Overhaul of the Citizen system

[Emacz]

31 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.

You shouldn't be allowed to both boom and grow in military strength at the same time by training one type of unit. You either train an economic unit, or you train a military unit.

I want you to picture yourself 2000 years ago, you are chopping wood in the forest, and an enmey soldiers comes up to you.  What do you do?

A keep chopping wood

B run and cry for help

C piss your pants

D fight back

E ALL of the above

[Seleucids]

31 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.

You shouldn't be allowed to both boom and grow in military strength at the same time by training one type of unit. You either train an economic unit, or you train a military unit.

No. This is exactly what makes 0ad different and we would like to keep it that way. Many of your ideas are trivial to achieve with mods which you can make yourself in 10 minutes. 

[Deicide4u]

A wise man once said:

Quote

You will kiss the feet of the 30 people who regularly play on the lobby and you will like it. It's their game. You should know that by now.

He was right.

17 minutes ago, Seleucids said:

Many of your ideas are trivial to achieve with mods which you can make yourself in 10 minutes. 

Fine. I might try this one day.

[TheCJ]

54 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

You shouldn't be allowed to both boom and grow in military strength at the same time by training one type of unit. You either train an economic unit, or you train a military unit.

Why?

If this is not just an opinion you wanted to share with us, but an argument, you have to convince others that this is true.

 

I mean, the current system makes sense logically; every man that can work as a lumberjack or miner can also be called to fight in war. Those conscripts would not be the best fighters, but they would be plentiful. Professional fighters on the other hand cost lots of money, but are a lot stronger. Those would be mercenaries and nobility/bodyguards/temple guards. Ingame, the second category is represented by champs.

 

Ok, that was my cent about the logic part... but how about gameplay? In his original post, @Deicide4u mentioned that the cs concept was

On 28/03/2025 at 6:18 PM, Deicide4u said:

a major turn off for many people who came from Age of Empires and similar games

which I interpreted as the first argument, even though it is (merely?) an argument of personal opinion. I am not sure how many people that come from AoE have this opinion (I myself dont), but if you like the way AoE did it, why not stay in AoE? (And I dont mean to tell you to leave, we all love to have more people here, but sometimes certain games just arent made for certain people).

It was continued on with

On 28/03/2025 at 6:18 PM, Deicide4u said:

separates the responsibilities between your fighting units and economic units

which is presented as a desirable goal without argumentation, while simultaneously already being the case; champs and mercs are fighting units, cs are just poor citizens you told to get a sword and fight in your war.

As a third point, we have the feeling that 0ad starts too quick;

On 28/03/2025 at 6:18 PM, Deicide4u said:

Why keep this feature and needlessly complicate the player's decision making in the early game? The player should gain options as he/she advances through the phases, builds up their town, researches upgrades. Not immediately at the start.

and this point, I actually agree with, but its just a design choice/preference issue. Many players love the fact that a 1v1 round of 0ad only takes between 5 and 20 minutes. (while a 1v1 in AoE can easily take up to an hour)

 

 

Lastly, I want to ask a question; Why is it a problem if "booming equals turtling"? This is only really an issue if you accept the notion that there needs to be 3 types of strategies (booming, rushing and turtling), which have to be differentiateable and counter each other. But why would 0ad have to follow this notion? What exactly is the problem with the gameplay right now? (in your eyes)

I already commented a bit on the way I see it, but I will reiterate; 

On 14/05/2025 at 1:38 PM, TheCJ said:

0ad an aggressive play will result in your army being outnumbered by someone that went for eco, since you have to walk to his base and his reinforcements spawn right there.

which is true, but doesnt mean you lose the fight, if you catch your opponent by surprise or use stronger units (mercs, naked fanatics, cavalry), or just have better upgrades since you went p2 sooner.

On 14/05/2025 at 1:38 PM, TheCJ said:

Its just that in 0ad the economic benefit outshines any strategic advantage from any of the other occupations, thus reducing the valid uses of a soldier

here I unfortunately chose the word "soldier" to refer to a citizen (cause they are citizens foremost and soldiers secundarily). But I still dont see this as a problem; as @Deicide4u pointed out, you dont want to give the player a unit thats too versatile right from the start.

[TheCJ]

9 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

A wise man once said:

Quote

You will kiss the feet of the 30 people who regularly play on the lobby and you will like it. It's their game. You should know that by now.

And what do you want from those "30 people", other than that they should kiss the feet of you and the other 10 people that complain about the core gameplay? 

Hehe. But no, please keep giving feedback on everything you see that could be improved (but stay civil in the discussion. This game has as much of a mp fanbase as a sp one).

[Seleucids]

The content of Public must be balanced, fair and stable for multiplayer games, both 1v1 and team games situations. The MP lobby is the biggest stakeholder of balancing, as they are the most sensible to and dependent on fair balancing. Any small perturbation can ruin an alpha's gameplay. 

On the other hand, single players can just rig the game settings to whatever they like . If they want some change, just make a mod. 

It's impossible to distribute a mod to everyone in the lobby. Even community mod and historical mod are still not popularised despite the advertising efforts. It's safe to say that most players will be stuck to whatever the alpha has by default.

[Deicide4u]

20 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

every man that can work as a lumberjack or miner can also be called to fight in war. Those conscripts would not be the best fighters, but they would be plentiful. Professional fighters on the other hand cost lots of money, but are a lot stronger. Those would be mercenaries and nobility/bodyguards/temple guards. Ingame, the second category is represented by champs.

While logically sound, this is not really reflected in the gameplay and the current meta. Most of the time, you're just spamming mass CS until you or your enemy wins. Also, let's not forget about the CS cavalry.

23 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

but if you like the way AoE did it, why not stay in AoE?

AoE is not open-source. It is also rather bland with every civilization feeling the same. I'm talking mostly about AoE2 here. AoE3 and 4 are not my cup of tea.

25 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

champs and mercs are fighting units, cs are just poor citizens you told to get a sword and fight in your war.

They are not treated as such. Often, they are your only army, even in the late game.

27 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

Why is it a problem if "booming equals turtling"? This is only really an issue if you accept the notion that there needs to be 3 types of strategies (booming, rushing and turtling), which have to be differentiateable and counter each other. But why would 0ad have to follow this notion? What exactly is the problem with the gameplay right now? (in your eyes)

I'm forced to train soldiers, even though I don't need to. Soldiers cost both wood and food, but I need wood for stuff at the start. When the AI suicides his army, he suicides his eco, as well. Etc.

27 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

please keep giving feedback on everything you see that could be improved (but stay civil in the discussion

Will do.

[Genava55]

22 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

AoE is not open-source. It is also rather bland with every civilization feeling the same. I'm talking mostly about AoE2 here. AoE3 and 4 are not my cup of tea.

Age of Empires has always had many excellent mods. The only constraint is that the definitive edition now receives numerous updates, which discourages modders.

[Genava55]

On 29/03/2025 at 12:08 AM, Grautvornix said:

In DelendaEst there is the additional concept of slaves (with a limited lifetime due to the hard life they are forced to endure). Could that be the additional working unit you are looking for?

Implementing a feature based on slavery could make a lot of differences. Firstly, it would be much more realistic and historical. Secondly, it would bring more differences between civilisations because they didn't practice slavery in the same way. Thirdly, slaves could be much more efficient at harvesting resources. The citizen soldier would therefore be more versatile and more defensive.

[Emacz]

17 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Implementing a feature based on slavery could make a lot of differences. Firstly, it would be much more realistic and historical. Secondly, it would bring more differences between civilisations because they didn't practice slavery in the same way. Thirdly, slaves could be much more efficient at harvesting resources. The citizen soldier would therefore be more versatile and more defensive.

we are working on that in historical too.  Maybe share on server how some of the civs practice it differently?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Meh I think it can be done pretty nicely with good impacts on how the game is played. So it’s certainly worth trying out. When I get an SSD and time, I’ll set up something in a com mod version.

I'm sure it will have balancing consequences.

[TheCJ]

2 hours ago, Deicide4u said:

I'm forced to train soldiers, even though I don't need to. Soldiers cost both wood and food, but I need wood for stuff at the start.

I am not sure you are? It is possible to make nothing but women and champs. If you work out a good build order for that, it might even be quite strong, since you only really need 40 champs to win against a full cs army (130 units).

2 hours ago, Deicide4u said:

They are not treated as such. Often, they are your only army, even in the late game.

There is not much more the game can do to make them feel that way, though. I mean, if you choose to use them as your only army, you can (and many do, I agree with you on that), but its not a very good idea, since they are a lot weaker than champs. I mean, I can choose to only make villagers in AoE and use them as my army, the game doesnt "prohibit" that, but i will lose. likely, if your enemy makes champs and you dont, you will lose.

[Deicide4u]

On 30/05/2025 at 9:39 PM, TheCJ said:

I am not sure you are? It is possible to make nothing but women and champs. If you work out a good build order for that, it might even be quite strong, since you only really need 40 champs to win against a full cs army (130 units).

It might be possible, but it is not really optimal.

I'm not sure which champions or CS are we talking about? If it's Persian and Seleucid spear cavalry, yeah. 40 Spartiates will also decimate pretty much anything. Anything else will hardly beat a full, balanced CS army.

On 30/05/2025 at 9:38 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I’ll set up something in a com mod version.

I'm sure it will have balancing consequences.

Please, hold that thought.

While watching the Age of Empires 2 DE casts, I've noticed an absurd situation of people having 100 or more Villagers and almost no army. Like literally 5 Scouts and a few Pikes or Archers. The games were either decided in the Feudal age Scout Cavalry rush or they turned into a turtle boomfest that we here all know and love. Which often ends in the trebuchet or bombard cannon wars. 

So, for all intents and purposes, we should do our own thing. At least it leaves a bloody mess once two huge armies collide.

Also, let's not introduce some new thing that will need to be balanced for years. We have experience with rushed changes, already. 

[TheCJ]

5 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Anything else will hardly beat a full, balanced CS army.

Well, since I posted this, I have tried it in a teamgame, and together with my pocket (who had a normal cs army), my 50 roman sword champs decimated two opposing cs armies while fighting under 2 forts and a cc.

I am also not sure why you think spartiates would be so much stronger than roman or iberian swordsman, why persian or selecid champ cav would be so much stronger than gaulish or roman champ cav and why you disregard the champ pikeman, which are still the most "tanky" unit?

Probably every champ wins against 3 citizen soldiers of his type at once (although I have yet to test this).

[Deicide4u]

8 hours ago, TheCJ said:

50 roman sword champs

I commend you on getting all that metal with female only economy. But, it should be easier in a team game if you get a lot of traders. Plus, your ally can send you his excess metal.

Anyway, CS have an inherent advantages - low cost and fast training time. 60 Roman Hastati cost you only 600 metal, which is pennies for such a fighting force (that can be buffed by Centurions and later turned into Legionaries).

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

There is a level difference here that causes some disagreements in what the “meta” is and what is possible to do in 0ad. For example trading is far from the best way to get champions in team games, currently only feasible on select maps and optimal on just the wolf map I think. Of course trading is great on huge timescales or when metal mines are gone, but it’s rare for higher level games to even reach that state.
 

Adding a male economic in no way forces the game to be like aoe2. I’d also like to mention that while many units are shared between civs in aoe2 the civ context and uniqueness always apply to those units so saying that every civ feels the same is a very surface level observation. If the gameplay design is thoughtful, a male eco unit can have its own role and different use cases in different situations, rather than acting simply as a villager from aoe2.

[Atrik]

13 hours ago, Deicide4u said:

I commend you on getting all that metal with female only economy. But, it should be easier in a team game if you get a lot of traders. Plus, your ally can send you his excess metal.

There is a player who does this from min 15 onward (systematically), and it's not even me @TrashyOtherperson.

Edited Tuesday at 21:36 by Atrik

[Classic-Burger]

3 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

.
 

Adding a male economic in no way forces the game to be like aoe2. I’d also like to mention that while many units are shared between civs in aoe2 the civ context and uniqueness always apply to those units so saying that every civ feels the same is a very surface level observation. If the gameplay design is thoughtful, a male eco unit can have its own role and different use cases in different situations, rather than acting simply as a villager from aoe2.

I think that adding the male economic unit will be interesting and being able to upgraded him to basic infantry or merchant class.

 

The economic male could be a CS via upgrade or a merchant You could have another role to play in civic matters.

 

What roles did men play in ancient times apart from soldier and peasant?

[Deicide4u]

7 hours ago, Classic-Burger said:

What roles did men play in ancient times apart from soldier and peasant?

Mason, lumberjack, merchant, a blacksmith (profession, not a building).

Fishermen in the coastal areas. Probably a lot of other things. Women did mostly knitting, some farming and some other stuff that would be inappropriate to talk about.

Edited 19 hours ago by Deicide4u