Realistic Damage?

[MrBlack103]

I've been playing Age of Kings for a long time now and I'm really annoyed how if buildings get damaged they always go up in flames. So how about, in 0 A.D. certain buildings can only be damaged by certain things. For example, stone structures simply cannot be damage by swords/spears/arrows etc., but can be damaged by siege weapons? Wooden buildings could be damaged by melee weapons, but fire is more effective? If you incorporate fire into the game, could it be continuous damage unless it is extinguished? Fire could also spread to nearby buildings if it is left burning for a long time, too.

This may sound like a bit of babble, but I've wanted to see something like this in an RTS game for ages.

[Tilanus Commodor]

Well, AoK just shortened the term of destruction. It's not the 1:1 reality, but still a realistic symbol, I didn't really have a problem with it. ^^

But yeah, realistic 1:1 damage would of course be something I'd support. Raiding with style

[MrBlack103]

Here's another idea I had:

How about if a stone building is destroyed, it is not just wiped off the face of the Earth, but it remains as ruins, though it becomes unusable until it is repaired. This would make for really cool battles in trying to reclaim ruined cities and stuff (Osgiliath!).

[plumo]

I like your idea, MrBlack. If you could rebuild a ruined house for example, the cost would be lower than to erect a totally new building.

My new idea: When you destroy a barracks f.e. = your workers / enemy workers can use the ruined building as a mine for some resources. f.e = 50 stone can be regained, than the ruin disappears.

[Belisarivs]

Actually, construction of new building often costs less than repairing of ruin.

I also dislike swordsmen or archers being able to cut through walls.

Bunch of archers could destroy Gate in AoK pretty quickly.

However, we can understand it as if they climbed it and opened it, but for simplification they just destroy it by arrows or melee weapons.

[MrBlack103]

Okay, I think climbing a gate's more ridiculous than making the metal in it go on fire!

[Cassador_Chris]

I agree with you guys. I support ruins, maybe not for building/resource purposes but definately for 'style'. Of course, I also support dead bodies staying around for a while, just so I can watch them pile up in pitched battles.

A realistic idea would be just siege (and perhaps, perhaps melee, as long as they err...throw touches...like in AOE III. Come to think of it, throwing torches is really really dangerous! Why don't they just go up to the building and light it?

And, lol, I take down castles with longbowmen in AOE II. As far as realism goes, they'ed have a better chance at destroying a castle if they all just went up and started beating their heads against it.

[MrBlack103]

Just on the subject of buildings, will all of them be garrisonable to a certain extent in the game? Having units hide in houses and jump out for an ambush-style assault would be pretty cool.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Yes, that will definitely be possible.

[MrBlack103]

Great to hear it!

[Cassador_Chris]

Very cool.

[MrBlack103]

If there ends up being ruins in the game, you should make them still garrisonable, but with slightly less capacity. This would make for really cool battles.

[Apomonomenos]

Or if there are ruins, you can build new buildings over it or repair it for less (if the players a different faction, just rebuild the player's version of the building as it) then rebuilding it completly.

[Belisarivs]

Sorry guys. I cannot agree with you.

Garrisonable ruins are bad idea. Think about it. What would prevent players from putting in several archers and thus making it undestroyable fortress which is impossible to bypass without taking casualties?

I'd let it be as it is in AoK. Just decorative pieces of pillars and so. You could use its position to your advantage, but nothing more.

[MrBlack103]

Garrisonable ruins are bad idea. Think about it. What would prevent players from putting in several archers and thus making it undestroyable fortress which is impossible to bypass without taking casualties?

good point.

[plumo]

The defense bonus doesn't have to be gigantic for units garrisoned in ruins.

But I prefer the idea that when you destroy an enemy building, you can't make it vanish when you demolish it. There has to be some sort of ruin, and for example your workers can get 20 stone and some wood out of an enemy house, or more when it is a barracks, .... Pillaging anyone ?

[Apomonomenos]

Maybe you can capture enemy buildings like in EE2

[MrBlack103]

Yeah, maybe all buildings could be captured if they are at >x HP and have no ememy units garrisoned inside.

[Apomonomenos]

Well maybe just capture by a tool thing on the soldiers because no one wants to repair a building they want to capture :/

[MrBlack103]

perhaps a unit has an option of whether to attempt to capture a building or try to damage it.

[Belisarivs]

Capturing of building isn't bad dea.

However, have you ever played Cossacks?

I find it pretty annoying when I'm engaged in fighting and bunch of mercenary cossacks captures half of my city.

Since then, I'm allways leaving garrisons in my city, but in Cossacks there isn't pop cap and so leaving few squads in your base doeasn't hurt. But in 0AD whare is pop limit ~200, leaving sufficient number of defenders in base is significant hit to numbers of men you are able to bring to the battlefield.

I'd leave it as it is in AoK. Monks being able to convert buildings after some tech is researhed.

Not that it would be accurate or so, but at least monk is weak unit, easily to be killed and you must clearly dominate the area around converted building to protect him.

[formlesstree4]

hmm....just curious, what if the population is not limited to 200, as most RTS games are.....I mean, if 0AD is opensource, that variable could be changed...right?

Edited May 16, 2008 by formlesstree4

[Justinian]

Please make it so.

If it's only 200 I'll run out of room in seconds! (with cheats)

Edited May 17, 2008 by Scipii_Alemanus

[Belisarivs]

hmm....just curious, what if the population is not limited to 200, as most RTS games are.....I mean, if 0AD is opensource, that variable could be changed...right?

I don't want to argue, but 0AD isn't opensource AFAIK. Also, there was mentioned, that limit will be ~200.

Technically, it can't go much higher as it would be unplayable on slower GPUs.

[Justinian]

I mean editable.

Like the Total war Years per turn, fatigue or supply.