New Civ for Alpha 28+?

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

AoE 4 is a bad reference for this, previous AoE games have done this quite well. Counter systems make for good gameplay and we can have some in 0ad too. Hard counters are challenging from a balance perspective in 0ad because non-cavalry units are the primary economic units.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Hard counters are challenging from a balance perspective in 0ad because non-cavalry units are the primary economic units.

Citizen Soldiers are a real double-edged sword for this game.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

9 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

AoE 4 is a bad reference for this, previous AoE games have done this quite well

I think the basic countering system was present in all AOE games (with something similar occurring in most RTS games, IIRC).

As an aside, AOE4 just doesn't interest me for a multitude of reasons. Number one being they could have remade AOE2 to awesome modern 3D standards, but made something that looks utterly unappealing. I just can't put my finger on it though. Everything looks like a soap opera with weird flat lighting and muted colors. It's the VHS version of a modern game. Surprised you don't have to use a pair of tracking buttons to get the video head calibrated.

Edited March 20, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Genava55]

58 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

this pillar should be what defines the game.

Spearman vs spear cavalry vs skirmisher/archer.

With these 3 counter is enough.

From a general perspective, every civ/faction/culture could have at least those:

Even if we currently don't give to every civ bowmen and swordsmen, in reality there are evidences for swords and bows in every cultures.

[Lion.Kanzen]

9 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

AoE 4 is a bad reference for this, previous AoE games have done this quite well. Counter systems make for good gameplay and we can have some in 0ad too. Hard counters are challenging from a balance perspective in 0ad because non-cavalry units are the primary economic units.

I'm just using the game diagram.

I can use the AoE  II.

 

it's more troublesome.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, Genava55 said:

From a general perspective, every civ/faction/culture could have at least those:

Even if we currently don't give to every civ bowmen and swordsmen, in reality there are evidences for swords and bows in every cultures.

That's ok.

The problem is not that there are no such weapons, it's that archery is not very popular in many of them.

That is why it is necessary to include range infantry in a single pack.

[Lion.Kanzen]

AoM

in 0AD I command the spear cavalry and they make no difference against ranged units.

They make differences against those of range cavalry.

[Genava55]

12 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Citizen Soldiers are a real double-edged sword for this game.

Because historically the main force was the heavy infantry and there was no hard counter against it.

Harassing with ranging units like did Iphicrates at Lechaeum or like did Surena at Carrhea was quite difficult and long. Very inefficient process, taking far longer than a normal engagement. This is basically what every players are trying to do in AoE games by micromanaging their ranged units. It is working besides the hard counter system.

In ancient times, the cavalry and the ranged troops were generally used against their opposite to gain the upper hand and to support their own infantry. To win a battle, the most important was to route the enemy's infantry by crushing its morale, but it generally happens when they are in close combat. Cavalry and light troops are rarely enough by themselves.

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

In ancient times, the cavalry and the ranged troops were generally used against their opposite to gain the upper hand and to support their own infantry. To win a battle, the most important was to route the enemy's infantry by crushing its morale, but it generally happens when they are in close combat. Cavalry and light troops are rarely enough by themselves.

That's why I talk in another post about giving more power to infantry, both spearmen and swordsmen.

 

And reduce early game ranged attacks, and melee cavalry early in the game is economically unfeasible.

 

I think it can be enhanced with upgrades in the smithy or production buildings.

 

I watched the MarcAurel and Cronelius multiplayer fights. Almost all of the early was ranged cavalry, and that has been the meta for several alphas.

 

I'm thinking about ranged anti-cavalry tactics.

There is not much that can be done, other than making anti missile formations(shield wall). Adding missile infantry in rear and defenses.

 

It would be interesting if the defenses were more viable against a ranged cavalry rush.

[Genava55]

5 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

There is not much that can be done, other than making anti missile formations(shield wall). Adding missile infantry in rear and defenses.

Yes indeed. Infantrymen should have a better protection by being in a battle-formation.

Ideally, infantrymen and light infantry should have also the same speed when not in a formation. I don't understand why some peltasts with shields and helmets should be faster than unarmoured spearmen for example. Historically, heavy infantrymen moved very fast when they broke out of their formation. It is staying in a cohesive formation that make them slower.

By giving more importance to the heavy infantry and to formation, it gives more incentive to micro-manage them.

Cavalry should have a bonus against infantry not in formation.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I leave the aforementioned battles.

 

I've done those tactics in multiplayer myself.I understand that many players get frustrated by an early rush like this.

The turtle tactic is not so used in 0 A.D.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Ideally, infantrymen and light infantry should have also the same speed when not in a formation. I don't understand why some peltasts with shields and helmets should be faster than unarmoured spearmen for example. Historically, heavy infantrymen moved very fast when they broke out of their formation. It is staying in a cohesive formation that make them slower.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone @real_tabasco_sauce

It is a very good point for the future of the design and balance of the game.

 

They should already be planning to improve the formations in the gameplay.

 

Forming and unforming should have advantages and disadvantages.

[alre]

On 20/03/2023 at 6:56 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

 

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.

My wishful proposal for ranged units differentiation (motivations below):

- Slingers: longest range units, very precise, very low damage, very low armor, but quite fast. Instantly get shredded by whoever reaches them. used for harassment more than anything else, like archers in A24, but somehow lower damage. Not too much though.

- Archers: heavier units equipped with a shield in their back, and slower. Good range and decent damage, but inaccurate, they are the best ranged unit if in big enough numbers. Decent also against light-medium cavalry, they are countered by heavy infantry.

- Javelineers: Fast moving, with some armor (similar to archers), they have a range short enough to make them struggle when massed. They are particularly good against heavy infantry, but not against cavalry (hard counter? maybe a trigger that makes the javelin "miss" at random against nimble enemies) and they beat archers when the numbers are low enough.

- Heavy javelineers: javelineers with big shields could have higher armor against missiles, they would be a strong counter against archers, but they would be bad against lighter javelineers, because the latter would have the "nibliness" bonus, while the former not.

- Longbow archers: nubian and indian archers are depicted with no shield or armor in the game, so maybe these should have less armor but more accuracy than regular archers.

While writing this "proposal", I realised I didn't have many motivations after all, I'll say just a few things about slingers: there is a number of sources saying they had greater range than archers, and even now you can take a long sling and learn in no time to throw rocks for hundreds of meters, bows take a LOT more exercise. Difference in accuracy between slings and bows is only introduced here as a mean for differentiation. In general though, I tried to make a "realistic" proposal overall.

Edited March 22, 2023 by alre

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, alre said:

- Slingers: longest range units, very precise, very low damage, very low armor, but quite fast. Instantly get shredded by whoever reaches them. used for harassment more than anything else, like archers in A24, but somehow lower damage. Not too much though.

Probably not the level of differentiation you are calling for, but these are two upgrades I designed for slingers.

Slinger 1: "Lead Shot"

• P2
• 30% more pierce damage
• 25% more crush damage
• 20% longer repeat time.

Slinger 2: "Longer slings"

• P3
• +5 Range
• 10% longer prepare time

[real_tabasco_sauce]

On 20/03/2023 at 1:03 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

made something that looks utterly unappealing. I just can't put my finger on it though. Everything looks like a soap opera with weird flat lighting and muted colors. It's the VHS version of a modern game.

I find it amusing how, with the resources at their disposal, they made such a graphically terrible game. 0ad outdoes AOE4 by a mile in this regard. Allegedly, you have to play with graphics on low if you want good performance too.

[LienRag]

On 20/03/2023 at 8:27 PM, Genava55 said:

Because historically the main force was the heavy infantry and there was no hard counter against it.

[...] To win a battle, the most important was to route the enemy's infantry by crushing its morale, but it generally happens when they are in close combat. Cavalry and light troops are rarely enough by themselves.

Indeed.

A good way to emulate that would be a morale system, with cavalry and ranged troops having very little effect on infantry units' morale when in formation.

Only infantry would have effect over enemy infantry units in formation, and an effect proportional to its heaviness difference (i.e., light infantry has nearly no effect on heavy infantry, heavy infantry has devastating effect on light infantry).

That would also allow for the other good proposal, "Cavalry should have a bonus against infantry not in formation" : it would have a morale impact on it, and a damage bonus against demoralized infantry units not in formation.

Spear cavalry should have a damage/morale bonus against ranged units even when they're in formation (maybe not against heavy javelineers in formation, though - another way to differentiate those).

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by LienRag
Removing an uncomplete sentence

[AIEND]

The internal refinement of range units is not the most important thing. The very important point is that the positioning of melee units is still unclear. I think we should make sure that spearmen and spear cavalry are the most basic and most backbone units and are irreplaceable. Yes, we can't make swordsmen or axemen better units than spearmen, only units that assist spearmen.
For example swordsmen and axemen shouldn't do more damage than spearmen, shouldn't outperform spearmen in frontal combat, but should be faster than spearmen, especially when marching in groups. And there should be a loose formation specially provided for swordsmen/axemen. In battle, swordsmen and axemen should not be mixed with spearmen, but form a separate team to facilitate their pursuit or outflanking. This way, for civs with swordsmen/axemen, they get a cheap cavalry replacement unit that can better counter enemy range infantry.
Spearmen/Pikemen are responsible for dealing with frontal battles. All civilized spearmen should be given a tight horizontal formation, and buff the spearmen through the formation, which allows the spearmen to last longer in battle , but also reduces mobility. Spearmen in formation will always defeat the same number of swordsman/axemen, but once out of formation, they become weaker and more vulnerable to projectiles. Spearmen/Pikemen don't need to have too high a counterattack against cavalry, but should make the attacks of cavalry weak against spearmen/pikemen in the formation, whether it is melee attack or range attack.
Counter cavalry should mainly use various projectiles fired by range units, while spearmen/pikemen are responsible for protecting range infantry. There are already such formations in the game, but unfortunately they have not yet functioned.
As for the cavalry, I think the current axe and sword cavalry are largely out of history, and the sword and ax are too close to attack on horseback and are not suitable as main weapons. As I said above, swordsman/axemen should not be stronger than spearmen, the same is true for cavalry.
Therefore, I think that the axe/sword cavalry is actually only rich in artistic elements, that is, the data of the sword/axe cavalry should be exactly the same as that of the spear cavalry. A civilization does not need to have both spear cavalry and sword/axe cavalry. In fact, we only need one A melee cavalry used for chasing enemy range cavalry or raiding range infantry.

[AIEND]

With regards to marksmen, we don't really need to have a big gap in the damage of various marksmen. We only need to determine that the range of the shooter is the maximum distance at which the weapon can cause the same killing effect. If the archer can cause 8/second damage to the enemy at 100m, then the sling is 80 meters, and the javelin soldier is 40 meters. That is to say, we can make the average damage of archers, slingers and javelins exactly the same, but the range is different. At the same time, we only need to make soldiers pay more for longer ranges. This cost may not be The resource can instead be training time.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, AIEND said:

marksmen

what is this? Ranged units?

Edited April 25, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[AIEND]

11 小時前，Lion.Kanzen 說：

這是什麼？ 遠程單位？

Yes, this is a direct translation from the Chinese "射手", which generally refers to a range unit in modern Chinese.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, AIEND said:

Yes, this is a direct translation from the Chinese "射手", which generally refers to a range unit in modern Chinese.

in english translates like this

"someone who can shoot a gun very accurately"

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/ingles/marksman

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, AIEND said:

Yes, this is a direct translation from the Chinese "射手", which generally refers to a range unit in modern Chinese.

another expression that is used is missile infantry.That's what they use in the Total War saga.

[Lion.Kanzen]

15 hours ago, AIEND said:

With regards to marksmen, we don't really need to have a big gap in the damage of various marksmen. We only need to determine that the range of the shooter is the maximum distance at which the weapon can cause the same killing effect. If the archer can cause 8/second damage to the enemy at 100m, then the sling is 80 meters, and the javelin soldier is 40 meters. That is to say, we can make the average damage of archers, slingers and javelins exactly the same, but the range is different. At the same time, we only need to make soldiers pay more for longer ranges. This cost may not be The resource can instead be training time.

@Stan` Would this calculation cause lag?

 

[AIEND]

11 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

英文翻译成这样

“可以非常准确地射击枪的人”

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/ingles/marksman

 

射手Sheshou means archer in ancient Chinese, and refers to gunner in contemporary Chinese, depending on what shooting weapons people use today. I think the answer given by the translation software is for this reason.

[AIEND]

18 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

 missile infantry

The direct translation of missile infantry into Chinese is "导弹步兵", that is, infantry using MANPADs.