Grautvornix
-
Posts
112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Grautvornix
-
-
A bit of a strange idea possibly, but could it be interesting having an option to carry over a number of (or even all remaining) troops and/or resources after winning a game into the next one?
This could be e.g. a selectable option to use this as starting conditions for the next game. For balancing, of course, all other parties in whatever SP or MP would need to be given equal resources/troops to start with (with an equal mix).
With this, a campaign like e.g. "Alexander the great" could depend a lot on previous performance. But also general games could get an interesting start. The better my own performance during the last game (i.e. the more experience+ resources my own civ would have gathered) the more powerful my opponent would be. Strategy would still be very important as having a larger army does not necessarily warrant victory.
One could even imagine that a starter condition could be saved and activated if so desired - always with the condition that all opponent shave the same.
-
On MS Windows 10 you can find it in /users/<username>/AppData/Roaming/0ad/config (at least that's where I find it on my installation)
-
I absolutely agree! Let's focus on other, more important topics!
-
1
-
-
Noooo! I did not intend to start a discussion about the name of the game! There are really more important things to address - "Zero A D" is fully ok!
(apologies for bringing this up)
-
1
-
-
Quote
It is a bit embarrassing but that is new to me (my excuse: never heard anyone talking about the game - never watched Youtube with sound on). I actually though "null A D" was the game's proper name. Would you refer to it as "zero A D" instead?
(don't want to start flame wars but to me Null-A-D is shorter and flows much better (at least in German
)
-
Welcome to the forum!
Which verison o the game are you running ? A0.26 or SVN (A0.27) ?
-
Well, I guess this is because he is actually in charge of DE, isn't he?
Edit: and the post by @carpinchonegro was specifically about helping with DE which is made & maintained by @wowgetoffyourcellphone. A phantastic job by the way!
-
1
-
-
Sorry, me again - now I understand (bit slow today - should have read the documentation/tool tips), every additional harvesting unit on a field slows down the yield , but the overall yield of each field is still infinite.
Thanks for the explanations!
-
Wow! Thanks Stan! Was not aware at all: When I am playing, I have really PLENTY of food in the end (>10k) from 4 fields despite I train troops like hell. (this led me into thinking more fields would be a waste of resources
)
Most likely I could train more and at a faster rate. I never noticed it due to my questionable playing skills (but still having fun)
Just now, Gurken Khan said:You can make more fields so there are less farmers per field.
I am continuously learning new details! Thanks a lot!
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, alre said:
for MP, that would be very low. you'd usually make twice that many fields, at least. 9-10 fields is pretty standard. sometimes you see 11, even 12.
5 women for field of course.
Of course you are right! Was just referring to my casual SP strategy.
BTW - did not notice a diminishing yield in the current game (A26).
Has that been implemented in SVN (A27) yet? Is there a plan for a strategy to counter this, e.g. like adding fertilizer, selecting more fertile soil, adding water or the like?
-
Well, unfortunately I do not have set statistics on the mandartory numbers of entities build up. (I just play for leisure
)
So, in DE, I typically start with many citizens and only a few troops, just sufficient to construct buildings and defend against rushing enemies or attacking beasts.
In OAD vanilla (i.e. non-modded), I use women in groups of five mainly for fruit gathering and farming while the troops are to construct buildings and chop wood (later dig for stone and metal). Scouting cavalry is always good for hunting chicken initially, then other game (sheep, goats, horses or whatever is available - be careful with wild beasts like wolfes, lions, bears, hippos and elephants. They will chase and kill you if attacked).
In OAD vanilla game, my split is typically 20 women (= 4 fields) plus possibly a few more if there is a wood shortage not allowing further training of troops. They are able to cut wood/mine stone and metal as well, but are a bit less effective.
Make sure that you do not focus too much on stone and metal initially, i.e. in the village phase. Food and wood is basically all you need beeore entering the town phase.
BTW, somewhere in the forum there are guides for effective booming, e.g. this one:
Hope this helps a bit!
Best regards, Grautvornix
-
Indeed this aura is also helpful if defending against an attack while being healed...
-
As far as I am aware, the in-game feedback agreement covers only config and any difficulties of the game starting, so your own recordings might be gone unfortunately. (I guess Wildfire games would not be able to support recording all games played worldwide - apart from all the privacy concerns this would most likely create)
Maybe you can find a couple of other players' replays in this forum?
-
Actually, I do like the Gaul fanatics as they are available realtively early in game at relatively low cost. Maybe it is not a good strategy, but it is just what I do when I play Gauls.
-
1
-
-
@Vantha sounds like a good proposal to me!
(especially since it appears to be rather difficult avoiding to double information (stable and various cavalry types might all refer to the horse breed etc.)It may make much more sense to provide the texts and then hyperlink to them what ever applies ( so stabels will link, sword cavalry might also link to the horse breed, but also to the sword technology they used).
Wonder how we could organise these links? Do the texts themselves, then in a second round verify all units refer to something, and then edit the referring page with some text connecting the various fragments pointed to?
Just thinking aloud...
-
1
-
-
Interesting point, though I wonder if anyone is actually looking for a new game according to its cool name? For me, it was the appearance and some cool screenshots that got me interested originally...
-
1
-
-
Happy New Year to everyone at WFG and their supporters and fans and everyone!
May the world become a more peaceful place with warfare becoming only a domain of great games like 0aD!
-
2
-
-
@wowgetoffyourcellphone : My first reaction would be: if we cannot decide for the background color scheme we might want to make it user-selectable (I know: it is yet another parameter)
On the other hand, the encyclopedia, while possibly part of the game package, might still deserve a certain distinction from the overall game style to make it stand out a bit more as reference material.
-
I do like the idea proposed by @jonbaer . This should possibly be more a default setting that can be changed, e.g. in the game settings:
General Strategy = "according to selected hero & civ" (for suggested reading: link to 0aD library) or "manual override as defined in the standard game settings independent of selected civ/hero" (still need to find the right words here) .
-
Indeed I also favor beige and white as the white background looks well balanced and also increases readability of the text.
-
1
-
-
As also suggested in this threat, the wall could very well be owned by one of the factions provided we find a balancing mechanism that provides disadvantages for the faction owning the wall. This would be more historical than a neutral wall separating two (or several) factions. As an example, such balancing disadvantage could be fewer resources for the wall-owning civ.
In fact, I could even magine a scenario where one faction is placed in the centerpiece of the map surrounded by walls and several other factions surrounding this area can be available for attack or support.
Alternatively, a scenario like the siege of Alesia by the Romans would be interesting. Here, the centerpice would be a fortified Gallic city with Romans surrounding it between own double walls (having however not many resources) and support troops arrive from outside. Just phantasizing...
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
I honestly think "Limes" could be a cool either map type or random map. The map would be divided by Roman walls into sections by number of players. The walls would be Gaia and have to be broken through in order to get into the enemy's side of the map. So, two players would have one long wall down the middle of the map cutting it in half, etc.
Would not mind having the wall belong to one of the factions (like in the limes case or for Hadrian's wall - or the great chinese wall). In return to this "unfair" advantage we might want to deplete resources a bit on their side, e.g. less stone or metal.
Alternatively, a more complex scenario could be envisaged where the faction owning the wall would be threatended by Gaia on their own side, e.g. a village that was originally a peaceful ally would turn into hostilities after a certain time. This would try mimicking treason as happened in many cases in history (must be scripted - trigger could be an attack by the adversary or whenever anyone crosses the wall).
-
1
-
-
Looks beautiful!
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, man_s_our said:
the resources mechanism now changed. instead of being able to put the resources in a very far storehouse and immediately use them to build some building, the builders will need to carry the needed resources to build (which requires the resources or storehouse be closer for faster building). todo: adding workshops for delayed converting of a resource to another (like using forgery to convert metal to swords).
I have to admitt I do like this a lot! Reminds me of my past playing settlers IV (and before) where resources must be available nearby where they are needed. Will download the mod and try it.
-
1
-
Option to carry over troops/resources from one game to the next one (could be good for campaigns)
in Game Development & Technical Discussion
Posted
Yep, that would also be cool!
Let me provide some more thoughts and discussion:
As an example, when winning a game, I have 30 elite cav + 30 melee + 10 hoplites + 1 hero and 3k Wood, 500 metal, 920 stone, 12k food. The next game would provide me with exactly these resources - but also all other players of that game with exactly the same troops and resources. Everyone would then start at an elevated level. Could that lead to new strategic options? Most likely.
The fundamental question will certainly be, how to preserve balance between players (whether AI or human). The issue might be that different civs have different strengths (cav, skirmish, elephants, naval, etc.), so that direct comparison might be more difficult.
On the othert hand, I might have been able to use the advantages of the previous map for my civ, but the next map might have different characteristics and that previous strategy does not work anymore (e.g. less wood or no metal but a lot of stone). Naval maps would not allow a follow-on non-naval map unless the ships were left behind (like in reality).
While for SP this can certainly be achieved, I am not so sure for MP games as each player would want to keep his own previous "achievements".
I therefore belive such mechanism would make sense rather more for SP and campaigns than for MP games, and particularly not for rated MP games (that are subject to dispute all the time already).
Technology tree:
If I had completely researched everything in the previous game and if I inherit that in full, what else can I do except focussing on strategy (good) and possibly producing more/different units (difficult if the respective production building does not exist at the beginning -> to be built).
Probably I am thinking too complex here. Best might be to inherit a population and resources but no the technology tree?
Discussing all this, I am not sure anymore this idea can be easily implemented but will rather change a lot of the game's mechanics unless we introduce some constraints on "heritability" of resources, e.g. no buildings, no ships.