be hired all at the same moment, since it's not possible to hire mercenaries while the debt to older mercenaries is not settled). With timed or random events, it's even possible to allow multiple players to compete to hire the same group of mercenaries (by a blind auction mechanism on a limited period of time, let's say 10 seconds). Needs good balancing to allow early rush while not making these early rushes impossible to counter, obviously.
  13. The flatpak (main option to install it on a Debian stable) still tells me that it can't install as it needs 3 Gb while I have 500 Mb (there is definitely more than 3 Gb free both on my /home and my / partition)....
  14. Really ? "O + Left Drag over units on map: Only select wounded units. " Thanks for the info, I never noticed. If so, all that is needed would be a stance "go heal yourself"...
  15. Very interesting idea if done right... The concept is that all players would get a chance at hunting these animals, provided they anticipate their movement. It also provides for early-game interaction as denying the enemy access to this food resource becomes an interesting strategy. There is an important balance to achieve though : 1 - There should be enough animals that one player cannot kill them all before they leave his vicinity (except with huge amounts of cavalry), and not that much that they become the main food resource in the game nor that it doesn't matter what the enemy does (I mean, if whatever number the enemy kill you still have more animals that you can use when they reach your vicinity, then it's a gigantic tap of food for everyone, not the object of strategic conflict). That probably means that these animals should have good food value (200 at least) but also good hit points and reasonable armour (thick hide). 2 - These animal herds should avoid any players' territory (maybe run through it if they don't have any way outside of it) so that it's not possible to corral them in a closed area (which would assure the player succeeding in that endeavour a ginormous and unbalanced amount of food). Maybe have a "stampede" behaviour that allows them to destroy palisades when cornered, and maybe even to kill themselves (spoiling their food) against stone walls if they cannot escape otherwise. 3 - Their speed should be lower than cavalry so that they can be hunted, but carefully adjusted : a player spotting them should have time to exploit at least part of the herd, but the herd should also cross to the other parts of the map quickly enough that other players get a shot at them. 4 - Their AI behaviour should also be carefully crafted, so that it's possible to isolate (and maybe corral) some animals from the herd, without being able to divert the herd entirely from its itinerary. 5 - Their path (if they enter the map at a point and leave it at another) should be predictable enough that players can integrate them into their strategy, but with enough variation that it's not possible to surround them without putting enormous numbers of cavalry to the task. Their time schedule should also get some variation so it's a "keep prepared" situation rather than a "appointment" one.
  16. Could it possible (sorry if it has already been suggested, as the topic is 153 pages long I didn't read them all) when selecting a group of units to have a button saying "send all wounded units to garrison in nearest healing building" ? That would cut micro-management a lot... And not overkill in battle as one usually don't want to remove from the frontline the units that are not deeply wounded (which that button would do). Maybe have some hero whose aura would allow automatic replacement of wounded units on the frontline by fresh units ?
  17. I get "metadata.blob not detected as an object" (which leads to a failure in getting the mod list).
  18. If there are slaves in the game, slave revolts should definitely be a possibility... What would be strategically interesting is to have the probability of slave revolts depend on which civilization you confront : especially, slaves would not revolt if their masters are attacked by another slaver civilization, but when the ratio of troops around said slaves favor a non-slaver civ (for example, Maurya, if I read the discussions well) then a slave revolt would be likely to occur. Also, have some heroes (Danaerys T. ?) raise the probability of slave revolts (against their enemies) in their aura. Maybe even have cruel heroes that raise the probability of slave revolts in their own civilization as long as they're alive ?
  19. It's a bit frustrating though... Maybe have them get only one level of advancement ?
  20. Anything that help differentiates a civilization from others should certainly not be removed... Nerfed maybe, or given to another Civilization is the one benefiting from it now is too powerful, but never removed.
  21. Oh, also having some heroes/heroins giving a fighting boost to women could be nice and there are certainly historical precedents. It could be either as an aura or as a general bonus as long as the hero/in is alive.
  22. Formations should have a very important role on morale, shouldn't they ? (going both way : units with low morale leaving formation - historically, mainly from the rear, that's one of the reasons to have multiple ranks - and units still in formation getting some morale bonus, the level of which depends on the formation)
  23. I believe (not an expert, but I read some vulgarization) that in most societies of this time, all male citizens (i.e., not slave) were supposed to be able to fight in a war if need be ? If there are societies where there were non-slave citizens without any fighting skill, definitely yes the game should represent that fact for their in-game civilization (and it may be an interesting differentiation point to have woodless citizens that do not suck at mining), but apart from that there's no point in creating yet another anachronism. Also, if it's possible to represent slavery in a strategically interesting and not totally icky way, that could indeed solve part of the problem as women would basically disappear from the workforce and as such from the game (save from female priests, traders and champions). But I'm not convinced by the ideas presented so far (and haven't tested Delenda Est)... Another option would be making women's tasks (like weaving and spinning) more prominent in the game (but of course only if there's a strategic impact, not for gaining woke points). I don't have many ideas on how to do that in a meaningful and interesting manner, though.
  24. Some animals should have 0 armor. Buffalo hides are thick. Elephant also, I guess some deers do also have quite thick skin. Also, loom should probably give women back their 1 armor. Armor level of women could be a civilization trait, too (with reasonable levels) : thick clothes do protect quite well.
  25. Is there a peertube instance or channel for 0ad ?
  • Create New...