Combat system

[buggy123]

speaking of which, I'm learning C++ and some 3d modeling atm. It's actually pretty fun/funny

[Silver]

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...

Totally agree with that.

I don't have a problem with the idea. The problem is I didn't like how it was implemented.

Games became a little too focused on shipments because of their power and how you get the levels for a shipment. Another problem I had was leveling up the HC. Third problem was the power of some cards.

With the help of some friends, we literally found a way to end the game in a few minutes exploiting the British house creating a villager and HC shipments.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Silver

[darthturtle]

Personally, I think home cities could be implemented better than in AoE 3, although if there's going to be home cities in 0 A.D. then I think they shouldn't be called that, It should be something else since I think you won't be sending "shipments" to a "colony" for some civilizations.

Just a minor detail, but sometimes it's the little things that ruins immersion.

[Greendogo]

Perhaps you guys could make a mod that adds home cities.

[buggy123]

Totally agree with that.

I don't have a problem with the idea. The problem is I didn't like how it was implemented.

Games became a little too focused on shipments because of their power and how you get the levels for a shipment. Another problem I had was leveling up the HC. Third problem was the power of some cards.

With the help of some friends, we literally found a way to end the game in a few minutes exploiting the British house creating a villager and HC shipments.

Ok...shipments weren' that powerful. Plus, everyone gets them. Also, I wonder if you ever played online, if so, what rank? Because that's what basically everyone does with British. You can't win all the time by doing something that everyone else can do. Plus, the British are pretty average in early game...so chances are you were playing against people who are worst than you, or computers, or in some weird mode like starting in colonial age or something

Edited August 1, 2009 by buggy123

[Silver]

Ok...shipments weren' that powerful. Plus, everyone gets them. Also, I wonder if you ever played online, if so, what rank? Because that's what basically everyone does with British. You can't win all the time by doing something that everyone else can do. Plus, the British are pretty average in early game...so chances are you were playing against people who are worst than you, or computers, or in some weird mode like starting in colonial age or something

I played online right after the release of the original AoE III, I stopped playing in early March of '06.

Early on in the game some civilizations get shipments of up to 13 troops. That is powerful. I don't care about 1 villager shipments or 500 food shipments.

The British have a rush strategy that is very effective. It involves a small army with cannon shipments. If used correctly you can out rush any Russian player.

You're right, maybe I was playing against people worse than me because I never lost a game. I lost interest pretty quickly though - along with all of my friends.

Single player is no fun and I never play anything but supremacy or random map or whatever the name is these days - start in the first age with a handful of villagers and 200 or so food.

Edit - this post comes off as arrogant but I'm not. I try to be brutally honest. I didn't come up with a strategy, I borrowed from players I knew and friends in real life. We played in computer labs on the original AoE and were big fans of the game. We'd play each other all the time and it was great. This was not an all me thing, I was one of many. And we try not to use the same strategy over and over but in some cases (Original Age of Empires) one civilization is just way too strong (In the case of the original it was Assyrian.).

At the end of the day some like it and some don't. I'm not a fan of HC. It could have worked but in my opinion the above is why I think it has failed. Most internet reviewers thought it was positive but a minority was against it. I just happen to be in that minority.

I'm just voicing an opinion. I did it on the Age of Empires forums and left instead of complaining over and over. Unfortunately soon after leaving Age of Empires III. Microsoft and MSN The Zone stopped supporting multiplayer for the two earlier Age of Empires games and their expansions. To be fair to them - there weren't many people still playing those games (on The Zone at least.).

Edited August 1, 2009 by Silver

[buggy123]

Early on in the game some civilizations get shipments of up to 13 troops. That is powerful. I don't care about 1 villager shipments or 500 food shipments.

There's only 1 civilization that have that (13 strelets), and that's Russian. You have to realize, stretlets are weak...really weak. If you pit 13 french villagers (or even 13 regular villagers on melee) against 13 stretlets, the stretlets would lose. Oh and you know the 3 hussar shipment most civs get? that's enough to counter 13 stretlets. lol

Anyways the reason for the sheer number is because Russian civ designed so you can mass big army of weak units, that's why they are good for rushing. But they are crippled if the rush fails, so it's pretty balanced.

by the way, there is no 1 villager shipment. There's no 500 food shipment either (unless you count the age up option, or your playing as a native civilization.)

The British have a rush strategy that is very effective. It involves a small army with cannon shipments. If used correctly you can out rush any Russian player.

That's not possible...to get the cannon shipment, you have to be in fortress. Even if you make NO military units whatsoever, ship in 700 gold, the best Fast Fortress time is still over 7 minutes. Unlike other civilizations, British lacks the fast age up politician. Plus by the time the cannons arrive it would be near...7:30-ish if you do it very, very fast.

An average (Sergent-Master Sergeant) Russian player with a standard rush will have a army at your base around 6:45. Actually they'll probably start raiding you with Cossack shipment around 5:30-5:45 depending on the size of the map. So I really doubt that it can out rush a Russian player...in fact, every civilization can rush faster than that...

You're right, maybe I was playing against people worse than me because I never lost a game. I lost interest pretty quickly though - along with all of my friends.

I really think you were noob bashing...I mean seriously...never losing a game? In AOE3 if someone had a winning percentage above 70% it's usually because they were noob bashing, or they just started and won 3 out of 4 games of something like that.

It's no wonder that you lost interest, I would too if I won every single time without effort. I respect your opinion, but I think the experiences you opinions are based on are off...our at least outdated.

Edited August 2, 2009 by buggy123

[Silver]

I really think you were noob bashing...I mean seriously...never losing a game? In AOE3 if someone had a winning percentage above 70% it's usually because they were noob bashing, or they just started and won 3 out of 4 games of something like that.

It's no wonder that you lost interest, I would too if I won every single time without effort. I respect your opinion, but I think the experiences you opinions are based on are off...our at least outdated.

I only played 16 games, right at the release. So yes, most players were 'noobs' myself included.

I lost interested because the game sucked. (In my opinion and in the opinion of my friends.) Edit - I had some really good fights and no, we didn't have cookie cutter strategies that get the maximum potential of all units in the shortest time possible. We made them up as we went along. Russian was my favorite Civilization because of numbers. A friend played British and used that cannon rush that was very effective at the time.

As for the rest of your post. I was speaking in general terms when it comes to shipments. I don't remember them but a villager shipment or a food shipment is not as big a deal as 13 strelets, or 3-5 raiding cavalry or whatever the offensive shipments are.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Silver

[buggy123]

hmmm trust me, I always, ALWAYS ship the 3(first shipment I) and 4/5(II) and (7/8 if the game goes into III) villager shipment . Actually 3 villagers is like the standard first shipment. AOE3 is very economically oriented, which is why french/british is very popular. Most player also keep the 700 coin card in their deck so they can transition to III quickly if needed

Actually when I play as Russian in a rush, I send in the 300 wood, cossack, 700 wood, followed by 700 food, I don't even bother with stretlet shipment, they're just too weak

Anyway, you should check out the online community again, it has evolved a lot. Your strategies that once upon a time won you battles are now most likely very obsolete compared to the new playing styles. And, the numerous patches fixed most of the balancing issues

p.s. I'm not a noob. I'm a above average player (1st LT-Captain range in TAD) Not bragging, just trying to back up my points

Edited August 3, 2009 by buggy123

[darthturtle]

I have no idea how this thread became an AoE 3 discussion thread.... can we go back on topic?

[Sophokles]

I like Rome: Total War because there is both a campaign and a battle mode, very distinct from each other. I usually avoid RTS's because it feels like the only point of building a city is for making troops. In RTW, the cities are much more realistic (happiness, food, plague, etc.)

[Mythos_Ruler]

I am surprised there aren't more Total War clones out there.

[Sophokles]

Well, RTW was an enormous project. It would be impossible for an open source team to do in their spare time.

[plumo]

RTW is a combo of TBS and RTS ( turn based and real time)

I prefer the good old RTS formula of dune, warcraft and age of empires.

[Sev11]

I prefer RTT like in Rome Total War.

Most because of the morale-system. If there are some good trained hoplites with thick armor fighting against some peasants with hayforks, the peasants have to run away.

The only unit fighting to death should be a spartan warrior

I'm sure, that the developer-team will find a good belance between RTS and RTT (hint ;-))

By the way - do fighting units have different animations?

Worst in RTS games is that attacking units only have one "beat my enemy" animation, no defending, no secondary weapons (i.E. greek fighters who throw the Spear to fight with the sword if the phalanx is broken)...

So far...

[buggy123]

I believe games like AOE3 uses attachment points on the models. So when a unit enters melee mode, a melee weapon would be attached onto the unit model.

depending on the type of weapon attached to the model they would have different sets of animation.

I hope something similar is in place with 0 ad

[Mythos_Ruler]

Yeah, 0 A.D. uses attachment points and prop-switching to match different animations. All controlled through the Actor Editor.

[Sophokles]

So no 300 action? Leonidas doing crazy spins and impossibly perfect slashes?

[buggy123]

wait, can we mod animation files?

[Mythos_Ruler]

You can mix and match animations specific to unit types (so, cavalry animations for cavalry, bipedal animations for anyone on 2 feet). You can also create your own animations if you wish. WFG will release the necessary assets (models, skeletons) for this purpose when the game is released.

[Sophokles]

I'm afraid I don't get it. Different animations for different weapons? Naturally, one does not hold a gladius like a hasta.

[buggy123]

so say a spearmen unit is armed with a spear. When he is armed with the spear, the jabbing and thrusting animation is played when he attacks.

However, if say the spearmen is engaged in close quarter combat where he is armed with a shortsword, a hacking/slashing animation is played when he attacks.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I don't know how many ways I can explain this... how about, "Yes."

[buggy123]

so I'm right....right?