New Mechanic for A28.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I think player controlled and player executed strategies are what make AoE 2 so successful compared to other AoEs.

I don't want to be picking and choosing from a menu, rather I want to make the dishes myself!

[Lion.Kanzen]

29 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think it is wise to steer clear of these 'card deck' approaches, and instead add/modify technologies, units, civs, and civ bonuses for additional features.

As in Empire Earth I you select the civilization bonuses.

 

29 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

22 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I don't want to be picking and choosing from a menu, rather I want to make the dishes myself!

 

22 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

As in Empire Earth I you select the civilization bonuses.

 

I like the customization aspect of the AOE3 card shipment system, but I like the EE system even better. Select some available bonuses and techs in a meta screen and then those selections affect the civ in-game. Less of the "5 cannons popping out of the town center" thing but still allows for customizing.

[Lion.Kanzen]

50 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

 

I like the customization aspect of the AOE3 card shipment system, but I like the EE system even better. Select some available bonuses and techs in a meta screen and then those selections affect the civ in-game. Less of the "5 cannons popping out of the town center" thing but still allows for customizing.

That's what I was saying to @AIEND, it's easier to make a list of strengths of a single faction and let the player decide that before or during the beginning of the game.

[AIEND]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

說的話 這就是我對@AIEND ，列出單個派系的優勢並讓玩家在遊戲開始前或遊戲開始時做出決定會更容易。

This is obvious, players should not waste time making choices after entering the game, but should choose before entering the game. Generally speaking, we create different factions to allow players to choose different faction advantages to play the game. The differentiation between factions is originally for this purpose, and many old games are very typical in this respect. For example, in the first two works of the C&C: RA series, there are only two main camps, but 5~8 countries are separated. The differences between different countries in a camp are very small, just to reflect certain advantages.
We can learn from this design idea, because 0 AD has designed many similar civilizations, such as Britons, Gaul, and Iberia, all of which have Celtic elements, while Sparta, Athens, and later Syracuse belonged to the Greek communal state, and Seleucid, Ptolemy, and Macedonia all belonged to the kingdom of Alexander's successor.
These factions can all be regarded as a concrete manifestation of a certain aspect of a pan-civilization.

[Lion.Kanzen]

48 minutes ago, AIEND said:

the C&C: RA series, there are only two main camps, but 5~8 countries are separated. The differences between different countries in a camp are very small, just to reflect certain advantages.

Do you have a screenshot of that?

[AIEND]

7 分鐘前，Lion.Kanzen 說：

你有那個的截圖嗎？

I don't have a screenshot, but for example, RA1 has five countries, the unit in the UK is HP+10%, the unit in France is +10% in the rate of fire, the unit in Germany is +10% in damage, the unit in Russia is -10% in cost, and the unit in Ukraine is +10% in Movement Speed.
RA2 has a unique unit for each country.
In fact, in the C&C series, this is mainly divided into 2~3 factions, but each camp has 3~4 branch factions with their own characteristics, which is a very common design.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I was reading the vision of 0 A.D.

"Developers do not seem to be content to further the traditional RTS in the same vein as Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, Red Alert, and Warcraft II. Though some are fleeing, we are going to stake a claim in the RTS genre. There is still much innovation to be made. This for us means:

 

Less tedious/mindless micro-management

More strategic thinking

Greater stress on planning, formations, and tactics

Choices, Choices, and more Choices

Enhancing the multiplayer experience"

 

More choices so I want more technologies, more customization, more ways to counterbalance a handicap.

 

More units, let a choice determine whether or not you access a certain group of units.

 

A choice leads you to create unconventional warfare units.

 

Another option leads you to reform your army, in the case of the Egyptians to romanize it.

 

Yet another simply traps your enemy between your defenses and creates a blender with your soldiers and your enemies.

 

Obviously to create these strategies you had to choose some feature, some technology, some stratagem, just focus on a powerful infantry.

 

Or on the other hand risk a daring strategy and trick your enemy and go for his CC without him knowing it and destroy his economy.

[Lion.Kanzen]

https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Politician

I like this too. It's already in DE.

But I would like that instead of heroes they are politicians or political factions or political dynasties as well as a type of government.

For example Rome, choose a governor rank in the second phase, an equite as governor.

Or else you could choose a popular tribune.

 

It would be nice if each decision gives you extra units like in AoM.

Perhaps groups of mercenaries.

Other decisions give you cheap technologies.

And other decisions give you defense technologies.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I must say I personally don't like this idea of "customization." That is choosing a monument to age up with, choosing a governor or choosing one civ bonus of many. It feels like something I would expect in a single player game like skyrim or elden ring, where you progress down a tech tree using experience levels, or where you select a character at the start.

I would rather these (bonuses, customizations etc) already be part of the civ to begin with as they currently are, rather than playing "build speed" ptols vs "stronger slingers" ptols.

Something like the "governors" would also be conceptually in conflict with heroes.

Many RTS games do this, it even seems to be a trend in (relatively) recent titles. I like that 0ad does not have this and sticks to the more interesting core strategy (building, researching, training, and fighting).

In general, 1-click strategies should be avoided and I would say the effort would be more impactful if put towards new civs, rounding out existing civs, new units, and civ differentiation efforts.

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Something like the "governors" would also be conceptually in conflict with heroes.

A governor is simply a representative.

 

I don't see the problem, it's as if you were to say that a mayor conflicts with a president.

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Many RTS games do this, it even seems to be a trend in (relatively) recent titles. I like that 0ad does not have this and sticks to the more interesting core strategy (building, researching, training, and fighting

It is still very limited and repetitive. Always the same decisions. I think the tech tree should be extended.

 

I always imagine the tech tree as a long road to customization.

---path of exile upgrades---

The game is currently basically AoE II.

It is still not differentiated enough.

 

Plus it's not very asymmetrical yet.

 

There are very few decisions yet. It has less technologies than AoE II.

 

For example: how are Kushites better than Mauryans or Persians? In what area are they better?

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

In general, 1-click strategies should be avoided and I would say the effort would be more impactful if put towards new civs, rounding out existing civs, new units, and civ differentiation efforts.

1 click vs too many per second.

That is why I do not propose one way, but several.

I will quote again 0 A.D.'s vision.

 

"Fastest click wins - In many RTS games, it isn't the player with the most intelligence or the best strategy that wins, it's the player who A] knows the proper order of actions and B] carries them out the fastest. People that practice a general procedure that is usually rewarding and know keyboard shortcuts should be slightly advantaged, and they will still be required; but, the if the opponent recognises their 'cookie cutter' gameplay, they should easily be able to outwit them by identifying and countering the unoriginal/over-used tactics with an effective counteractive strategy."

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/0AD_The_Vision

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

4 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

For example: how are Kushites better than Mauryans or Persians? In what area are they better?

Better elephants, better mercenaries, interesting eco and military boost potential with pyramids.

Anything a civ is good at can be thought of as a bonus, it is up to the player whether, but also to what extent to use or take advantage of these bonuses. These are all complicated choices that evolve during gameplay. Clicking "The Governor" and then proceeding with the game affected by that choice is a one-click decision that carries little gameplay value.

I agree that there needs to be move strategic depth to the game, but I consider shifting bonuses into a decision tree to be dumbing down the gameplay. @real_tabasco_sauce's unit specific upgrades are an attempt to give the players more options for how much they want to dedicate to a unit composition, as well as options for improving specific areas of performance of units.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

6 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I don't see the problem, it's as if you were to say that a mayor conflicts with a president.

Well, my point was that it is a little strange to have the mayor be a physical unit, and the president a transient property. Not that big of a deal though, as the other concerns I raised are more important.

I agree that more technologies would be nice. As you may recall, I have a good selection of "unit specific" upgrades that would fit really well into the tech tree. They just have to be play tested first in the community mod.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Well, my point was that it is a little strange to have the mayor be a physical unit, and the president a transient property. Not that big of a deal though, as the other concerns I raised are more important.

I agree that more technologies would be nice. As you may recall, I have a good selection of "unit specific" upgrades that would fit really well into the tech tree. They just have to be play tested first in the community mod.

Ideally, technologies should serve the purpose of creating civilization strengths to an extreme point, we will have economic approaches, civic approaches that would be different boost to the stats of building units.

 

You would have to focus on a play style like turtle, booming or rushing or even hybridization of these tactics.

 

Also as you say specialize more the units you are going to play with and develop your tactics.

 

Those of the politicians that could well be forms of government perhaps determine the kind of mercenaries that will be added to the troops by default.

 

Roman's could have Cretan archers or Numidian cavalry depending on the decision to move from phase.

Delenda est has a pretty good proof of concept but not fully developed in my opinion.

 

The bonus selector came up as part of the discussion of bonuses for factions, i.e. when thinking of civilizations that could have more bonuses than the standard one.