Combat system

[Apomonomenos]

A censor system, eh...

@#$%, @#$%, darn, @#$%, @#$%, @#$%, @#$%, @#$%, and @#$%.

So it replaces most with just "@#$%"...

@#$% uncensored but "darn" censored?

Edited March 29, 2009 by Apomonomenos

[saxguy]

because @#$% isnt an insult its part of our anatomy

[IS_NormanDuck]

d a m n is not an insult but the conditions of bad souls after dying

Ok jokes apart, i am strongly a favor of a pure classical old-dear RTS please no strange things like homelands (aoeIII), incredible heros (raf) and such

Edited April 2, 2009 by IS_NormanDuck

[Biz]

strange things are fun, but the developer has to have balls to implement it correctly

aoe3 devs lacked that

[sneaky_squirrel]

Considering you guys are in the process of making units, I think it would be best if you figured out a counter system already ;p.

I personally would love to see something like AoE3 but with classifications to siege and artillery like light and heavy, heavy could be to siege and light to take care of infantry while being semi cheap and not too difficult to mass, make catapults own everything at range and ^&%$ at close combat XD, maybe even make cavalry archers good vs something else besides hand cavalry, maybe against hand infantry.

If you do have a counter system then I can't wait to see it XD. (Hopes it to be semi complex to take advantage of).

[Mythos_Ruler]

We already have the counter-system designed. It is not a straight rock-paper-scissors system. What happens is each unit gets a primary counter and a secondary counter. They get a 2x attack boost vs. their primary counter and a 1.5x attack boost vs. their secondary counter. It's an overlapping system that way, where each unit counters 2 other units, but is itself countered by two units.

[sneaky_squirrel]

Sounds super special awesome.

[MrEmjeR]

We already have the counter-system designed. It is not a straight rock-paper-scissors system. What happens is each unit gets a primary counter and a secondary counter. They get a 2x attack boost vs. their primary counter and a 1.5x attack boost vs. their secondary counter. It's an overlapping system that way, where each unit counters 2 other units, but is itself countered by two units.

can you make this more clear??

i don't get what effect it has ingame... does it mean that one unit can fight 2 at the time??

[feneur]

Nope, it means it is good against two units, and that two units are good against it.

[buggy123]

so kinda like AOE3?

Skirmishers > Heavy Infantry and Ranged Cavalry

Skirmishers < Heavy Cavalry and Artillery

[Mythos_Ruler]

Yeah, like that. A primary and secondary counter for each unit.

[buggy123]

Ok jokes apart, i am strongly a favor of a pure classical old-dear RTS banana.gif please no strange things like homelands (aoeIII), incredible heros (raf) and such

Homecity was amazing. It added a whole new dimension to the game. It provided so much more strategy, so much more options for the players. It was revolutionary.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Home Cities could be good for 0 A.D., but for right now they are too much work.

[Silver]

Homecity was amazing. It added a whole new dimension to the game. It provided so much more strategy, so much more options for the players. It was revolutionary.

And it rewarded those who could play more often.

Is there going to be treaty?

[Greendogo]

Home cities were very awkward imo. It was good for a single player game, but when it came to multiplayer games, it didn't impress me much.

About the countering system - since AOEIII had rifles as one of the primary weapon types, I hope that, since 0 A.D. is between 500 BC and 500 AD, that it is kept closer to the counter system in AOEI and AOEII. Skirmishers in AoEII (they carried spears, not guns) were good against all forms of cavalry, which made sense. Spears + Horses/Camels/Elephants = dead animals.

Silver, I also agree with your play-style. I enjoy playing a game where to win you must saturate the map quickly and attempt to "capture" the most resources and use them against your opponents, while simultaneously choking them of supplies. It is equally fun to know what units must be used against the enemy in order to take advantage of unit counters. To me, it is much more entertaining to practice smart city planning and balance the economy with combat, than it is to play a game based solely on combat.

<off-topic rant>

So far the developers seem to be making a pretty good game and if I had any serious complaints it would be the limited resources per game and the use of provinces/territories. These types of game-play mechanics can be fun, but in my humble opinion, they will be less fun than their opposites. I hope the developers either scrap the idea of using provinces/territories and engineer some way for organic resources (animals/trees) to respawn/grow, or make these types of gameplay mechanics optional. To me, it sounds like provinces/territories will limit your ability to collect resources from someplace unless you 'own' it. This sounds an awful lot like the pre-placed 'settlements' from AoM (which were terribly limiting). It is a way to make a RTS game, sure, but it isn't the best way, it isn't organic. It's predictable and spiritually depleting. There is no life in an RTS when the land is cut up into chunks, it just feels like a step backwards to me.

</off-topic rant>

I'm going to go stare at the screenshot section and make myself feel better.

[Belisarivs]

About the countering system - since AOEIII had rifles as one of the primary weapon types, I hope that, since 0 A.D. is between 500 BC and 500 AD, that it is kept closer to the counter system in AOEI and AOEII. Skirmishers in AoEII (they carried spears, not guns) were good against all forms of cavalry, which made sense. Spears + Horses/Camels/Elephants = dead animals.

Just detail, but actually, that were muskets. Rifles weren't that widespread that time.

Skirmishers carried javelin in AoK. But you have point. That is something that will definitely be applied IMHO.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Skirmishers in AOK were good vs. archers, but other than that were nothing but cheap cannon fodder, which is okay. Skirms + Halbs were a pretty good combo when gold was running low.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Mythos_Ruler

[buggy123]

What do people have against homecities? They were unique and really well implemented imo...

[MrChocolateBear]

What do people have against homecities? They were unique and really well implemented imo...

Personally, I don't like them. I like improving them, but I didn't like their involvement in gameplay. For me, it made the game seem more like a "who has the most/best cards" and "who can build the most settlements(?) for experience" game, rather than a traditional RTS. But that is just me...

[Mythos_Ruler]

I think HCs would have worked better if there was some way to intercept HC shipments. That's what I envisioned when they first announced HCs and shipments for AOE3. All kinds of strategy popped into my head. The trade routes got my imagination fired up too, but imagine my disappointment when I finally got to play the game. I think HCs could work, but I think AOE3's implementation of them pretty much sucked.

[Greendogo]

Ah, sorry, I got the words "Spearman" and "Skirmisher" confused... I was thinking of the Spearman from AoE II. AoE III was where the Skirmishers came in, and then there was also the Halberdier in both games.

[buggy123]

In every game, spear men counters cavalry...always, as they should. Actually Pikes and spears were probably better than most melee weapons because of their length...most troops would be dead before they get in range to attack with their swords. In late medieval the standard army was comprised of muskets and pikes. They only became obsolete when bayonets came into play. Pike's were UP in AOE3 imo and they weren't long enough...

Also, the HC was not "Who has the best card." rather, it's choosing the cards that complemented your strategy, your playing style, or choosing cards that can make up your nations weakness. There isn't any "best card" or "best cards" you could choose.

While it's true that u get better cards as you home city advances, it wasn't that much improvement. 1 more unit? 100 more resources? In the end, it still came down to skill and making the right decisions at the right time.

I'm not saying the HC system was perfect, because it wasn't. It had it's flaws, but the idea was good.

[Greendogo]

Then how about this as a compromise:

We get a HC, however you only have to worry about upgrading them during campaign (single player or multiplayer campaign). During standard games (such as a death match) against computers and/or other people, the HC is either disabled or fully maxed out with all options for things such as troop reinforcements available for the civ you choose for that game.

This way any perceived disadvantage from not playing enough is eliminated. A multiplayer campaign could still have home cities because your cities would all be starting out at the same "level". As the campaign progresses you get to carry over HC advances from scenario to scenario.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Greendogo

[Mythos_Ruler]

Okay, only if you code it and do the artwork. Deal?

[Greendogo]

Who are you referring to Mythos_Ruler? I'm assuming buggy123, since he's the only one in favor of HCs. I thought you might have been confused that I wanted them in, because I offered an idea on how to implement them that wouldn't bug me and then you posted right after....

Edited July 28, 2009 by Greendogo