Jump to content

What do you think 0 A.D. lacks?


Deicide4u
 Share

Recommended Posts

I struggled with trying to understand why this game felt weird when compared to other similar titles. For a while now I thought that this weirdness comes from the Citizen Soldier system, but it's not it.

The weird part is that your units don't progress. Yes, many of them have ranks and get cooler looks as they go up in rank. But, it's the same unit in the end. A Hastati is always just a Hastati (unless you upgrade him to a Centurion, a rare example of unit progression).

In "Age of" games, you get unit line upgrades. 

Militia upgrades to Man-at-Arms, which upgrades to Long Swordsman, etc.

Scout Cavalry upgrades to Light Cavalry, which upgrades to Hussars. You get the picture. 

There isn't that familiar upgrade icon below the unit. We do have unit classes, and this helps to differentiate civilizations. But, for me at least, the unit upgrade system is what the game (intentionally) lacks. 

Edited by Deicide4u
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

The weird part is that your units don't progress. Yes, many of them have ranks and get cooler looks as they go up in rank. But, it's the same unit in the end. A Hastati is always just a Hastati (unless you upgrade him to a Centurion, a rare example of unit progression).

It's normal, many RTS don't have progression. Sometimes people don't feel the technological improvements.

 

22 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

In "Age of" games, you get unit line upgrades. 

Age of Empires 2 isn't a good example. In AoE, there are eras, while in 0AD, there aren't any; you don't go from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age.

22 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Militia upgrades to Man-at-Arms, which upgrades to Long Swordsman, etc.

That's fine for ages, in 0AD there are no ages, the equipment of a centurion is not much improved compared to that of a princeps.

I recommend you see it more like Total War series logic.

26 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Scout Cavalry upgrades to Light Cavalry, which upgrades to Hussars. You get the picture. 

Again, this isn't about turning 0AD into Age of Empires, Delenda Est did a better job with scouts. 

Putting centurions instead of a princeps makes no sense.

It's like evolving from a corporal to a lieutenant. 

In Age of Empires, it goes from upgrading a 18th century militia to a 21st century marine.That's the logic of AoE. If you want real changes, it's better to differentiate the equipment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd honestly like to introduce the promotion upgrades as seen in DE. Probably double the base XP needed to promote, then introduce techs that promote them all to the next rank for a cost. That way you don't lose auto-leveling, but you can have the techs that introduce progression. Perhaps standardize it thusly:

 

All C-S classes get the Advanced Rank promotion tech, but each civ only gets the Elite Rank promotion tech for one C-S that's their signature C-S unit. Hoplites, for example, for Athens and Sparta, Archers for Persia, Swordsmen for Republican Rome, etc. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'd honestly like to introduce the promotion upgrades as seen in DE. Probably double the base XP needed to promote, then introduce techs that promote them all to the next rank for a cost. That way you don't lose auto-leveling, but you can have the techs that introduce progression. Perhaps standardize it thusly:

 

All C-S classes get the Advanced Rank promotion tech, but each civ only gets the Elite Rank promotion tech for one C-S that's their signature C-S unit. Hoplites, for example, for Athens and Sparta, Archers for Persia, Swordsmen for Republican Rome, etc. 

It would be good to vote. To community mod or a Gitea ticket.

Edited by Classic-Burger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

:

 

All C-S classes get the Advanced Rank promotion tech, but each civ only gets the Elite Rank promotion tech for one C-S that's their signature C-S unit. Hoplites, for example, for Athens and Sparta, Archers for Persia, Swordsmen for Republican Rome, etc. 

I like to always have trash soldier.(SC level).

In fact I would separate it into 3 versions.

Tier1 SC level.

Tier2 Semi champion

Tier 3 Champion.

Similar to total war.

Screenshot_20251004-000016.thumb.jpg.1291347053100d4e223136091198ca14.jpgScreenshot_20251004-000710.thumb.jpg.b6025b1c968e900e927a083fe3103dae.jpg

You can always use the lower ranges to fill.

It would be nice to unlock champions in general.

Edited by Classic-Burger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

I like to always have trash soldier.(SC level).

In fact I would separate it into 3 versions.

Tier1 SC level.

Tier2 Semi champion

Tier 3 Champion.

Similar to total war.

Screenshot_20251004-000016.thumb.jpg.1291347053100d4e223136091198ca14.jpgScreenshot_20251004-000710.thumb.jpg.b6025b1c968e900e927a083fe3103dae.jpg

You can always use the lower ranges to fill.

It would be nice to unlock champions in general.

This progress is noticeable in battles.

A militia cannot defeat the champion unit of Rome.

Same axeman and Legion.

Spam trash units vs the best units.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'd honestly like to introduce the promotion upgrades as seen in DE.

You mean, re-introduce? They were available briefly in Alpha 16, but every civilization had them for specific unit classes only. 

It's a good idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be other ways to win, such as a victory through trade influence. You initiate trade with a neutral faction (it doesn't need to be on the map), and the more resources you give them, the faster you achieve victory. There could also be a fifth resource, something like glory, where the player achieves victory if they reach a certain number. Glory could increase with a number of kills, territory size, etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also add in the sound quality. Music is beautiful, but the sound effects need to be more pronounced. Like, if my catapult hits a building with a large flaming rock, that should be felt. Currently, only thing we hear is a faint "thud".

It's the same with units, especially ranged units. Right now you can't even be sure if your archer fired a bow or not. Melee fights get that obnoxious "umpf, umpf, huff" sound. If you were only listening, you'd think they're doing something entirely different than fighting.

Still, some sounds are on point, like building selection sounds and the sound when your melee units attack buildings.

Edited by Deicide4u
Removed fluff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

I'd also add in the sound quality. Music is beautiful, but the sound effects need to be more pronounced. Like, if my catapult hits a building with a large flaming rock, that should be felt. Currently, only thing we hear is a faint "thud".

We barely have any volunteers in that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I would love to see a limited option for roman war elephants, sadly few if any games let them have them in any shape or form. I read up on it and they apparently were supplied from Numidian allies for most of the second century BC, until Rome fell out with them which pretty much ended things, and that they were used in most of the Roman campaigns during that time frame.

I don't suppose Delende Est has this option does it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Engine Optimization

Single-player Campaigns

  • Add one or more story-driven campaigns (with cutscenes or narration).

  • Create tools/scripts to make it easier for the community to build their own campaigns.

Enhanced Single-player Experience

  • AI that feels more “human,” capable of using varied strategies.

  • Mission objectives, scenario-based skirmishes, and solo challenges.

Proper Translations

  • Finalize and unify localizations (French, Spanish, German, etc.).

  • Fix historical or linguistic inconsistencies.

Improved Map Editor

  • Simpler and more intuitive interface.

  • Built-in scripting tools for advanced scenarios.

  • A curated library of community maps highlighted within the game.

New Ideas and Configurable Options

  • Alternative game modes (army fight, survival, last man standing, economic domination…).

  • Switchable options in the match settings (weather, limited resources, special rules).

  • More "fun settings" to add variety and replayability

don't copy AOE 2. 

Edited by Dakara
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, borg- said:

There should be other ways to win, such as a victory through trade influence. You initiate trade with a neutral faction (it doesn't need to be on the map), and the more resources you give them, the faster you achieve victory. There could also be a fifth resource, something like glory, where the player achieves victory if they reach a certain number. Glory could increase with a number of kills, territory size, etc.

Commercial victory or pacifist victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

Very few wars took place during the entire imperial era with Claudius and the late republic era.

The Imperial Era does not feature here, we talking about the time frame from the Second Punic War up to the first century BC. I believe there are enough wars in that time frame to make the justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fabius said:

The Imperial Era does not feature here, we talking about the time frame from the Second Punic War up to the first century BC. I believe there are enough wars in that time frame to make the justification.

You should show sources, it's not that I don't believe you, but it seems more like a mercenary unit to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may dream:

  • Walls that protect against projectiles if behind a wall, except for "artillery"
  • Abitlity to build a bridge (Settlers 5 had that) - this could preconfigured sites on the map where the path crossing a river or so is initially blocked (like a closed locked gate) but "somehow" indicating a bridge could be built here. Building a bridge basically means creating a building animation and when finished opening the path ("unlocking the gate") thus allowing crossing the bridge - similar to opening a gate in a wall or palisade. The mechanics must however be inverted: default closed for everyone. Only if the bridge exists the path is open - but for everyone. Interesting gameplay could be that you could destroy bridges as well thus closing the path again.
  • Ability to build roads that have a speed aura for everyone following them.
  • Adding water as a kind of resource - i.e. building a field in the desert does not make much sense unless you are close to an oasis (open water body) or build a well or fountain to get water from underground (romans of course build aquaeducts :)). Crop yield could be low if no water with a limited lifetime of the field, and high if water is provided by a nearby source. For existing maps, the well house is the only possible source of water. For new maps, an area around water bodies (oasis, rivers, lakes, ponds...) could be defined that allows farming. On desert maps this could force players to fight for water access. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

You should show sources, it's not that I don't believe you, but it seems more like a mercenary unit to me.

Sure, this is the best source I have been able to find so far, if anyone has a better source please post it.

Putting it as a mercenary unit could definitely be one way of doing things

https://warhistory.org/@msw/article/war-elephants-in-the-roman-army

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grautvornix said:
  • Abitlity to build a bridge (Settlers 5 had that) - this could preconfigured sites on the map where the path crossing a river or so is initially blocked (like a closed locked gate) but "somehow" indicating a bridge could be built here. Building a bridge basically means creating a building animation and when finished opening the path ("unlocking the gate") thus allowing crossing the bridge - similar to opening a gate in a wall or palisade. The mechanics must however be inverted: default closed for everyone. Only if the bridge exists the path is open - but for everyone. Interesting gameplay could be that you could destroy bridges as well thus closing the path again.
  • Ability to build roads that have a speed aura for everyone following them.

This would be pretty epic, I always wished we could build the bridges from the scenario editor is Age II. Roads would be an interesting feature, most useful I think for shifting forces around your territory I would think, though aggressively building a road into your opponents land would be terribly funny as well :) 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difficulity is of course the actual game mechanic: a building to walk on, not like a wall, not like a field. For sure not easy to implement, hence this might remain a dream.

Ah - one more I remember from Settlers 5 that was fun:

- tunnels/caves - you could discover and enter them, and then surface again on another place on the map (teleporting is a feature we have already iirc). Of course this works for both sides. To add more fun, the entry would be blocked by stone (a stone quarry). Once the stone is removed you have a secret passage to another part of the map. Watchout - it can also be used by your adversary if he discovers it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fabius said:

Honestly I would love to see a limited option for roman war elephants

We already have a lot of civs which have access to War Elephants. Romans have focus on infantry and siege. They are also currently the only civ with an additional unit roster. I think they are fully covered now, but I would like to see the return of Donkey-pulled Scorpio cart. 

33 minutes ago, Grautvornix said:

Ability to build roads that have a speed aura for everyone following them.

Romans have an abstract technology called "Roman roads", which provides a small speed boost. I'd say that the idea is fun, but this is not a City building simulation game.

36 minutes ago, Grautvornix said:

Abitlity to build a bridge

This is a fun idea, Praetorians had this feature. 

38 minutes ago, Grautvornix said:

Adding water as a kind of resource

Again, would make this into a City building simulation game. The players already need to worry about positioning for their structures, we shouldn't make it worse.

17 minutes ago, Grautvornix said:

tunnels/caves - you could discover and enter them, and then surface again on another place on the map

For anyone who played Metal Fatigue, you know how annoying this can be. Or fun, depending on if you're the one who built a huge tank and artillery army underground and are now wrecking the enemy's base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...