Ideas for Territories

[MrBlack103]

I just have a few ideas for how territories will work in 0 A.D., along with some population mechanics.

Okay, here goes:

Each territory has a "level". These levels are something along the lines of "capital", "rural community" etc. Depending on each territory's level, the amount of buildings buildable and the type of buildings varies. For example, a capital territory can have 20 houses built on it, and can have a wide variety of buildings, whilst a rural community might only have 5 houses and only basic buildings. Naturally, there would be fewer capital territories on the map and each player would start the game with one. Also, the variety of units createable might vary as well. Another feature might be that the graphics of a building could vary. For example, in the rural communities there might be cheaply constructed thatched buildings and dirt paths, whereas the capitals will be a lot more grander with stone roads and statues etc. You might have worked out that since the amount of houses would vary your population limit would vary according to what and/or how many territories you own. This would keep the amount of units on the map in check and make the player feel like they are not being limited, I think.

Hope you like my ideas. They would probably make the game a whole lot more realistic and add new flavour to the gameplay, Ireckon.

Please post your opinions or suggestions for this system.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I like your ideas. They are similar to my own. We've had a lot of discussion about territories and what exactly they'll mean to the player. I think they will take a lot of play testing.

[MrBlack103]

Thanks, personally I love the idea of certain territories being disputed more.

[Justinian]

This is awesome for me.

I like to pick the fastest route between A and B. Even if C (not targeted) is troop production.

[Villi]

Great ideas. Another thing I think would ne interresting (I didn't quite catch if you suggested this or not) is if the pop limit was restricted to that territory. So all units take a piece of the pop limit in their "home" territory. This way you the biger territories ear your starting base will support larger parts of your armier, and limmit the "farward base spamming" some games boil down to. On the downside, multiple pop limits might be annoying. How many territories will the average 0ad map consist of?

[Mythos_Ruler]

Territories per player will vary depending upon the specific random map and the settings of the game host. However, I'd say a "normal" number of territories would be 3 per player. So, a 1v1 game would have 6 total territories on the map. We'd like the game host to be able to tweak this to his/her liking.

[Apomonomenos]

This idea would be great for farming, but houses, I don't know.

Plus, it doesn't matter how it shows who controls what, because it'll be obvious by the buildings and soldiers at the area, because if It's like getting a building there first, It'll be like EEII multilpayer, get all the territories first.

[Belisarivs]

I don't like idea of preset limit of buildings in certain areas.

I would do it this way.

Number and level/quality of available buildings wouldn't depend on some preset limit, but on level of central city of territory.

And central city in different territory would level up in different speed. That speed would be dependent on different things. It could be preset for each territory, or calculate upon availability of water, climate (cities in Tundra or desert would level up slowly) and so.

One of the factor could be also frequency of raids. If city lies in fertile lands, has river or sea nearby and so, but is constantly raided, it will level up slowly or even level down. If protected well, it will rise quickly.

This would be IMHO perfect as it would allow skilled player to max city even in territory with harsh conditions and it would motivate players to perform raids in order to weaken enemy and defend against them.

What do you thing?

I think, that it shouldn't be hard to implement this.

[Apomonomenos]

I like it, and I DON'T like limits, especially on Pop & buildings (EX houses AoM )

[Silver]

I like Pop limits but not building limits. I wouldn't mind the territory addition that much.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Silver

[Apomonomenos]

Pop limits= Unit Limits= 1), a very large & poorly defended town, or 2) a very small town. 1)= Major ownage, and 2)=little battles, both=little excitement/fun.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Alexthegod5

[Silver]

Pop limits= Unit Limits= 1), a very large & poorly defended town, or 2) a very small town. 1)= Major ownage, and 2)=little battles, both=little excitement/fun.

My view is - Population limit means more strategy, requires more mobility in armies, requires you to micro and spread out villagers so you can't just have them all gathering in one place protect by an army.

To me it just means I have to play a much smarter game, if I have an army of 500 the only thing I have to do is get them to stand and fight another army, nothing else is required, in a small skirmish, I have to micro them and make sure my village isn't being raided at the same time.

[Belisarivs]

Pop limits= Unit Limits= 1), a very large & poorly defended town, or 2) a very small town. 1)= Major ownage, and 2)=little battles, both=little excitement/fun.

Right youare. But imagine, having 1000 units in single battle on each side would need strong CPU and almost none would be able to play it.

In total War games, you don't see all units from same distance, therefore LOD (Level of Detail - units far away can be represented by simple sprites instead of use of fully detailed models) can be used to save resources.

In 0AD you'll see all units from same distance and therefore in full details. That is why pop limit was implemented. Because LOD cannot.

Developers of 0AD are't ugly people eager to annoy players. They just wan't owners of older PCs to be able to play 0AD, too.

I'm pretty sure, that there will be setting slider to set pop limit 100-1000 with 200 as default.

Or input field to fill in number you desire with 200 set as default.

[Apomonomenos]

Right youare. But imagine, having 1000 units in single battle on each side would need strong CPU and almost none would be able to play it.

If that were to happen in a Random Map game, then that would have to be a LONG game.

Because for 200 pop limit, you would have to chose which side you are going to balance mostly on, 1/2 villagers, 1/2 soldiers, etc.

And I don't like to think......

about balancing.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Alexthegod5

[MythicRuler]

I think that a pop limit is absolutely necessary. I would hate to be in game where the player could just spam as many units as they wanted, countering would become useless.

[Villi]

Have you considered having some kind of upkeep system instead of a population limit where your income of resources effectively limits your ability to field an army?

[Apomonomenos]

Have you considered having some kind of upkeep system instead of a population limit where your income of resources effectively limits your ability to field an army?

Of course, since my strategy is Economical Boom, I would have a ton of resources to make units.

I think that a pop limit is absolutely necessary. I would hate to be in game where the player could just spam as many units as they wanted, countering would become useless.

That's not true. Alexander the Great had more then 3,000 troops against many more, and he used counter attacks all the time, since the Persians were (mostly) poorly-equipped soldiers, they were trained to be counter-infantry, but Alexander had Cavalry, and used this to counter their troops.

In shorter words, just have a normal battle you usually have and multiply it but 10 or 2 etc.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Alexthegod5

[Silver]

In shorter words, just have a normal battle you usually have and multiply it but 10 or 2 etc.

For the average player yes, as soon as people hit that next level or an elite/expert level, it's not just a multiple of 10 or 2.

If you have ever been at that level or watched players who are, it's not just about countering troops and building lots of them. In battle, troops are microed, you don't really realize it that much in most games, AoE III it really shows, great example of micro.

This is an example of where a higher level of skill is required to win a game. Anyone can scout and counter enemy troops, anyone can line up and make formations, it just doesn't take skill when you have an army of 200-400 units, it's next to impossible to micro and it will just erase a major part of the gap between elite level players and average/good players.

[Apomonomenos]

Yes, but no one ever uses the "army" tab in AoM, you click that and it automatically selects those units you tasked to that group, no microing.

[Silver]

Yes, but no one ever uses the "army" tab in AoM, you click that and it automatically selects those units you tasked to that group, no microing.

It's more then just grouping.

[Apomonomenos]

It's more then just grouping.

Then honestly, I have no Idea what microing is.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Alexthegod5

[AuroN2]

isn't microing controlling single units effectively? thats how i do it o.O

[oshron]

i think that, like in empire earth, there should be options for how high you want the total population cap set, that meaning the GLOBAL cap for every player. for example, if you set it to, say, 500 and there were 5 players, every player would be able to get 100 units in total (assuming every unit took only 1 pop; having siege, ships, and cavalry would result in having less than 100 units). the population should be set in increments of 50 up to a certain point, then increments of 100, and then 200 or 500, with the absolute limit being two or three thousand in the entire game. it could also be that certain pop limits would only be applicable with a certain amount of players (so, for a standard 1v1 game, the limit could be just 500, while for an 8-12 player game would allow a capacity upwards of 2000. it could also be that the game could be set to redistribute the population of defeated players.

i would also recommend these "levels" of territory: Colony, Developing, Satellite, and Capital. Colony would be the very earliest stages of a territory where only a few houses and economic buildings, not even allowing for their own military, while Developing is the one that first allows a "native" military to that territory. Satellite would be the highest level that newly conquered territories could achieve. Capital, as suggested, would be the starting territory and EVERYTHING would be allowed here. Capital territories that are captured become Satellite territories. you should be able to upgrade territories from colonies to developments to satellites first by building certain buildings (a farmstead, a barracks, etc) and then paying to upgrade it to the next level

ill also bring up that i think is a good idea: when you capture a territory (by capturing the local civic center or razing it and building your own), you should automatically acquire all the non-military and non-defensive buildings in that territory; what choice do the regular citizens have than to submit to you? (lol, the anthem of a fictional imperialist state came up on my ipod just now ) however, the soldiers in teh area can still resist, so you dont automatically acquire any barracks in the area, so they can still be producing soldiers to act as a resistance, while you cant capture the towers so they have to be razed. walls should automatically be captured as well; they may be defensive, but theyre YOURS now, you control the inside

ill also say that, at least for the scenario editor, you should be able to modify the borders of territories into any shape so that you could imitate a real state, province, or territory instead of always getting generic polygons (those are all fine and good for random maps, but who wants those when youre trying to recreate a realistic rome or greece?)

[dementor]

you should be able to trade and build roads between teritories and there are unique resources (such as ivory) which give random bonuses andcan only be harvested in some teritories

the roads would make units walk faster between them

the trading would transfer the unique resources to other teritories

[oshron]

oh, yeah, roads would be a GREAT idea. thats one of the features that i loved in EE2; i just loved making roadways through my towns to improve efficiency

and unique resources? thatd be a great idea. ive always thought some trade commodities would be cool as details if nothing else (like the aforementioned ivory) and that some resources would make excellent "replacements" for other resources, like maybe an obsidian resource that provides metal for scenarios set in lands without many metals (like if there was a mayan faction, something like that, where they didnt have iron or bronze or whatever)