ShadowOfHassen

I think that would be better suited for a higher level campaign instead of the tutorial. Having the final attack against Rome should be climactic in a huge sense and in my opinion better when the player already knows what they're doing

That's a good idea. Hmm... well, I guess we'd have to do some brainstorming... It's just an idea, if the majority of people don't like it when it's a fully developed idea we can not do it.

Well the thing is the gameplay between single player and multiplayer should be reasonably consistent. Someone should be able to after beating the campaigns be able to jump right into the multiplayer and vice versa. Currently, in the campaign discussion we shot down half the suggestions because we didn't have a civilization. Making a new one we didn't want to do because A. of the work to make a visually distinct style, units, and bonuses like in the normal game, we'd have to make units that are reasonably work for a given civilization. The most effective way for that would be to make a generic civilization for each large group and base the civs off that, like a Greek one to cover Corenth, Thebian, etc. B. We'd have to balance these new campaign civs for every update you do for balancing the multiplayer games. Granted we could do meta balancing, and it'd be easier but still. To do the civs we'd still have to do it. So even after everything, in order to make this easier we'd have to practically make generic factions anyway. I don't see how changing the gameplay effects the multiplayer determinately, it'd just be different. Yes, it'd be a lot of work, but at least this way the ton of work could benefit the multiplayer people too.

Yeah. I know that Age of Empires 3 you played civilizations you can't get in the original game, but that just made me feel cheated (WHAT ABOUT MY HOOP THROWERS!?!) And it is a little excessive to have to design a completely new civilization for literally everything we'd want to cover. We don't want to get too much like Age of Empires, but what if we limit the strategy that players can do before phasing up? If the player has to make a decision on what alliance they want to take within the first 5 minutes, then the other players would know and be able to change the strategy. Well, that's easy enough, we just design them to play different.

This would be a LOT of work, but honestly, I'm for it. I agree with everything @Genava55has just said.

I'm kind of for that idea, I don't know if everyone would. At the very least genericing out the units would make it easier to do civilizations. It would have to be something a lot of people would have to agree on. (I'd also probably require us to redo the encylopedia, but that's OK) if you want we could open another discussion forum post on it.

So to kind of reiterate you’re thinking something like age of mythology where you pick a different god , but instead you eventually just pick a civilization to allign yourself with? that would drastically change the game but I kind of like it. That would solve some of our problems and make aging up a bit more game changing

I would suggest we make a document with information for each of the four scenarios containing exactly what players need to learn in what order, and make the maps to work with that. For example if the first scenario is just them exploring, we kind of need to know for how long and what they need to do, so we can build a map with everything. Plus we need to research the region and see what it looked like and figure out how big the maps we need.

So if we're in agtement, a PR?

You know, we could just put a kernel level anticheat... Maybe that'd help...

I like the Carthage one too. The basic outlines we made I think still work for that, and it fits our criteria. With the Thrace colonies, I was just trying to find somewhere with a fairly well known civilization that would fit, I'm happy we found something better.

That matches my criteria , I think.

Could work. Though, I don't think a colony from Alexander the grate would have any problem establishing itself. Alexander the Great had the manpower to get behind it. I don't want it to seem like I'm shooting ideas down or anything, just trying to point out (in my opinion) valid criticism.

I think we can use one. My idea still works, and some people have suggested other colonies that would work. We just need to settle on one and start scripting/ researching/designing.

I think he's saying that way, waaaaay back those were the planned campaigns. We can do whatever we want now.

Wait... I thought we were doing colonies that were founded by a civ in game. There's no Corinth civ, so how can we have a colony founded by Corinthians? If we are voting, my vote is for Cardia or another Athenian founded colony in the area of Thrace. But currently I've seen like 6 people participate off and on in this discussion, that's not that big for a poll.

That would be tricky. Something like how Battle for Middle earth did it might work, but if we did resources it'd be a nightmare to balance. You'd have to account for the player who narrowly wins a scenario and the player who wins the scenario with thousands of extra resources, and allow both to be able to enjoy the next mission.

It's a flaw. In age of empires i'd get a huge army and then in the next scenario have 5 men. Personally I liked the Lord of the Ring's Battle of Middle Earth's method of allowing you to bring all level 2 units with you, but I don't think that can happen in 0 A.D.

Well, going back to my original idea and combining it with your outline. In scenario 0 they scout. Scenario 1 they build up and get attacked. Scenario 2 they leave the colony to figure out who attacked them and meet an ally, and in Scenario 3 they have chased the enemy to his base and have to do a full out attack. Each time they have to build a new civic center and start pretty much from scratch.

That could work, what's the new strategy for Sparta after the new patch? Is it anything outlandish or would it be a good starter civilization?

We could do it about Cardia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardia_(Thrace) and have the hero be Miltiades the Elder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miltiades_the_Elder Of course all my current research is just from Wikipedia, and we'd have to double-check things, but a place like that looks promising.

I'd do one that we know only a little about, one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Athenian_colonies I had a mistype in the other post and instead of the region of Thrace I meant a settlement like Neapolis in Thrace or another one

I agree. We also had my original idea of doing some Athenian colony like Thrace...

My basic outline for scenario 0 "Let's go find a place to set up a colony" Walking through waypoints" "Ah! Wild animals" Fighting. "Oooh look here's a treasure" More walking with hidden treasures and some more fighting. "This looks like a good place to set up a colony, let's build a civic center" (from the materials we got from treasures) End. I wouldn't worry about it. Personally, I think we should pick a colony that we know literally nothing about other than it exists so we can play fast and loose with it. Also the battles should be rather low stakes, (fledgling colony vs bandits or something). I think the simpler/ lower stakes the conflict, the better. (Keeps the important civs down to one) Yes it could. Any reasonably remote colony could work, I was going for an Athenian colony because we already have an Athenian civ and so that's less time. But I'm not married to my idea, as long as we can get the story small.

From what you wrote, it seemed a little more than a footnote in history... Even that aside, I think only a couple civilizations would make gameplay simpler. Your's would be a good campaign, I'm not sure if it'd be a good tutorial campaign.