Spartans

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

15 minutes ago, Emacz said:

So i did mess around with it, and there are parts i LIKE! but it does seem a bit more complicated... I dont like how soldiers can't gather, only women and slaves... seems to be "slower" of a game.

That's a fair assessment. I personally enjoy 30-45 minutes matches vs. 20-30 mins matches. It comes from the good old days 20+ years ago when I was in an Age of Kings clan and we'd host massive hour-long multiplayer team deathmatches. I think splitting the economics away from the soldiers allows you to compartmentalize better and allows the mod to give soldiers more interesting combat-oriented abilities, etc. 

[Emacz]

27 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

That's a fair assessment. I personally enjoy 30-45 minutes matches vs. 20-30 mins matches. It comes from the good old days 20+ years ago when I was in an Age of Kings clan and we'd host massive hour-long multiplayer team deathmatches. I think splitting the economics away from the soldiers allows you to compartmentalize better and allows the mod to give soldiers more interesting combat-oriented abilities, etc. 

yeah i like 15-25 minute games  Otherwise i start to lose focus!

[Dizaka]

I like games where first (or major) attacks happen in minutes 5-11.  Otherwise it feels like everyone is polishing their swords for the whole game … boring to me.

[ShadowOfHassen]

I, and others who I've shown  0 A.D. to have the problem with the current AI attacking before we're ready. While I might be a bad player the people who I show it to play hard in other RTS and win consistently. But when they played 0 A.D. they said that the AI was set on hard when they were playing easy.

[Gurken Khan]

Nah, it's not so bad. I usually play against four average AIs (and with one ally); of course I don't welcome uninvited visitors, but from ~minute seven you kinda have to expect them. That's why I try to rush to p2 around minute six, start building defensive structures when I reach it and try to have a basic army at an intercepting position. (CS working front wood, wood-women and farming to the back...)

[alre]

5 hours ago, Gurken Khan said:

Nah, it's not so bad. I usually play against four average AIs (and with one ally); of course I don't welcome uninvited visitors, but from ~minute seven you kinda have to expect them. That's why I try to rush to p2 around minute six, start building defensive structures when I reach it and try to have a basic army at an intercepting position. (CS working front wood, wood-women and farming to the back...)

actually, p2 is a waste of resources if you are going to fight soon, just train more cs.

[Gurken Khan]

33 minutes ago, alre said:

actually, p2 is a waste of resources if you are going to fight soon, just train more cs.

But I don't know if I'm going to fight soon.

I'm securing my enlarged territory and sometimes someone(s) turn up, sometimes they don't. (Unlike in previous versions where every enemy would take their turn on me.)

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 18/08/2023 at 3:54 PM, Vantha said:

Or pikemen?

The Spartan pikemen in DE become available if you choose Cleomenes for your hero

Edited August 19, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I like all of this differentiation (example: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5112 ), but I wish a standard had been set first. For example: 

 

1. 1 general civ bonus (like faster training, stronger buildings, etc. the faster buildings for the Celtic civs comes to mind, or the free walls for the Iberians)
2. 1 team bonus
3. 1 new Forge tech
4. 1 new Civic Center tech
5. 1 new Fortress tech
6. 1 new Barracks or Stable tech
7. 1 new economic tech (at either the market, storehouse, or farmstead; the Harvester tech for the Gauls is a current example here)
8. 1 new tech anywhere (so, a naval tech at the Dock for the Athenians, etc.)
9. 1 new building (a Vineyard or Stoa for the Athenians, a Helot Training Ground for Spartans, etc.); this can be substituted by beefing up one of their current buildings in some way (maybe the Iberian Fortress can upgrade to a Citadel; the Han CC is a good example of this)
10. Remove 1-2 standard techs from each civ (so maybe Athens gets 1 less farming tech, Persians don't get the barracks health tech, etc.)
11. 1 potential "game changer" bonus: The Marian Reforms for the Romans comes to mind. Not every civ should need this, but maybe 3 or 4 of them should have something on this level, not just the Romans. Maybe the Macedonians can choose between Argead or Antogonid dynasties. Maybe the Han can choose Western or Eastern Han. Just spitballing here.

Edited August 31, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Emacz]

20 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I like all of this differentiation (example: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D5112 ), but I wish a standard had been set first. For example: 

 

1. 1 general civ bonus (like faster training, stronger buildings, etc. the faster buildings for the Celtic civs comes to mind, or the free walls for the Iberians)
2. 1 team bonus
3. 1 new Forge tech
4. 1 new Civic Center tech
5. 1 new Fortress tech
6. 1 new Barracks or Stable tech
7. 1 new economic tech (at either the market, storehouse, or farmstead; the Harvester tech for the Gauls is a current example here)
8. 1 new tech anywhere (so, a naval tech at the Dock for the Athenians, etc.)
9. 1 new building (a Vineyard or Stoa for the Athenians, a Helot Training Ground for Spartans, etc.); this can be substituted by beefing up one of their current buildings in some way (maybe the Iberian Fortress can upgrade to a Citadel; the Han CC is a good example of this)
10. Remove 1-2 standard techs from each civ (so maybe Athens gets 1 less farming tech, Persians don't get the barracks health tech, etc.)
11. 1 potential "game changer" bonus: The Marian Reforms for the Romans comes to mind. Not every civ should need this, but maybe 3 or 4 of them should have something on this level, not just the Romans. Maybe the Macedonians can choose between Argead or Antogonid dynasties. Maybe the Han can choose Western or Eastern Han. Just spitballing here.

I like this, it might be better off as its own thread, since not just dealing with spartans   It would be nice to have just a little more variation between civs WITHOUT one civ being so OP that everyone only plays that.  

[real_tabasco_sauce]

46 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

1 potential "game changer" bonus: The Marian Reforms for the Romans comes to mind. Not every civ should need this, but maybe 3 or 4 of them should have something on this level, not just the Romans. Maybe the Macedonians can choose between Argead or Antogonid dynasties. Maybe the Han can choose Western or Eastern Han. Just spitballing here.

I made a 'han diplomacy' tech for the xiongnu that follows this approach.

On the standard, I pretty much agree for the most part, but I feel like even if we set one, we would probably start to stray from it since the civs have different unit availability and playstyles. For example it kind of makes sense to give the spartans 3 unique technologies since they have such a simple unit roster.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

12 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I made a 'han diplomacy' tech for the xiongnu that follows this approach.

On the standard, I pretty much agree for the most part, but I feel like even if we set one, we would probably start to stray from it since the civs have different unit availability and playstyles. For example it kind of makes sense to give the spartans 3 unique technologies since they have such a simple unit roster.

Well, the sample standard allows for up to 6 unique techs.

 

EDIT: Special starting units and special starting structures can be a thing too. For instance, in DE, Athens gets a free starting Stoa, which has the "Greek Architecture" aura that gives greater health to their structures. in DE, other Greek civs can build Stoas to access this aura too, but only Athens gets a free one at the outset. To bolster their "Defensive" mantra, Iberians can get a free Venerated Monument. Persians, a free Ice House. Free starting structures could even be a toggle option in match setup (on by default, but can be turned off by host).

Edited September 1, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

To be honest, I don’t see how a strict set of standards for civ differentiation helps us. I think we need allow civ design to be creative, and then balance accordingly. If we design civs to have 1 unique tech equal in power to another civ’s, then it limits the creativity that can be applied to those techs. 

[Emacz]

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

To be honest, I don’t see how a strict set of standards for civ differentiation helps us. I think we need allow civ design to be creative, and then balance accordingly. If we design civs to have 1 unique tech equal in power to another civ’s, then it limits the creativity that can be applied to those techs. 

good point.  Its definitely difficult to do

[Philip the Swaggerless]

On 14/08/2023 at 4:27 AM, Vantha said:

upgrade also gives +25% training time, they are at most equally strong as the Macedonian silver shields.

The Hoplite tradition tech of sparta decreases training time for all Hoplites, including champions, by 20% I believe.  So there ends up not being much difference in train time.  They are still the best spear infantry champion.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 01/09/2023 at 2:30 PM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

To be honest, I don’t see how a strict set of standards for civ differentiation helps us. I think we need allow civ design to be creative, and then balance accordingly. If we design civs to have 1 unique tech equal in power to another civ’s, then it limits the creativity that can be applied to those techs. 

Yet you have no trouble enforcing the territory concept onto the Nomads?  

[Emacz]

7 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

The Hoplite tradition tech of sparta decreases training time for all Hoplites, including champions, by 20% I believe.  So there ends up not being much difference in train time.  They are still the best spear infantry champion.

I didnt realize it still does that! Ok so that helps you train them faster and they have more health... they still seem underutilized compared to their historic importance.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Emacz

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

11 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Yet you have no trouble enforcing the territory concept onto the Nomads?  

That falls under the "balance accordingly" category XD

[LienRag]

On 14/08/2023 at 9:27 AM, Vantha said:

Spartiates should be (more) clearly the strongest melee unit in the game for historical accuracy.

If you mean "myth" you may be right, but if you want historical accuracy they should have the strongest melee formation, not unit.

 

[LienRag]

On 19/08/2023 at 5:01 AM, Dizaka said:

I like games where first (or major) attacks happen in minutes 5-11.  Otherwise it feels like everyone is polishing their swords for the whole game … boring to me.

The problem in 0ad is that these attacks have either no stakes or too high stakes (destroy the player, or at least the player's economy).

There is very little occasions to have a battle for a clear but secondary stake (like controlling a strategic point).

Also, when they're strong enough to be a threat but not to kill you, what make them unfun is that the resource they actually deplete is the player's attention/concentration, much more than the Civ's army or economy.

 

[Dizaka]

On 13/10/2023 at 6:14 AM, LienRag said:

The problem in 0ad is that these attacks have either no stakes or too high stakes (destroy the player, or at least the player's economy).

Sort of agreed here.  A bad "all in" (and even a rush) can have massive consequences in the end game.  It's actually hard to rush and eco boost at the same time (especially with wrong civ selection for the phase you attack in).  Many times it is easier to ignore a rush and counter near base as long as you don't go all women.

I've found the best way, when selecting civs, to address this is to pick civs that have advantages in the phase you want to attack in.

• Early p1/p2? 
  • Pick Maury because of worker elephants ability to access hunt for your cav.
  • Hans, if you get lucky with hunt RNG, can be deadly with sword cav.  If you are going vs Rome/Iber you likely won if you have a lot of hunt.
  • Know that Romans/Iberians have no counter to melee cav in P1 (no spearmen).  Rome/Mace/Hans can really wipe them out in p1 with mass cav.
  • Any civs (e.g., Mace/Seleucids) with pikemen (and only skrimishers - no access to archers/slingers) are vulnerable to skrimisher cav who can outmaneuver them
  • Any civs (e.g., Mace/Seleucids/Gauls/Romans/) without archers/slingers are vulnerable to Ptol Camels in P1
• Mid/Late p2? 
  • Civs with no archers/slingers/melee spear cav are vulnerable to Kush Camels.  Very vulnerable.
  • Pick Gauls as the sword cav have an innate damage bonus.  P2 sword cav can dominate nicely.
  • Pick Maury/Pers/Hans as you get extra pop so that means its an innate damage bonus with mass cav.
• Late p2/early p3?  
  • Pick Maury, p2 ele stables make it possible to trample through players if support is a good player immediately upon hitting p3
  • Pick Kush/Athens/Cartha/Maury if you want instant p3 champs like with maury p2 ele stables (Athens can build champ building in p2 and count towards p3.  Same with Kush and Carth temples.)
  • Pick Mace/Sele for Skrim/Pikeman combo
  • Pick Mace for amazing siege dmg (siege hero, will to fight, siege damage, omfg) 
  • Pick Ptol if you want to do quick phasing and get a siege tower up in 11 min (possible/doable, almost instantly kills a player)
• Late p3?
  • Pick Carth/Persia/Gauls/Maury/Han/Romans/Sele if you are in the long cav game.
  • Don't pick a ram civ.  Go with a ranged siege civ.  Rams in late game are hard.
  • Maury/Iberian sword bonus in late phase is amazing.  Iberian champ sword are great.
  • Kush R3 instant priests are great too.  Only valuable priest is a R3 priest.  Anything else sucks.

  

On 13/10/2023 at 6:14 AM, LienRag said:

There is very little occasions to have a battle for a clear but secondary stake (like controlling a strategic point).

Agreed.  Interestingly, I've seen few players take advantage of the environment.  Very FEW players, for example, will build on the side of mountains using mountains to create choke points and funnel enemy armies.  Some players do it.  Some good players fall for it.  Some good players actually wont' fall for it and walk around it.

 

On 13/10/2023 at 6:14 AM, LienRag said:

Also, when they're strong enough to be a threat but not to kill you, what make them unfun is that the resource they actually deplete is the player's attention/concentration, much more than the Civ's army or economy.

This is a big one that bothers me.  Which is why I hate the *micro* in the game (alt+attack for ranged units).  It is tiring and shouldn't exist IMO.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Dizaka

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, Dizaka said:

This is a big one that bothers me.  Which is why I hate the *micro* in the game (alt+attack for ranged units).  It is tiring and shouldn't exist IMO.

Well, it should exist, it just shouldn't be the only worthwhile micro. Instead, it should be a tool in one's skillset that depends on the conditions of a given fight. Balance is the way to fix this.

[alre]

9 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Well, it should exist

what? why?

[Dizaka]

14 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Well, it should exist, it just shouldn't be the only worthwhile micro. Instead, it should be a tool in one's skillset that depends on the conditions of a given fight. Balance is the way to fix this.

To an extent.  However, having too much of a micro creates a huge barrier of entry for new players to be competitive.   Do we want to discourage or encourage new players?  I think if something can be automated for an unfair advantage it should be considered for a feature included in the game - especially if it can be "silent" and not take away from the experience.  Clicking like a madman, imho, takes away from the experience.