New Civ for Alpha 28+?

[LienRag]

On 11/02/2023 at 8:40 AM, Genava55 said:

They don't have siege engines.

That is the only real problem, as there is no way to play the game without any siege ability.

[LienRag]

On 11/02/2023 at 6:16 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

So they should have non-infinite fields.

A civilization with non-infinite fields (and not micromanagy like AoE, really non-infinite fields where you can't rebuild a field in the same place when the soil is exhausted) would play very differently and as such be a nice addition.

[LienRag]

On 15/02/2023 at 1:16 PM, Helicity said:

Unfortunately, we already have too many Hellenic civs and I am not suggesting we turn 0 A.D. into Greek A.D.

A mod for Greek A.D. could be nice, if it fitted more precisely the period warfare...

[LienRag]

On 17/02/2023 at 5:49 AM, AIEND said:

 

I don't recommend continuing to strengthen the javelin soldiers, the 0AD javelin soldiers have greatly affected the game experience. I now really hope that these range soldiers are nerfed to the same level as in other ancient warfare RTS.

Javelin soldiers with infinite reload ability will either be overpowered (if reasonable value for the damage are used) or unhistorical (if it is nerfed).

They are really the soldiers that are the most in need of an "ammunition" system.

Of course this ammunition system has to be not too micromanagy if the game is to stay fun.

[LienRag]

On 12/02/2023 at 9:59 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Left: Scythians. Right: Xiongnu

 

[alre]

35 minutes ago, LienRag said:

Javelin soldiers with infinite reload ability will either be overpowered (if reasonable value for the damage are used) or unhistorical (if it is nerfed).

They are really the soldiers that are the most in need of an "ammunition" system.

Of course this ammunition system has to be not too micromanagy if the game is to stay fun.

I believe this can be handled by just increasing repeat time.

[AIEND]

22 小时前，alre 说：

我相信这可以通过增加重复时间来解决。

22 小时前，LienRag 说：

具有无限重装能力的标枪士兵将被压倒（如果使用合理的伤害值）或非历史（如果被削弱）。

他们真的是最需要“弹药”系统的士兵。

If it is based on reality, we only need to weaken the damage of javelins. A lot of people don't support this change because there are a lot of factions in the game that don't have bows, and they worry that nerfing the javelin will turn those factions into garbage.
But I would say that we should weaken the role of range units as a whole, and put more emphasis on melee combat, especially the impact of various formations on melee combat, rather than treating them as decorations.

[AIEND]

在 2023/02/13 上午 4:59，wowgetoffyourcellphone 说道：

It seems that the only difference between Xiongnu's yurts and Scythian yurts is that they are more plain without any decorative patterns due to the lack of artistic reference.

[Lion.Kanzen]

43 minutes ago, AIEND said:

It seems that the only difference between Xiongnu's yurts and Scythian yurts is that they are more plain without any decorative patterns due to the lack of artistic reference.

We are working on that ...

[AIEND]

58 分钟前，Lion.Kanzen 说：

我们正在努力......

I'm not blaming anything, in fact, I'm worried that due to our lack of enough archaeological research on Xiongnu, we may end up being forced to fill in later Mongolian cultural elements. If that's the case, I think it's better to let Xiongnu's art in the game It's better to keep "blank" in , at least it shows that although we don't know, we didn't make it up.

[Lion.Kanzen]

10 minutes ago, AIEND said:

I'm not blaming anything, in fact, I'm worried that due to our lack of enough archaeological research on Xiongnu, we may end up being forced to fill in later Mongolian cultural elements. If that's the case, I think it's better to let Xiongnu's art in the game It's better to keep "blank" in , at least it shows that although we don't know, we didn't make it up.

it takes several things as a placeholder, that is, it is not the definitive art.

 

The same can be said for most civilizations and factions.

There will always be new archaeological discoveries.

For now we are using a lot of references, not a post about it in the art forum.

It is always about going back to the past and rebuilding. It's like a puzzle, you have to put it piece by piece.

[LienRag]

On 14/03/2023 at 6:57 PM, alre said:

I believe this can be handled by just increasing repeat time.

That's an option but it would not reflect the reality of Javelin use : a short but quite devastating rain of missiles just before melee engagement.

Since it's not a nitpick but a real strategic difference (Javelineers would be used to screen other troops but never alone) it would be nice if the game could reflect that.

Battles of the era were mostly melee (well, with the exception of Scythian horse archers and the like), but missiles played an important role to shape how the melee fared. That's what 0ad combat mechanisms should aim to reproduce.

[alre]

I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of ancient warfare. It is true that with heavy infantry javelins were often used in the way you say, in particular I know it is attested for cavalry javeliners.

But skirmishers would often fight other skirmishers, either on - you know - skirmishes, or at the side of heavy infantry formation, and foot skirmishers would try to preserve their ammunition, while faking throws and trying not expose theirselves too much. Also they would stop to pick up javelins thrown at them, and have bags of spare javelins to get back to, and in general the battle would be a lot less intense than a bunch of 0AD skirms throwing a stream of volleys.

There is no way to create a perfect ancient battles simulator, but raising javeliners repeat time seems a good start to me, and it would make battles look better.

Also it would be an interesting differentiator, changing the role of micro between different ranged units.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I would prefer to remove rate of fire from archers. Especially mounted archers. Or have less accuracy.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, alre said:

I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of ancient warfare. It is true that with heavy infantry javelins were often used in the way you say, in particular I know it is attested for cavalry javeliners.

But skirmishers would often fight other skirmishers, either on - you know - skirmishes, or at the side of heavy infantry formation, and foot skirmishers would try to preserve their ammunition, while faking throws and trying not expose theirselves too much. Also they would stop to pick up javelins thrown at them, and have bags of spare javelins to get back to, and in general the battle would be a lot less intense than a bunch of 0AD skirms throwing a stream of volleys.

There is no way to create a perfect ancient battles simulator, but raising javeliners repeat time seems a good start to me, and it would make battles look better.

Also it would be an interesting differentiator, changing the role of micro between different ranged units.

 

I feel like we are really missing opportunities to differentiate ranged units. You've hit on a few things here. Javelineers weren't used for mass clouds of raining projectiles onto enemy formations, such as how archers were used. Pitch battles, skirmishes, et al. are a lot different than a one-on-one mano-a-mano fight and different types of weapons and units are used differently in each case. We can't really depict that kind of nuance in the game, however we can twiddle with the stats to approximate these differences.

I for one think that if the core game isn't going to go with hard counter bonuses (DE uses these), then the different ranged types really should lean in to their core differences. Archers are long ranged and used for massed volleys? Then make their range huge, less accurate, lower damage, but high rate of fire (2 seconds). Slingers and Javelineers are a lot more accurate, but shorter range than Archers. Slingers at 80% range of Archers, but 50% more accurate and a lower rate of fire (3s). Javelineers have the highest attack damage, shortest range, and most accuracy (due to the short range), but the longest repeat time/rate of fire (4s), to mimic their skirmishing role. 

The game already kind of does this, but it could lean into it more.

Edited March 20, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I for one think that if the core game isn't going to go with hard counter bonuses (DE uses these), then the different ranged types really should lean in to their core differences. Archers are long ranged and used for massed volleys? Then make their range huge, less accurate, lower damage, but high rate of fire (2 seconds). Slingers and Javelineers are a lot more accurate, but shorter range than Archers. Slingers at 80% range of Archers, but 50% more accurate and a lower rate of fire (3s). Javelineers have the highest attack damage, shortest range, and most accuracy (due to the short range), but the longest repeat time/rate of fire (4s), to mimic their skirmishing role. 

Slingers and skirmishers should take more missile damage from defenses. But less damage from infantry.

 

This with only two types of attacks very difficult to adjust.

 

Because it would mean they would have to have more piercing armor which would be what most skirmishers and slingers wear as shields.

 

But in a combat against a melee unit they should take less damage.

 

Therefore they are only useful to more or less back up the siege and be more or less a kind of cannon fodder for the towers as it similar with infantry even more.

(It should be taken into account that melee infantry would gain experience base and improve their resistance against towers).

 

Now the difference between the javelin and the slingers would be that the slingers would give more damage to the towers (crush damage).

 

Certain Hellenized units like teurophoros and pelsalts would basically wear armor.

 

So basically they would hold up much better in combat against archers.

 

Therefore to be useful archers should not only be useful at a distance but also be cheap (the citizen soldiers).

 

In the case of slingers and javeliners they should also be cheap but have much less health.

 

Since they were recruited from low classes but as they gain experience they become much tougher units.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

14 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I feel like we are really missing opportunities to differentiate ranged units.

My community mod proposal (the unit upgrades) adds to this differentiation.

Currently their primary differentiation is range vs damage, but the accuracies are also at play. I think the ranges are good for now. Changing melee stats as planned in the community mod (much more damage, a little less armor) will probably have an effect on the roles of skirms slingers and archers in fights, so I would like to see the results of that first.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Now the difference between the javelin and the slingers would be that the slingers would give more damage to the towers (crush damage).

 

Don't understand this one. Were Slingers used to siege cities? lol Nah, they were for the open field and skirmishes. Also, good hunters and foragers, but that's given to cav units. Making slingers into mini-onagers never made sense! Same for War Elephants being meaty battering rams when they should have been the ultimate battlefield unit (but hard to mass) from the start. 

 

3 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

But in a combat against a melee unit they should take less damage.

Hmm, if ranged units stand up too well to melee attack, then what is their weakness? 

To "lean into" differences of classes of units, then I think ranged units should pretty much get massacred by any melee units who manage to reach them. The key to ranged units is... their range. The longer the range, the less damage they cause, because it's the range that matters. Sure, as melee troops close in, the ranged defenders get more accurate, makes sense, but once the melee units get close enough for a sword, the ranged units should be burnt toast. Adios muchachos. We can have them switch to knives or short swords to defend themselves, but it should only buy moments only.

 

7 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Certain Hellenized units like teurophoros and pelsalts would basically wear armor.

 

Armor-wearing Javelineers should have greater cost and perhaps less range. They have to wield a thureos after all. Could definitely stand up to melee action better, but at a cost to force projection.

 

8 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

In the case of slingers and javeliners they should also be cheap but have much less health.

 

I for one think all foot soldiers should have the same health (call it 100) and then we adjust armor and attack, et al. around that.

About cheapness, I'm very pro-trash units as a concept. Han Crossbowmen for example. Cheap, massable, good for sending tons of projectiles the enemy's way, but ultimately outclassed by stronger troops when those come to play. I don't think that's in the cards though. Maybe minds will change?

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 14/03/2023 at 1:26 PM, LienRag said:

Same set of models, but with different textures. It would be nice to have a completely different set of models for Scythians, Xiongnu, and eventually Huns, but for an initial release of a "nomads" alpha, I think we will have to go with the same models and iterate from there over time.

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

About cheapness, I'm very pro-trash units as a concept. Han Crossbowmen for example. Cheap, massable, good for sending tons of projectiles the enemy's way, but ultimately outclassed by stronger troops when those come to play. I don't think that's in the cards though. Maybe minds will change?

Crossbowmen are good for quickly finishing off infantry units.

 

I still think that a 1.2 X counter of melee cavalry vs ranged infantry should be used.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

6 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Armor-wearing Javelineers should have greater cost and perhaps less range. They have to wield a thureos after all. Could definitely stand up to melee action better, but at a cost to force projection.

Lots of hybrid units will look better with two types of attack when implemented.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

4 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I still think that a 1.2 X counter of melee cavalry vs ranged infantry should be used.

Indeed. Melee Infantry have one unit which has a hard bonus. Perhaps we can do that for Cavalry* and Ranged Infantry as well. One unit class of each can have a hard counter bonus. 

 

I realize that Spear Cav have a hard bonus, but it's against other cavalry. I meant that each group of classes (cavalry, melee inf, range inf) can have 1 class that hard counters units of the other group for a rps. Then you have the other classes around those who add more nuance.

Edited March 20, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Hmm, if ranged units stand up too well to melee attack, then what is their weakness? 

on the contrary, they do not resist them.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Indeed. Melee Infantry have one unit which has a hard bonus. Perhaps we can do that for Cavalry and Ranged Infantry as well. One unit class of each can have a hard counter bonus. 

honestly the counters should be at the basic triangle of units.

AoE IV it has that from the beginning. it's basically the core of the game in combat.

[Lion.Kanzen]

this pillar should be what defines the game.

Spearman vs spear cavalry vs skirmisher/archer.

With these 3 counter is enough.