Outis
-
Posts
113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Outis
-
-
12 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
Mechanical Innovation
- Player and allies' Siege Weapons and Arsenals -25% build time and cost.
- Easy to implement.
This historically accurate and truly represents the strength of the faction. Great idea
.
-
1
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Graham1 said:
How about being repaired inside the dock (similar to units).
This would work like taking the ship to drydock for repairs. Sounds cool
.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
My point is that if you want something unique then it should be unique and not a copy of what already exists. What you're proposing is derivative of what already exists--it's basically the same thing but easier and for a bigger benefit. Make it unique.
I agree unique is better. One can argue starting completely defenseless, but garrisonable, and gaining experience over time, is also a derivation of a very long creation time. Ultimately, all units are similar in the way they are created. Nuances are subtle, but they make the difference. If we can find a completely unique idea, I'm all for it
.
In the meantime, i will try to make my idea more interesting with the hope of winning you
. The spartiatai can "train" by using the attack animation on some wooden dummies around the syssitia, so no need for a new wrestling animation. The number of wooden dummies available may be a limiting factor for the number of spartiatai which can train simultaneously. An interesting mechanic could be: if spartiatai do not train or engage in combat for x seconds, they start to lose rank. Spartiatai were better because they trained whenever they were outside combat. We can make them lose their status if they are idle.
-
13 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
We basically already have that with garrisoning CS hoplites to rank up. If a unit is garrisoning or whatever to rank up then nothing else matters. No one does it. There's also basically no downside of doing that because it is the same cost as CS with all the upside. Defenseless sounds much more interesting to me
What didn't resonate with me about defenseless was: 1) even measly helots can fight immediately after they are trained, why are spartiatai completely defenseless? 2) training is a gradual process, from complete defenseless to champions doesn't feel organic.
I agree it shouldn't be identical to garrisoning a barracks. Increase in experience can be faster, and rather than garrisoning, they can train within an aura, so they are still vulnerable.
-
3 hours ago, chrstgtr said:
Maybe instead of garrison it is an aura outside like a temple so that the unit is vulnerable. Could also have a garrison option that is safer, but slower.
We probably also have them train with one another (like with healers) so that they don’t need to be right next to a building. (This probably lends itself to some cool wresting art animations)
This sounds like an interesting mechanic. I propose that they are not completely defenseless, but start like citizen hoplites. The differences to perioikoi will be: 1) the ability to gain experience from syssitia (training) 2) the ability to reach champion status 3) no gathering or building
-
5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
also, what to call this unit? There seem to be a lot of "royal guards" it is rather generic IMO.
spartiate champion maybe is another idea.
Why don't we call them hippeis? It fits their royal guard status perfectly:
-
6 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:
This would encourage Spartan production yet make it extremely difficult to mass.
Putting some measure to limit the number of Spartans is a great idea because the main problem of Sparta was that the number of the Spartiates declined over time due to losses and debt. Their numbers could not be restored due to the rigid social structure.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Outis said:
Another proposal:
Helots lose the ability to advance rank with experience, and
Introduce a technology pair:
1) Krypteia: Helots have (slightly) increased gather rates
Or
2) Neodamodeis: Helots gain the ability to advance rank with experience
The idea is to give the choice of either having better economy to support the production of the best infantry in the game or to have more variety in the military
Background:
Krypteia was a practice (details not certain) to instill fear in the helots to discourage rebellion and maintain their social status as slaves. Neodamodes (pl. Neodamodeis) is the name given to the class of former helots who are given certain freedoms in exchange for military service. This was necessary due to the declining manpower.
-
Another proposal:
Helots lose the ability to advance rank with experience, and
Introduce a technology pair:
1) Krypteia: Helots have (slightly) increased gather rates
Or
2) Neodamodeis: Helots gain the ability to advance rank with experience
The idea is to give the choice of either having better economy to support the production of the best infantry in the game or to have more variety in the military
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, borg- said:
It would be really fun for every hero to recruit their administrative king. Administrative kings would have economy aura while combat kings would have combat aura. For this though we need some additional modelds. Maybe in the short time the idea of being able to train two heroes at the same time is more interesting.
Is the presence of the co-king necessary on the map? I was imagining him to sit in the Gerousia. Hence the proposal to include it as a tech rather than a unit.
Speaking of Gerousia, I think it would be great to include the building in the game. The model is already there...
-
17 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
The 2 hero thing is possible, it's just odd to have Leonidas and Agis III acting as the two "kings." It'd work better if heroes were genericized.
Only one king is allowed to lead the army in battle since shortly before the Persian Wars. We do not hear much about the co-kings of famous Spartan kings, probably they are overshadowed by their more famous counterparts.
9 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:the second king must be administrative.
Maybe there can be a unique technology called Second King with unique bonuses for the hero trained?
-
1
-
-
I love the nuances between the two architectures i.e. Ionic Order vs Corinthian Order or Amphiprostyle vs Peripteral temples. But I love how @LordGoodadded on top of the previous Spartan building to give us the current ones more
.
-
Hello team
I was wondering... Athenians and Macedonians are the only remaining factions to share buildings. Are there any plans to create a new set of buildings for either of them?
-
2
-
-
If we want to vote and propose changes, then I propose to do so on smaller chuncks. Arguments and agreement will be easier to track.
-
On 10/04/2022 at 11:31 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:
More maps.
Bigger and better!
I think Atlas Valleys and Sahyadri Buttes by @LordGood are masterpieces. I love that they are variable rather than symmetric, so players have different advantages and disadvantages. I also love Neareastern Badlands and Greek Acropolis. I wish we had giant versions of these maps. I think performance is much better and we are ready
.
-
1
-
1
-
-
As a former resident of Izmir, I would love to see this in the game. You only see one columm remaining if you visit the site
.
-
3 minutes ago, Fabius said:
The force exerted by an axe stroke versus that of a sword stroke is significantly different, an axe head will generate much more damage than a sword stroke will. It comes down to the design of each. An axe head is designed to generate high cutting damage in a small area, a sword will generate cutting power over a much broader area but has much less weight concentration.
One more thing to consider: swords are more likely to break or bend with a powerful hit. A swordsman will be hesitant to hit a siege engine with full force. An axe will not be out of action after such an attack. An axeman is more likely to decommision a siege engine.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:
Even if they had the same dps, the axemen would do more damage in one hit, with implications as a raiding unit.
This also has the effect of dealing higher damage to armored units than faster attacks with same dps
.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, AIEND said:
Because our purpose is to hope that these soldiers can better fight against armored units, rather than causing large damage to buildings and siege weapons at the same time.
Can we mitigate this by giving siege units a low base damage and a large bonus damage to buildings?
I think mace and axe units being effective against wooden siege units is a good idea actually.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, AIEND said:
Or we just think of him as a cheaper ranged infantry that can outnumber the enemy archers (I think there should be different costs between different types of soldiers).
We need to be careful about this because citizen soldiers are also workers. If some factions have cheaper workers, this may break things.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Stan` said:
What do you think of wow's idea to remove trireme and quinquereme boats and make them the same size as biremes and only available through upgrades. A bit like advanced and elite variations.
I agree about biremes and triremes being a single unit line because right now triremes are like biremes but better. Quinqueremes have a different role as siege ships and are capable of garrisoning siege. I think quinqueremes should be a unit line of its own.
Different ship lines will indeed make sense if/when we have ship ramming and/or ship boarding.
-
4
-
-
Having played Warcraft, Starcraft, C&C, AoE series since the first titles, I always dreamed of creating the "perfect" RTS. I can comfortably say 0 ad is perfect and don't let anyone convince you otherwise @Stan` and the WFG team. Those titles do not come close to the level of immersion 0 ad has. Any discussions concerning balancing at the moment is marginal compared to the awesomeness of what we already have. Big thank you!
I agree about the necessity of design documents. When we say "unit x needs more armor", it should not be implemented just to adjust current balance as it is without considering to the whole balance concept behind. We should ensure our proposal is adding value towards the balance goals. We should have an anchor.
6 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:To add gameplay changes you have to be able to take scathing criticism. Hell, to change a cursor brings the hounds of Hades. So, you have to be "that guy" who will be willing to ignore a lot of the criticism because you can't please everyone.
This is so true. Design is about compromise.
-
2
-
-
Thank you @wowgetoffyourcellphone for starting this thread
. I like most ideas and have a few proposals to enhance them:
Aura and mixin ideas are excellent.
I think we can differentiate spear and pike infantry, especially when in formations. Locked shields and massed pikes auras from Delenda Est are great ideas to make them work with formations.
On 18/04/2022 at 12:57 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:IMHO, clubs/axes would be the same class as Swordsmen, but with a bonus vs. Structures
Clubs and axes being more effective against stone structures than swords and spears is not very intuitive. And they steal the part from siege
. May I suggest to make clubs and axes more effective against armored units? For example ignore all or a percentage of armor? Justification: clubs and axes apply a more severe blow than swords and spears, and break the bones of the enemy even when stopped by heavy armor.
On 18/04/2022 at 1:51 AM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:The thing is, javelineers usually never range the horse archers. Javelineer inf are already highly effective at beating horse archers without the counter if the horse archers don't run away. This is a good example of a situation where counters don't provide a benefit to gameplay.
I agree with this. My proposal: do not have a hard counter vs cavalry archer, but make archer attacks against them more accurate. Justification: a rider with horse is a bigger target than an infantryman and easier to hit. This way, an exchange between infantry archers and cavalry archers favors the infantry, and there is no range problem. Civilizations without infantry archers still have to chase cavalry archers with melee cavalry. I really want to keep the kiting effect here; cavalry archers should be devastating if they can outrange the enemy.
On 18/04/2022 at 1:39 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:Im not sure about slingers, and the number of auras involved in these changes.
I cannot see why slingers should be more effective against a particular unit line. My proposal: make them more effective against armored units, as slinger bullets have a crush effect like clubs or axes.
On 18/04/2022 at 1:39 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:Also, why do swordcav counter cavalry? I would have thought spearcav would fulfill this role, with swordcav being strong against infantry.
I agree with this one. I think sword cavalry is difficult to place...
-
More great artwork from @wackyserious
.
Phase IV? Something I liked about AoE2 was, you had Castle Age where you get unique units and knights, defenses dominated so you had great battles but it was hard to destroy cities. Then, you had Imperial Age where you get much better siege, especially ranged siege, so you could destroy defenses easily. Maybe we can have an Empire Phase with emphasis on siege.
-
1
-
1
-
Differentiating Civilizations: Sparta
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
They did not have anything special, but since they achieve free status after serving in the military, they must be good enough soldiers to survive at least one campaign.
I think such a mechanic existed in DE @wowgetoffyourcellphone