Should 0 A.D. Empires Besieged be a simple faction expansion or also add new features?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Should the "sequel" to Empires Ascendant just add more civs (extending the roster into the 500s AD) or add new features too?

[LetswaveaBook]

hmm. I only want more features.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

hmm. I only want more features.

Me too, specially combat features.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Both.

Single player new mechanics from 3th-5th century.((weaker defenses plus unit spam, etc)

Multiplayer classic 0 A.D balanced.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Both.

Single player new mechanics from 3th-5th century.((weaker defenses plus unit spam, etc)

Multiplayer classic 0 A.D balanced.

For example in Attila total war defenses are weak and difficult to repair due to the impoverishment of the Roman Empire.

 

At the gameplay level there should be easier Rush, looting and lootin

 

Also the population should be weaker due to famine and displacemen

 

Cavalry should be more powerful than infantry

 

More siege and less wealth, that it takes a long time to generate resources should do to the lack of technical knowledge, the same goes for architecture.

 

There should even be monetary inflation.

 

The birth rate is declining.

 

Religious discontent increases.

 

In fact, religion does not increase as many believe, but social conflicts.

 

appear the Bagaudae.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagaudae

were groups of peasant insurgents in the later Roman Empire who arose during the Crisis of the Third Century, and persisted until the very end of the Western Empire, particularly in the less-Romanised areas of Gallia and Hispania, where they were "exposed to the depredations of the late Roman state, and the great landowners and clerics who were its servants".

[Lion.Kanzen]

18 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

For example in Attila total war defenses are weak and difficult to repair due to the impoverishment of the Roman Empire.

 

At the gameplay level there should be easier Rush, looting and lootin

 

Also the population should be weaker due to famine and displacemen

 

Cavalry should be more powerful than infantry

 

More siege and less wealth, that it takes a long time to generate resources should do to the lack of technical knowledge, the same goes for architecture.

 

There should even be monetary inflation.

 

The birth rate is declining.

 

Religious discontent increases.

 

In fact, religion does not increase as many believe, but social conflicts.

 

appear the Bagaudae.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagaudae

were groups of peasant insurgents in the later Roman Empire who arose during the Crisis of the Third Century, and persisted until the very end of the Western Empire, particularly in the less-Romanised areas of Gallia and Hispania, where they were "exposed to the depredations of the late Roman state, and the great landowners and clerics who were its servants".

In Astilla TW for example:

 

"this period plays a part for the people of Northern Europe to move to the more fertile south as the winter cold moves further down and engulfs Europe in longer winters as the game progresses. As an added new feature included in Attila,"

In 0 A.D. food production should be slower and looting more productive.

Also Attila TW.

"will provide a small amount of wealth to the treasury. However, it is advised to analyze which settlements players destroy; recolonizing it would cost a faction a hefty amount of gold, a separate cost from building expenses to reach its former state."

In 0 A D may be we can:

Nomadic factions will be able to burn their buildings and obtain wealth by destroying their third phase buildings.

and also capture the enemies, loot them and remodel them (barbarization).

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_War:_Attila

 

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Should the "sequel" to Empires Ascendant just add more civs (extending the roster into the 500s AD) or add new features too?

Civs and some additional units.

[chrstgtr]

Feels like a false choice. If the features are actually good then they should be in EA. To be honest, I don't see a need for a "sequel" when everything worthwhile can just be integrated into EA (yeah, I know the timeframe restriction exists for EA, but that is false construction that doesn't need to exist). 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

23 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Feels like a false choice. If the features are actually good then they should be in EA. To be honest, I don't see a need for a "sequel" when everything worthwhile can just be integrated into EA (yeah, I know the timeframe restriction exists for EA, but that is false construction that doesn't need to exist). 

The question supposes that there will be a 1.0 release of Empires Ascendant. Any new things after that would potentially included in a Part 2 or sequel. The plan was always to have a Part 1 and a Part 2. That's not to say I agree with the plan (frankly, I'd just expand Empires Ascendant to 500s AD and include all of antiquity in 1 game, then "Part 2" could be the next 500-1000 years). Just, if the plan is to be carried out, then would you want new features too or just new civs.

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 24/04/2023 at 4:43 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The question supposes that there will be a 1.0 release of Empires Ascendant. Any new things after that would potentially included in a Part 2 or sequel. The plan was always to have a Part 1 and a Part 2. That's not to say I agree with the plan (frankly, I'd just expand Empires Ascendant to 500s AD and include all of antiquity in 1 game, then "Part 2" could be the next 500-1000 years). Just, if the plan is to be carried out, then would you want new features too or just new civs.

Why not include Babylon and Assyria and cover the period after the Bronze Age collapse.

 

After the fall of Solomon's kingdom in Israel.

 

That's when Assyria, Egypt, Kush and Babylon have a good time tearing each other apart. Not to mention that it could cover the Etruscan s in Italy.

 

A thousand years seems exaggerated to me, I would put 800BC-800AD.

[Genava55]

To give a context:

On 13/02/2023 at 9:16 AM, Stan` said:

The idea was to have Empires Ascendant and Empires Besieged both covering 500 years of history. Then you get Millenium AD covering the 500 years after that.

It would be nice to start the empires Besieged mod, with Parthia, Germanic Tribes, Tang Dynasty, Imperial Romans etc and make it available through mod.io.

[Sodalite]

On 24/04/2023 at 8:21 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Should the "sequel" to Empires Ascendant just add more civs (extending the roster into the 500s AD) or add new features too?

You can simply add an era selection option to the game menu, according to which the available nations change, as was done in the Empires: Dawn of the Modern World strategy.

https://www.gog.com/en/game/empires_dawn_of_the_modern_world

It will also be fun to optionally "shuffle" epochs. If the engine does not change, then there is no point in dividing the game. It will be much easier to introduce the option of "epochs" or "eras", that can be extended "down" and "up" on the chronological scale.

Spoiler

Edited April 27, 2023 by Sodalite

[Lion.Kanzen]

33 minutes ago, Sodalite said:

It will also be fun to optionally "shuffle" epochs. If the engine does not change, then there is no point in dividing the game. It will be much easier to introduce the option of "epochs" or "eras", that can be extended "down" and "up" on the chronological scale

that's redoing the game again.

0 ad is focused in phases. In the development of a city or a province than in the evolution of an empire.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Sodalite said:

You can simply add an era selection option to the game menu, according to which the available nations change, as was done in the Empires: Dawn of the Modern World strategy.

https://www.gog.com/en/game/empires_dawn_of_the_modern_world

It will also be fun to optionally "shuffle" epochs. If the engine does not change, then there is no point in dividing the game. It will be much easier to introduce the option of "epochs" or "eras", that can be extended "down" and "up" on the chronological scale.

  Reveal hidden contents

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

 

[Sodalite Temporary]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

that's redoing the game again.

0 ad is focused in phases. In the development of a city or a province than in the evolution of an empire.

Just combine two games into one. Empires Ascendant and Empires Besieged will now be selectable "game modes", which should be renamed "500 B.C. to 1 A.D." and "1 A.D. to 500 A.D." And what's with the "phases"? The phases will change as before within their "modes". As for a complete overhaul of the game, then why did the developers split it into two parts at all, instead of putting all of antiquity into one? You had a great example of the first Age of Empires where all the ancient nations were together. Now you will have to make a second game, which will be almost indistinguishable from the first. In my opinion, this is a useless job, unless of course you make a game on Unreal Engine and with compatibility with proprietary stores.

It is possible to bring all of Late Antiquity into Empires Ascedant as upgrades and add an option to "lock" development until Late Antiquity, so Republican Rome would just have an "imperial phase" and all you need to do is add a couple of imperial units and change the design several buildings.

22 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

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

Write a new "vision". And the site needs to be updated since 2018.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Sodalite Temporary

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

10 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Why not include Babylon and Assyria and cover the period after the Bronze Age collapse.

 

After the fall of Solomon's kingdom in Israel.

 

That's when Assyria, Egypt, Kush and Babylon have a good time tearing each other apart. Not to mention that it could cover the Etruscan s in Italy.

 

A thousand years seems exaggerated to me, I would put 800BC-800AD.

No, the game is to cover classical antiquity. 800 AD is no way considered so. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

17 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

No, the game is to cover classical antiquity. 800 AD is no way considered so. 

600-800 AD is an ancient age even in other non-European chronologies.

 

The Mayas for example exceed the European classical age. The Japanese (Yamatai and Yamato) also.

 

I understand the intention.

[Freagarach]

12 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

0 ad is focused in phases. In the development of a city or a province than in the evolution of an empire.

Hmm, it may be interesting to allow CCs to be upgraded individually.