ShadowOfHassen

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.

I don't think the campaign should be that complex, the history Bar should be practically nonexistent, so the player can focus on learning the mechanics. That idea is a good story, but it might be better suited as a normal campaign

I like that outline a few things. I'd add a scenario 0 that covers treasure gathering, moving 101, exploring the map, combat 101, leveling up and pull those objectives partly out of the other lessons. This is partly because I personally remember struggling with RTS's controls, and a lower stake map dedicated to that would be nice. Also if we do this the first scenario can be focused more on economy and less on the person struggling with left-clicking and right-clicking. (It happens and we should account for it. To make it easier to fit with to a story can we gray out upgrades until we want them to do it? A player could accidentally break the tutorial otherwise. I have a simple enough idea how to incorporate the basics of naval warfare If we have a scenario 0 to cover some of the material we can have a dock in scenario one, and we can just have scenario two have boats as well. If there's some really high-tech stratagems I'm missing that might not work, but it might. I can see Athenian colony working here, or an Alexander the Great, if we didn't do boats. Personally, I like the Athenian colony better, but that could be because its my idea.

Yes, but we'd have to build the game for Linux in some format... I like the idea. I really think we should do it, but that would require getting the "team" behind it.

Maybe, I wouldn't hold my breath. It's a storefront like steam, I'd guess no.

So if it would work, what do we need to add it there? We'd want binaries for Windows macOS and Linux (.exe, whatever mac uses, and appimage?)

That could work. It would give us a continuation into history, and we could make Aristotle "Teach" the game mechanics. I like it. Any other thoughts or things I'm missing?

That is a cool idea, and it'd allow us to link it to a coming campaign (Alexander the Great) you could even have Aristotle teaching the game kind of. The one thing is to make sure it's accessible to even beginners for RTS we need (in my opinion) the first campaign cover basic movement, fighting and some basic treasure stuff (NOT a full battle though) Alexander on a hunt??? After that, you need one on economy and a little fighting (economy in RTS is tricky) and finally one that's focused on the military (Ships, rams etc.)

Oops I didn't see the replies after this. Still, my point stands. I kind of like @Genava55's Massalia idea. But would we have to make a new civilization? I think we'd want to keep to an already made Civ A. because it'd be easier and B. the player could hop right into free play/ online and be familiar with a civilization. (We just swap out the hero with a named one.) I think it might be a good idea to use Athens because it's a fairly standard civilization. I see it almost as a "generic" civilization of all the Hellenistic Civs (which are a large part of our civilizations.) But more experienced players can disagree, and they'd be probably right.

Honestly, I'd argue for telling a somewhat Historical Fiction tale about a colony that we know very little about. That way, we can say it's Historical Fiction and don't have to sacrifice history for a solid tutorial campaign. We'd tell them it's how we guess what happened, of course, but real life really doesn't match up to a good tutorial system.

I don't want to insult the intelligence of new users, but I strongly suggest that we don't bog them down with so much history for a tutorial. The Egypt stuff looks pretty cool and all, but it would require a LOT of set up with the history, and if somebody wants to sit down and learn the game for multiplayer there shouldn't be that much. I want to stress that for the Age of Empires games, there was a difference between the tutorial level and the beginning parts of a campaign. The beginning parts of the campaign did have a lot of similar information, but the actual tutorial was something different. This is the AOM tutorial https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Tutorial_(Age_of_Mythology) There is a difference between reminding the player what to do when he needs to do it in a medium stake environment then letting the player get the hang of it in a low stakes environment. I think the Egypt idea is really cool for a campaign, but I think it's history is complex for a tutorial. The player should be focus on learning the mechanics. (If you have a better idea for a tutorial than mine that's OK I don't care, but I do think the History should be at minimum and the campaign story should be REALLY simple.

I absolutely agree. There are some maps with very small bodies of water and I have to train a stinking merchant vessel just to get a shipwreck on the shore, after that the boat is useless. The merchant boat only mechanic is not realistic and it does not make gameplay any better so I vote we kick it.

It’s one short sentence I don’t think think they could bungle it that much. (and let’s NOT use AI for voices, that’s even worse than unprofessional voice acting)

Hey, if we have a translator for that language, I'm sure they can pronounce it.