Walls Accessible To Units

[Mythos_Ruler]

*gasp* but what about Historical Authenticity?

The current Celt walls are only one interpretation.

[chaosislife]

Because none of us was around back then and they didn't leave very detailed cave paintings? I know next to nothing about the celts and this is the first game I've heard of that features them. they are my favorite civ tho cuz they've got cheaper ranged units and the brochs. I am a tad confused why it was necessary to give them outposts that they allegedly didn't have back then when they've got brochs.

Edited June 25, 2011 by chaosislife

[Mythos_Ruler]

I think the plan is to limit the Fortress (the Broch is the Brythonic fortress) to 1 or 2 per territory. Plus we don't want to handicap them too much in defense. If we want to turn them into rushers, then we could remove their Outposts, but we won't know that until everything is done and we're into real playtesting.

[chaosislife]

But why not simply make the broch their outpost? I've wiki'd them, they look more like heavily fortified towers than fortresses. I think my apartment may qualify for fortress status more than the pics I've seen.Tho I suppose the scale might be off since there's no people in the pics to tell me whether the entrance is man sized or two abreast wagon team sized. I'm inclined to believe that it's man sized tho since the stones making up the broch of mousa would have to be the size of a wagon otherwise.

Edited June 25, 2011 by chaosislife

[plumo]

The current Celt walls are only one interpretation.

I can't help it but I simply love the current Gallic walls. If you would make a new interpretation, please let the Gauls keep these walls and give the new walls to the Britons.

Edited June 25, 2011 by plumo

[Yihka]

I am for walkable walls. I also agree that walls should take long to make and be very strong. The weak point of a wall would be the gate.

If it takes 5 min per piece and less per worker that works on it, I think it wouldn't take too long yet be something very useful.

Yes, I agree, walls WILL be strong for defence and give you a great advantage. However, rams, ladders, trebuchets and siege towers can easily be used to overcome walls. Sure because it took so long to make, to destroy it will take some time too but that's why you've made it, to make sure the enemy won't be able to get inside your territory where the wall is.

To make the wall, you need to make sure to defend it with your army. The opponent can simply send a small army and make sure the wall you were making cannot be finished. Perhaps he can even put in a gate and use the wall for himself as defence. Because is takes so long and it is expensive, it might not be the best tactic to use to surround your enemy, unless you are playing with him. By always looking around your base you can make sure your opponent isn't making one and destroy it on time.

I do not see any problems making walls super strong and long to make.

[chaosislife]

Perhaps we could make wall pieces something that the AI doesn't automatically attack like they do every other building? This would add to the idea of the enemy using your walls to protect themselves from you. I remember I did that alot with AoM, only destroying the enemy walls that were actually in my way because the enemy couldn't get past them and wouldn't attack them when they were in it's way. Works wonderfully for leading my enemies into a bottleneck for easy evisceration.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I think soon units will not attack buildings at all, leaving that up to Siege units.

[chaosislife]

I think soon units will not attack buildings at all, leaving that up to Siege units.

Is that the AI or will we no longer be able to attack buildings with units on purpose? What if I have no siege units and no way to get siege units?

Edited June 29, 2011 by chaosislife

[oshron]

then you capture the enemy's buildings

citizen-soldiers should be able to attack buildings, etc, if they research a certain technology. maybe it could be sapping equipment? but capturing should be the primary choice and actually ATTACKING the building with the intent of destroying it should be a secondary function that the citizen-soldiers must be forcibly told to do

incidentally, i think a good special function for some unique cavalry units should be to be able to capture buildings like infantry can, because i imagine that only infantry will be able to capture buildings, right? it could perhaps be reserved for some civ that famously used cavalry in most of its conquests and they were the most important branch of their military (or something like that)

[chaosislife]

then you capture the enemy's buildings

citizen-soldiers should be able to attack buildings, etc, if they research a certain technology. maybe it could be sapping equipment? but capturing should be the primary choice and actually ATTACKING the building with the intent of destroying it should be a secondary function that the citizen-soldiers must be forcibly told to do

incidentally, i think a good special function for some unique cavalry units should be to be able to capture buildings like infantry can, because i imagine that only infantry will be able to capture buildings, right? it could perhaps be reserved for some civ that famously used cavalry in most of its conquests and they were the most important branch of their military (or something like that)

I'm good with making it so they don't auto attack buildings but we probably shouldn't be able to capture defensive buildings like fortresses or towers since they're manned and if I couldn't attack them I'd likely have a problem holding my shiny new buildings. Can you imagine if the enemy could build a tower next to you and you couldn't do anything about it? Like having vultures circling overhead all the time. Edit : I speaking english good now

Edited June 29, 2011 by chaosislife

[Mythos_Ruler]

incidentally, i think a good special function for some unique cavalry units should be to be able to capture buildings like infantry can, because i imagine that only infantry will be able to capture buildings, right? it could perhaps be reserved for some civ that famously used cavalry in most of its conquests and they were the most important branch of their military (or something like that)

I could see this being applied to the Huns in Part II.

[Yihka]

Capturing buildings instead of destroying them sounds like a unique and fresh idea to me. I would say, to defend fortresses and towers to be taken over, put soldiers inside them that will fight the units that go inside to take it over? (Similar to Settlers style)

But how do you take over a wall? Destroy the towers and gates connected to it (If those are the main way to get on a wall) and build a tower / gate next to it to claim it as yours?

However, if walls aren't walkable, just putting a gate would be good enough after you destroyed every defensive structure connected to the wall

Edited June 29, 2011 by Yihka

[Mythos_Ruler]

Defensive structures like Walls, Towers, and Fortresses would have to be destroyed by siege equipment.

[chaosislife]

Defensive structures like Walls, Towers, and Fortresses would have to be destroyed by siege equipment.

Which brings us back to "What if we don't have siege equipment?" Can we attack with infantry?

[oshron]

ill say it again: sappers

alternatively, maybe it COULD be possible to capture a fortress if its programmed so that you have to eliminate all units friendly to it in the immediate area

Edited June 30, 2011 by oshron

[Mythos_Ruler]

Which brings us back to "What if we don't have siege equipment?" Can we attack with infantry?

You build siege equipment.

ill say it again: sappers

Siege Engineers were in the original design document wayyyyyy back before I joined the team in October 2003. I wouldn't mind re-introducing them. It would be feature creep, but not too bad. They could build siege engines in-field at a premium and also serve as sappers that can (slowly) attack defensive buildings. They would be a City-Phase unit. If we don't include them in the official release it would be trivial for modders to add them. If they work nicely, we could then include them into the official release in a patch. This is how I feel improvements like these, which are outside the realm of the design document and our current understanding of the gameplay, will come to be included in the game.

alternatively, maybe it COULD be possible to capture a fortress if its programmed so that you have to eliminate all units friendly to it in the immediate area

I think it is "assumed" that buildings that shoot are always garrisoned in some metaphorical way, or else they wouldn't shoot, would they? Same with ships. I think people would find it tedious to be forced to garrison ships in order for them to work. You assume that they have a crew already to row the oars, hoist the sails, steer the ship, etc. so why not assume there are a few archers aboard? Same deal with a tower or fortress.

[chaosislife]

If we don't include them in the official release it would be trivial for modders to add them. If they work nicely, we could then include them into the official release in a patch. This is how I feel improvements like these, which are outside the realm of the design document and our current understanding of the gameplay, will come to be included in the game.

Ya that's about how I think about most of our ideas, if the devs aren't enlightened enough to do what I want them to (haha) then the modders probably will.

[Sayyan]

Apologies for resurrecting this thread; especially as it's my first post.

However, with the addition in Alpha 7 of the plane test, would it not be possible to have ranged units garrisonned inside a wall, appear on top of the wall? There's no need for them to be controllable on top of the wall (although it could potentially be possible to move them along walls by having them garrison and de-garrison each wall as they move along to the requested section.

Whilst I've yet to look at the code (It was downloading the repo at 21kB/s for much of last night) - it seems there'd be no need to for complex path finding or a 3D co-ordinate system for unit locations with this system. As units would be unable to pass underneath the soldiers garrisonned on the wall, there'd be no need to add 3D co-ordinates for location purposes; as long as the graphics engine is aware that they're garissoned on a wall, and need to be rendered at a different point in space. And path finding could be simply along a straight line between one end of the wall section and another.

Selecting a unit on a wall and telling it to move to another section could work by walking it to the end in the direction of movement, de-garrison it, re-garrison it in the next wall and so on until. Selecting a unit on a wall and telling it to move anywhere else on the terrain would simply de-garrison it and give it move orders. (You could perhaps using the path-finding algorithm at this point to determine which side of the wall it should be de-garissoned on.

[oshron]

Siege Engineers were in the original design document wayyyyyy back before I joined the team in October 2003. I wouldn't mind re-introducing them. It would be feature creep, but not too bad. They could build siege engines in-field at a premium and also serve as sappers that can (slowly) attack defensive buildings. They would be a City-Phase unit. If we don't include them in the official release it would be trivial for modders to add them. If they work nicely, we could then include them into the official release in a patch. This is how I feel improvements like these, which are outside the realm of the design document and our current understanding of the gameplay, will come to be included in the game.

my thought was actually that, visually, you would have a sapper/siege engineer unit, but in the programmer he would be considered a ram. as an example, for some designs of an egyptian civ that ive been working on, i gave them a team of sappers who are armed with shovels and other digging equipment, but instead of just being some guys moving as a group, they are also protected by a moveable barrier carried by about half a dozen other guys who mostly protect them from arrows and other projectiles (except things like boulders) while they break down the walls

[Almin]

Sorry if it doesn't sound very nice, but I'm a little bit confused and would like to know who you actually are, runner007? And are you able to explain me, why you have advertising-links for shoe-shops in your signature? And are you human or a bot?

edit: Even if it sounds very unfriendly, I'm sorry. This really isn't an offense. I'm just a little bit confused.

edit2: Even more I realized that the links aren't the signature. Explanation: Normally there's a little grey line between the posting and the signature, which has itself small grey letters. In your posts, there's missing the grey line. Additionally, your links have the normal size and they are black. That means that in every message, that you submit, you make several space lines and post the links as message? wtf? Now I'm actually totally confused. Can someone explane that to me?

Edited August 20, 2011 by Almin

[Ykkrosh]

Looks like just a spammer - deleted now

[Android_]

no i think he wasn't - he made several posts and all of which were related to 0ad and made sense haha. weird.

[Almin]

no i think he wasn't - he made several posts and all of which were related to 0ad and made sense haha. weird.

That's right. He joined this morningy and made 5(?) replies all over the forums which I think were mostly , at least kind of-, senseless (sorry, but that's just my opinion) and all his postings had the same links to the same sports-shops! wtf?

edit: Thanks, by the way. I really hope, that I'm right, if not, I will be ashamed of myself.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Almin

[Jeru]

Thanks, Almin. It's not a big deal even if this user is human.