Wat tatic will you use

[Mythos_Ruler]

We are kicking around the idea of moving the Testudo to a later content patch or to 0 A.D. Part 2 for use with proper Marian Legionnaires.

[Cassador_Chris]

Good idea. The Pre-Marian Romans didn't really use the testudo.

[julius1]

ooo ok thanks

[Dagothig]

I've always adjusted my tactics to the game I'm playing

(In AoK, it was nearly impossible to defeat the AI without siege engines (I'm talking about hard compus BTW) wich meant it was hard to do a super fast rush, because siege engines only come at the 3rd age while in starcraft, any unit was fitting to kill a building, so you could just rush the AI in 4 mins with your first available unit and get the game over in 6-7 minutes (Using dark templars rushes and lurker rushes, me and one of my friends defeated 4 compus (all allied) once (not as easy as in AoE =P))

Knowing what I always do, I guess I'd first try to settle this : siege engines useful or not? 'cause it can make a difference (killing the enemy's economy does work tough) if artillery IS important, i'll use a boomer technique (in AoE III because of the shipments I didn't need to actually buy any unit =D), otherwise, I'll go for fast rushes (very fast, less fun though) or simply turtling (for the fun of making big cities =D wich is awesomely fun in AoE 1 and 2, but not that much in AoE 3 or starcraft or warcraft 3 (actually I suck at Warcraft 3))

However.... since I never battle against players (my friends don't like playing agaisnt each other... =|, maybe because we can't get to kill each other, we're too equal in our way of playing) I don't know how I'll fare over the internet.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Siege Engines will be required to destroy a building. Infantry have the ability to capture buildings, but it leaves them vulnerable to attack.

[Dagothig]

Good to know, so i guess another way to defeat players will be to simply get some units to capture while other defend them? can't wait to try it out =)

[Mythos_Ruler]

Well, capturing will be difficult, because you'll have to rid the area of enemy units first and it will take a lot of soldiers to capture a building in a timely fashion (time better spent fighting?). I think it will be the alternative to use when you don't have enough siege.

[Dagothig]

ooooooh, interesting, so if you find a random building you'll be like : ooooh let's capture it! otherwise you wont try it up i guess... still going to be funny =)

[Mythos_Ruler]

Well, I think you'll always want to either capture or destroy an enemy building in order to rob your enemy of that building's function.

[Cassador_Chris]

Hmmm... I'm starting to see a strategy with the Celts, or any other cheap-infantry heavy civ.

I introduce....

Aftershock! The two-wave infantry rush!

First, you queue 4 villagers....

okay, it's a little early for that kinda talk, but I suppose the idea is rush your opponent with infantry, targeting villagers and enemy troops to hamper the economy. It'll be important that this group doesn't die. Then, with your next batch, unless it is direly needed for reinforcement, is set to capturing your enemy's most important buildings. And so on and so forth...

Edited September 18, 2008 by Cassador_Chris

[HistGamer]

Well, I am pretty much a big boomer sorta player, like to fortified myself, ge tthose gold, food, and wood in top notch---and lots of archers defending walls=)... I would oftenly raid my opponents and will conterattack when their economy is down

[AuroN2]

Raiding ftw, raiding will be especially good with th persians, alot of cheap infantry, fast, so you can just mob people gathering and run away, and i can imagine veterans and elite units (light ones who survived many raids) would definately do well as raiding, as it would be tough to kill the @#$%s. Turtling and raiding will be better than eco booming it seems in 0ad, as raiders/boomers who are good will have loads of veteran/eliteu nits and so they will win more battles with their stronger units, ouch.

[julius1]

pssshhh I'm not to worried about the Persians and their weak infantry units.

[dementor]

im gonna make a huge wall put tons of archers in it put towers and everywherea nd build a huge economy then realize that there are NO WONDERS! and lose cause idk what to do

[Mythos_Ruler]

You could max pop then send out ur grand armee.

[AuroN2]

And rather quickly too no doubt, ultimate rushing tactic.

[oshron]

build up a defensive force and start gathering resources, get right to work building walls and towers so that i can build up further in relative safety until i feel confident enough to stage my own attacks

[Arthur_D]

Will probably go defensive often, as my habit is, but try to variate a bit as well in order to make Alpha teh Beagle wonder what's next. ;P

[Alpha of the Eagles]

Will probably go defensive often, as my habit is, but try to variate a bit as well in order to make Alpha the Eagle wonder what's next. ;P

Fixed it for ya.

And I'll use whatever it takes to break Arthur.

[AuroN2]

Osh where will the resources for the defence force come from? not gathering sets you back quite a bit, 'specialy vs pros ;o

[oshron]

Osh where will the resources for the defence force come from? not gathering sets you back quite a bit, 'specialy vs pros ;o

devote a fair amount of soldiers to gathering resources while i have one or two wall off the area. i usually play against the computer in any case

[julius1]

Ok...I know that this is an old topic but I've been doing some thinking and i was just wondering how rushing would be an effective, or even useful tactic in this game since your gatherers are also your military. So its not like your raiding gatherers its more like little skirmishes because those gatherers can defend themselves and can easily be replaced. And since there aren't any "Ages", it kind of defeats the purpose of a rush? LML am i right or am i right??

[Alpha of the Eagles]

I think that the greatest factor weighing against rushing is the fact that you have to devote your own workers to the rush, not that the opponents workers are armed.

Like, if you play Greeks, I imagine their Hoplites will be among the best equipped non-professional units, but also the most costly. So thus a Hoplite rush would be similar to the zealot rush in StarCraft: a small force of well-armored units. Now, if you'd rather do some micro, you could recruit peltasts and keep his Hoplites/Swordsmen away. It'll be hard to remember tho, that the Roman Hastati is a peltast unit in this game (if I recall correctly).

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

to julius1 You are right about there being no ages in 0 A.D. Instead, you have "phases". The phases are a lot like ages except that they show advancement in your civilization instead of the civilization aging away. They go as follows: Village phase, Town phase, City phases, and then I think that it is Empire phase, but I may be mistaken.

to Alpha of the Eagles you made a pretty good point, but the Roman Hastati are actually swordsmen. Only once they reach the elite rank do they have the capability to hurl spears.

[julius1]

Ok so will these "phases" cost the player any resources? Because the whole point of rushing is to either cripple their economy in a significant way, or simply destroy them. Attempting to destroy them early wont work and will hurt both of you because he has a fast defense already in place "citizen soldiers" and unless the phases cost resources u can do little to pick at his economy without having to attack soldiers because a gathering party could turn into an army at any given time.