What do you think 0 A.D. lacks?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

What do you think 0 A.D. lacks?

Battalions

[Classic-Burger]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

What do you think 0 A.D. lacks?

Battalions

It sounds ambitious, it would be interesting...it would be less frenetic and more deliberate. Like a less developed Total War.

I agree that the game should take the risk of ceasing to be an AoE clone.While still being an RTS.

Real Time Tactical. 

There have never been many games that combine base building and tactical battles.

In fact, almost none.

Manor Lords...But it's a city building with RTT.

Edited 4 hours ago by Classic-Burger

[Radiotraining]

As casual player, I have to say that the game doesn't *necessarily* lack anything: visuals are really beautiful and keep improving each release and overall is a solid, reliable game that I like exactly because it stay true to the pure rts formula. Which is rare nowadays. 

But at the same time, if we are to improve something, I would also agree that the game tend to stale in the lategame part, because of lack of "extra" techs or elements that keeps playing engaging after reaching the final stage. 

I think Burrito is really onto something when he mentiones "dopamine effect" that comes with feeling of accomplishment. Probably this is an element that can elevate the game feel overall.

What AOE did really well, was marking each phase with great visual improvements. You really have a sense of accomplishment after each stage, especially in how buildings looked. Something missing a little in 0ad. 

But this is all easier said than done: making new skin/buildings for each stage requires a massive effort from art department, extra disc space in the final download and lot of time to develop. However is an element to consider. 

With units would be the same, but I think even small cues, such as naming a more experienced soldier into "élite" or whatever synonym, could add this sense of improvement, like going from basic Hastati 》 Royal Hastati 》 Élite Hastati or something like that, to mark a difference between each improvement, could add to the experience of progression. Just a simple idea. 

I used to play a game as kid, Imperium by Haemimont Games. There was also unit experience there and a visual cue was their shield and armours would turn more and more gold the higher up they went. Maybe a simple visual element like that could also work without re-making every single unit? Just another simple idea. 

All of these are not "necessary" changes, but tweaking on this idea of progression can improve the game experience to the late stage. 

 

2 hours ago, Classic-Burger said:

There have never been many games that combine base building and tactical battles.

About battalions. While they may be interesting, I'm not sure is the only way to go. 

I really like the current concept of "soft battalions" that form naturally if you click a group of units, while keeping each unit singular. Maybe the same concept can be "hardened" with a specific button to merge a group of units into a battalion and eventually disband them. 

But the reason I'm not completely a fan is because I used to play also another game that combined this with rts: Praetorians. And the whole battalion thing, while being cool to play, it also bored me quite quickly, because it lacked another concept that is "human immersion". Big group of units quickly feel like mere cannon fodder and there's something a little special about starting with few units, or make them survive from an enemy or make them "grow" etc.. is a feeling of classic rts that may be worth keeping, while adding other improvements.

I hope I could give some constructive opinions. As I said, is only a perception from a casual player. The game is already fun and cool to play