What do you think 0 A.D. lacks?

[Classic-Burger]

5 hours ago, Deicide4u said:

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 agree.As a non-roster mercenary unit it's fine.

[Fabius]

12 hours ago, Deicide4u said:

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. 

Six to be exact. unit focus is fine but does not have to dictate everything. Not sure what exactly you mean by additional unit roster, their roster is still the same after the reforms tech.

[Fabius]

7 hours ago, Classic-Burger said:

I agree.As a non-roster mercenary unit it's fine.

A merc elephant would be great

As a thought experiment I would assume a full metal cost, which going off the smaller African elephant would be 450 metal in total after converting food cost to metal. 

Given training is faster, and also knowing the limited acquisition that Rome has from Numidia, I would run with the elephant stables but cap it at 1 or maybe 2 buildings, that way production should be slower than other civs who could spam like four or five elephant stables so they can mass them fast. A cool side affect would be that now a Roman player could use captured elephant stables, which would be a fun niche feature.

[Outis]

Honestly, Roman elephants dont sit right with me. Elephants never played a significant role in Roman victories (or defeats) AFAIK. We have civilizations which lack basic units like infantry javelins, not because they never used them but because they never played a significant role for them (i mean all civs have spears someone must have figured out to throw it). Romans are already diverse and they will neither gain from having elephants nor lose from not having them.

[Oxenstierna]

I always play by myself with the computer opponent. Therefore, delenda est is particularly interesting to me because it offers many development options and more building alternatives. It's certainly been discussed before, but it's a shame that the Roman legionaries aren't able to throw the pilum. For example, you could switch it around like with the Immortals. Easy for me, as a non-programmer, to say. It would, however, make the history more accurate. The Romans were the absolute world power in ancient times, also based on this tactic. Likewise, military camps are inferior to the military colonies of the Phoenicians or Seleucids. It's the same with shipping; galleys were both capable of long-range weapons; above a certain size, they had long-range weapons on board and could ram or board ships. Of course, I don't want to dictate anything to the other players; I like the authenticity of the figures and the painstaking attention to detail, and the gameplay isn't that important to me. I would also like to have optional raider gangs or pirate ships, in addition to treasure. That's why I particularly like the Danubius map. This way, everyone can shape their game the way they want. Otherwise, I really like the game... please never stop...

 

[Classic-Burger]

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D368

@bb_ Made a patch some time ago.

Secondary attack.

[Fabius]

2 hours ago, Outis said:

Honestly, Roman elephants dont sit right with me. Elephants never played a significant role in Roman victories (or defeats) AFAIK. We have civilizations which lack basic units like infantry javelins, not because they never used them but because they never played a significant role for them (i mean all civs have spears someone must have figured out to throw it). Romans are already diverse and they will neither gain from having elephants nor lose from not having them

There are in fact battles that Rome won because of Elephants, maybe not many of them given the shortish time frame, but they are there. As for why or why not, I think its cool enough to be worthwhile, not everything has to be legionary focused in Roman civs.

[Fabius]

On 05/10/2025 at 12:22 AM, Deicide4u said:

Romans have focus on infantry and siege.

True, though they do lack the siege tower for some reason, bit of an odd one that.

 

On 05/10/2025 at 12:22 AM, Deicide4u said:

but I would like to see the return of Donkey-pulled Scorpio cart. 

Definitely agree here, the legionary and his donkey was a very iconic entity back in A23, probably the most Roman thing back then lol  

Was sad they changed it for a more generic looking sprite.

[Classic-Burger]

6 hours ago, Fabius said:

True, though they do lack the siege tower for some reason, bit of an odd one that.

The Romans would have everything and that would be unfair to the others civs.

There should be different versions of Rome.

 

[Fabius]

14 hours ago, Classic-Burger said:

The Romans would have everything and that would be unfair to the others civs.

Well they did conquer all the civs in question so um yeah lol

But in all seriousness I do take your point, though I do not think having multiple roman civs is a good idea, it is better as they have done with the reforms technology that more or less sets up the late republic/early imperial era within the current early republic style Roman civ

[Oxenstierna]

It would make the random sea maps more interesting for me if, like in Delenda est, they created arsenals or additional coastal fortifications with space for ships to repair, but smaller than a fortress, a kind of naval port. I would make it a one-time option so that the coast cannot be blocked. I would also like to have the option to elevate an administrative center to a capital. Just from a purely conceptual perspective, a war should also have advantages, like gaining a new unit or achievement when you defeat someone. What do you think? Does that make everything more interesting...or too complicated?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, Oxenstierna said:

It would make the random sea maps more interesting for me if, like in Delenda est, they created arsenals or additional coastal fortifications with space for ships to repair, but smaller than a fortress, a kind of naval port.

Even just a Shipyard for each civ would be nice and make things a little more dynamic for the naval aspect. That way you're not overloading the Dock with stuff. The Carthaginian Shipyard would remain unique, being larger and stronger than the others. 

[carlbidwell]

I get what you mean, 0 A.D. can feel a bit flat in the long run because units don’t really evolve. The rank system looks cool, but it doesn’t change how the unit plays, so you don’t get that satisfying sense of progression you see in Age-style games where your army visibly grows stronger and more specialized. Adding a real upgrade path could make battles feel more dynamic and give players something to look forward to as the match develops. Still, the current system does keep things simple and historically grounded, so I guess it depends on which direction the devs want the game to grow.

[Classic-Burger]

9 hours ago, carlbidwell said:

I get what you mean, 0 A.D. can feel a bit flat in the long run because units don’t really evolve. The rank system looks cool, but it doesn’t change how the unit plays, so you don’t get that satisfying sense of progression you see in Age-style games where your army visibly grows stronger and more specialized. Adding a real upgrade path could make battles feel more dynamic and give players something to look forward to as the match develops. Still, the current system does keep things simple and historically grounded, so I guess it depends on which direction the devs want the game to grow.

The game has very few features, so you don't feel any progression.

The lack of progress seems to be linked to having only three phases and very few technologies; the early game is snowballing. The game needs more hardware capping with its progression.

Progress is felt exponentially.

The brain has more ephemeral dopamine rewards.

Playing a game becomes routine due to the scarcity of new things to do or the difficulty of achieving a goal to win.

[Deicide4u]

14 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

The game has very few features, so you don't feel any progression.

On the contrary, I would say that 0 A.D. has too many features. Building capture being the prime suspect.

While some features, like trade and healing, are under-utilized. 

16 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

Playing a game becomes routine due to the scarcity of new things to do or the difficulty of achieving a goal to win.

This stems from the core gameplay loop being a unit spamfest in the first 8-10 minutes of each match. And it's almost always the same two types of units.

Not sure about the difficulty, the current AI is very weak once you get the mechanics right.

[Perzival12]

5 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

On the contrary, I would say that 0 A.D. has too many features. Building capture being the prime suspect.

While some features, like trade and healing, are under-utilized. 

This stems from the core gameplay loop being a unit spamfest in the first 8-10 minutes of each match. And it's almost always the same two types of units.

Not sure about the difficulty, the current AI is very weak once you get the mechanics right.

Building capture is actually one of the best features, I kinda miss the days when I had to force my army to raze buildings rather than capture them...

Yeah, trade is almost useless, and healing is simply to weak and slow to have any affect on gameplay or tactics.

The AI shouldn't be harder, but there should be more AI to choose from. Petra should be the starting point, then there should be harder ones, like TrojanBot and AlexanderBot (who would be the most offensive). At the moment, there are just some difficulty settings for the bot, and then three tactical choices for it: Offensive, Defensive, and Balanced. There should be more, like Harrasing (launch tiny raids on your workers), Ambush (hide troops in forests and choke points that ambush you as you walk by), Horde (train armies of weaker soldiers and swarm you), and Turtle (build almost exclusively walls and towers until VERY late game, when it attacks).

[Classic-Burger]

1 hour ago, Deicide4u said:

On the contrary, I would say that 0 A.D. has too many features. Building capture being the prime suspect.

While some features, like trade and healing, are under-utilized. 

You haven't understood me. The features greatly dilute the purpose; for example, destroying buildings isn't difficult, defending is much harder in this game. They include features but don't include technologies to make The difficulty curve did not progress any slower. 

 

It means you don't feel progress because you're already given many unlockable options, so there's no sense of progress or anything like that.

 

The best way to understand how dopamine works is through real-life achievements, such as passing exams and eventually completing a course or class, subject. 

Compare the steps you take to achieve a good civilization in AoE II.

You start almost blind without seeing the environment, meanwhile in 0AD you start with all the resources around the civic center similar to StarCraft but with Citizen soldiers.

Your villagers have almost no LoS in AoE2 and exploration is difficult.

Details like that.

 

[Classic-Burger]

 

You start slowly, with only trees; you can't see the stone and the gold.

The situation with berries and animals is different on different maps.

While you start with CS and a scout unit in 0AD.

 

[Classic-Burger]

1 hour ago, Deicide4u said:

Not sure about the difficulty, the current AI is very weak once you get the mechanics right.

The achievement is not given to you by AI, it is given to you by the process, not by your opponent.

[Perzival12]

29 minutes ago, Classic-Burger said:

You start almost blind without seeing the environment, meanwhile in 0AD you start with all the resources around the civic center similar to StarCraft but with Citizen soldiers.

That is more up to the map makers more than the game itself. Maybe some maps should be realistic in how resources are placed, instead of babying the player with all resources right up front.

[Outis]

2 hours ago, Deicide4u said:

While some features, like trade and healing, are under-utilized. 

So true. I see no incentive to utilize them.

[Gönndolsalv]

2 hours ago, Deicide4u said:

While some features, like trade and healing, are under-utilized. 

I totally agree with that.

But when a fight drags on for long enough, you sometimes find yourself in a position where you should have used Traders.