unit/building suggestions

[theShadow]

Now I am aware that now all races, and not all units are implemented. However, it does seem like there are some unit and building types that are "missing" from the core gameplay. I shall list them here, and if anyone else has any unit types they wish to add, they can feel free to do so.

Not all of these ideas are not absolute. I am just putting these out here for the sake of discussion.

Unit Types

- Trebuchet. Long range Siege engine that can be packed into some sort of cart to be transported and assembled in the field.

- Ballista. Unlike a trebuchet, the ballista does not require assembly, and can be transported like a cart. Basically a big crossbow

- Mangonel. similar to a trebuchet, but much more compact and can be transported like a cart. possibly interchangeable with the ballista.

- Scouts/couriers. These units can travel faster than regular units, but are usually weaker. (there is a calvary unit, but it doesn't fulfill this role very well.)

- Heavy warships. There are some of these, but none of them really fit this description. These ships should have some sort of ballista or mangonel mounted on their deck, with the ability to then garrison extra units.

- Engineer. This is an idea I had for a unit that would give a building speed bonus while working on a building, and also have access to special buildings, such as bridges.

- Saboteur. Can sneak into enemy bases and rig their gates to open for your own troops, or poison buildings, so units made at those buildings are weaker than they normally would be. Visually these units would be recognizable as belonging to the enemy, but your troops would not immediately attack it, So if an enemy saboteur was in your base, you would not know unless you are looking straight at it. (This would be to prevent it from being a complete game breaker)

Building Types

- Scout Tower. much smaller than a regular tower, with low defensive capability. This building's purpose is to forewarn and delay any oncoming forces.

- Smith. For upgrading unit armor and attack

- University. For general upgrades, such as building defense or flaming arrows for archers. Possibly the building that engineers are trained from, along with researching their special buildings.

- Stable. It is my personal opinion that infantry and Calvary should be separated into 2 different buildings, possibly even a 3rd for archers/spearmen. however, this is open for debate, and perhaps the stable can just be used to research horse based upgrades, or simply allow the creation of calvary units elsewhere.

- Temple. It would be helpful if this building actually did anything, so might as well add this to the list. Rather than creating priests that heal units with "magic" however, I suggest it simply acts as a hospital, where units can garrison inside to heal. Then the "priest" unit that is trained there can set up somer sort of field hospital that can be set up quickly and fulfills the same purpose as the temple.

- Trade Center. another building that just needs a purpose to fulfill it's existence.

- Roads. This is something I always wished I could do in AOE2. Build roads in game, perhaps giving a small speed bonus to units traveling on them. You could make your base look so much more official (possible use for stencil textures, or whatever they are called.)

- Palisade. Like a stone wall, but cheaper and faster to put up, with less defense.

These are just a few. I will come up with some more later. In the meantime, feel free to discuss or add to the list.

[Mythos_Ruler]

1. Not all factions have been implemented.

2. Trebuchets and Mangonels are out of the game's time frame. However, the catapult (lithobolos, ballista, et al.) will have to pack up into carts to move.

3. We plan on a "Scout" ability for cavalry which basically turns them into weaker scout cav.

4. Heavy Warships = Quinqueremes = Rome and Carthage have them in their rosters. The Roman one is already released.

5. Engineers/Saboteurs/Spies = were in the game design 8 years ago, but removed for simplicity. They may possibly be added for 0 A.D. Part 2.

6. "Scout Towers" -- Already have them, except they fire arrows. The "Outpost" in Age of Kings was interesting, but we don't need 3 different types of towers in the game (Outposts, Towers, Wall Towers).

7. Smithy, University, and Stables are all combined into other structures. Smith&Stables -> Barracks, University -> Civic Centre and other buildings.

8. Palisades are in Atlas right now for eye candy and custom scenarios. They were in the game design 8 years ago as well, but removed for simplicity.

[theShadow]

I think my main issue is there are too many of the same unit. in the civic centre, you can build some swordsmen and and javalinists and calvary. in the barracks, you can build some SLIGHTLY STRONGER swordsmen and javalinists and calvary. in the Fortress, you can build some SLIGHTLY STRONGER swordsmen and javainists and calvary. You see what I'm getting at? once you have a fortress, the barracks and civic center become completely unnecessary. In fact there is no reason to build a barracks at all.

The way I see it, each building should have a unique and necessary purpose, that is not overshadowed by another. It's fine to have a unit that can be trained at more than one building, however each building should have additional unit types that are specific to that building. Not just the same units with slightly different stats.

[oshron]

aah, but those purposes arent overshadowed. the civic center trains your basic units for the beginning of the game as well as being the focal point of your town; the barracks trains all the rest of your units but without the civic/economic functions; and the fortress trains your siege and heroes

[Mythos_Ruler]

I think my main issue is there are too many of the same unit. in the civic centre, you can build some swordsmen and and javalinists and calvary. in the barracks, you can build some SLIGHTLY STRONGER swordsmen and javalinists and calvary. in the Fortress, you can build some SLIGHTLY STRONGER swordsmen and javainists and calvary. You see what I'm getting at? once you have a fortress, the barracks and civic center become completely unnecessary. In fact there is no reason to build a barracks at all.

The way I see it, each building should have a unique and necessary purpose, that is not overshadowed by another. It's fine to have a unit that can be trained at more than one building, however each building should have additional unit types that are specific to that building. Not just the same units with slightly different stats.

Civ Centres can:

-Train Women

-Train One type of melee Infantry

-Train One type of ranged Infantry

-Train One type of Cavalry

-Research various civic and technologic improvements (eventually)

All of these units are Citizens, meaning they all have some economic ability. The cavalry, infantry, and ranged infantry units available at the CC are also available at the Barracks.

Barracks can:

-Train all types of citizen-soldiers available to that faction; e.g. the Carthaginian Civ Centre trains women, Libyan Spearmen, Balearic Slingers, and Numidian Cavalry, while the Carthaginian Barracks trains: Libyan Spearmen, Gallic Mercenary Swordsmen, Mauritanian Archers, Iberian Skirmishers, Balearic Slingers, Italic Cavalry, Iberian Cavalry, and Numidian Cavalry.

-Research military improvements and technologies.

The Fortress:

-Trains Champion units, which have no economic abilities, but rock at fighting. Examples are Spartans, Immortals, War Elephants, etc.

-Trains Heroes. Each individual hero has a different ability.

-Constructs Siege Equipment, e.g. stone throwers, bolt shooters, siege towers, rams.

[Chakakhan]

I had a lot of the same feelings shadow had when I first started playing this game. I have decided to take a "wait and see" attitude. I think a lot of the details will change when we introduce a working tech tree.

Part of the decision making process with tech is deciding how we are going to develop it. We can choose to invest in a single tech path and go deep, or to invest broadly and not as deep. Part of that tech investment in other RTS games has been the cost of the buildings that support that tech. Having the Civ center be so versatile in unit production probably seems strange to people who are used to other RTS games (especially the Age series). It changes the early game focus a bit. I actually think it might be a nice change if we can balance things out properly.

Obviously, these Civ center fighting units are going to be very weak against the professionally trained troops. So you have to decide if you are going to get a bunch of these to fend off an early attack or if you are going to save and invest in more advanced troops. Also they have the ability to gather, which is another interesting feature. You can get a lot of these guys and they can be put to work while you scout and figure out what your "real" army needs to looks like. All interesting situations that have to be taken into consideration.

Having combined buildings makes it harder to scout your opponents tech path. I don't like this. Maybe we add small things to the buildings to indicate additional information, maybe we don't - not sure about this. I do think that a lot of people are going to want something along these lines. In most RTS games scouting is ultra important and I don't think we want to make scouting worthless in our game.

Anyway, what I really wanted to say was that I don't see anything being discussed that is outside of the planned engine capabilities. This includes adding buildings associated with different techs (if we felt we really needed to). A lot of the things Shadow mentioned would make nice version 2 features and probably fit better in that era.

My two biggest concerns: Scouting and Game Pace (too slow currently). I don't want us to develop a turtle fest game.

Keep the ideas flowing!

[theShadow]

Part of the game speed issue could maybe be solved by just speeding up how fast the game runs. It would make the animations look better, too.

[mrjeremister]

Keep in mind- training 50 Spartans = 2500 Food, 3750 Wood, 1250 Metal-

Whereas I could train 75 Hoplites and 16 Archers for- 3750 Food, 2500 Wood, 1200 Metal

So 91 Average Troops vs. 50 Super Troops?

In Rome Total War, I would choose Super Troops, but in 0 AD, numerical superiority is better- and hoplites have economic abilities to...

[Chakakhan]

Keep in mind- training 50 Spartans = 2500 Food, 3750 Wood, 1250 Metal-

Whereas I could train 75 Hoplites and 16 Archers for- 3750 Food, 2500 Wood, 1200 Metal

So 91 Average Troops vs. 50 Super Troops?

In Rome Total War, I would choose Super Troops, but in 0 AD, numerical superiority is better- and hoplites have economic abilities to...

Yea, this obviously needs some balancing

[Mythos_Ruler]

Keep in mind- training 50 Spartans = 2500 Food, 3750 Wood, 1250 Metal-

Whereas I could train 75 Hoplites and 16 Archers for- 3750 Food, 2500 Wood, 1200 Metal

So 91 Average Troops vs. 50 Super Troops?

In Rome Total War, I would choose Super Troops, but in 0 AD, numerical superiority is better- and hoplites have economic abilities to...

I just tested this. Guess who won... handily, with only 8 losses, to a complete 100% loss on the other side.

(HINT: The victors had a stomach full of black broth.)

[SMST]

Spartans, according to my experience, win against most everything - except Imperial Legionaries who win against TOTALLY everything.

EDIT:

Oh, and I just found this funny quote about the Spartan black soup on Wiki:

According to legend, a man from Sybaris, a city in southern Italy infamous for its luxury and gluttony, after tasting the Spartans' black soup said he understood why they were so willing to die.

Edited July 22, 2011 by SMST

[Mythos_Ruler]

Spartans, according to my experience, win against most everything - except Imperial Legionaries who win against TOTALLY everything.

100 Spartans vs. 100 Imperial Legionaries. No micro.

Match 1:

Spartans win. 60 men remaining.

I approached the Romans in a wide front (Closed Line formation), which overlapped their flanks. Crushed their flanks and wheeled inward like @ Marathon.

Match 2:

Spartans win. 47 men remaining.

I approached the Romans in a more compact front ("Phalanx" formation). Still won in a slugfest.

Match 3:

Romans win. 33 men remaining.

I approached the Romans from multiple directions. They picked me apart and pulled off a fair victory.

[SMST]

I just tested that myself. Proves me wrong.

It just seemed to me that Legionaries have the upper hand in most battles.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I just tested that myself. Proves me wrong.

It just seemed to me that Legionaries have the upper hand in most battles.

The legions are quicker, so maybe that's it. Plus they rank-up, so there's that few seconds where they are invulnerable.

[theShadow]

unit speed can have a huge outcome on a battle. One thing that annoys me are when there is a battle where all of the units are the same speed. it quickly devolves into half the army chasing the other half across the map, especially with ranged units.

An idea I had was to let units take a short burst of speed when near the unit they are ordered to attack, as when a unit is trying to get back into formation. Also, perhaps you could have the ability to order your units to "charge", causing them to run at the enemy and attack, as opposed to leisurely strolling up to attack.

EDIT: about what I said earlier, there is already a function to increase engine speed.

Right now the game is set to Engine.SetSimRate(1). I propose increasing this to Engine.SetSimRate(1.2). Unit movement is less tedious then, and animations look more natural.

Edited July 22, 2011 by theShadow

[Mythos_Ruler]

unit speed can have a huge outcome on a battle. One thing that annoys me are when there is a battle where all of the units are the same speed. it quickly devolves into half the army chasing the other half across the map, especially with ranged units.

An idea I had was to let units take a short burst of speed when near the unit they are ordered to attack, as when a unit is trying to get back into formation. Also, perhaps you could have the ability to order your units to "charge", causing them to run at the enemy and attack, as opposed to leisurely strolling up to attack.

Charging and Running are already in the design.

[Chakakhan]

I just wanted to clarify, my comments about balance were in general. I think a lot of it has to do with little things like inconsistent unit behavior (UnitAI.js), sometimes inconsistent pathing, the way ranged and non-ranged units interact, etc. Nothing too major, just lots of tweaks! It will be a lot easier to clean up the balance issues at the unit level when the core stuff is a little more consistent.

I second the game speed increase by the way!

[Mythos_Ruler]

Right now the game is set to Engine.SetSimRate(1). I propose increasing this to Engine.SetSimRate(1.2). Unit movement is less tedious then, and animations look more natural.

It would be better maybe to put this into the in-game Dev Console. Normal Speed -> x1.2 -> x1.5. This would end up being a game option anyway. I personally have no problem with the current speeds, because AGAIN you guys don't think about the larger picture and where the game is heading or read the Design Document. Charging & Running will be in the game, making units move faster. Technologies to speed up gathering rates, research rates, training rates, movement rates and all that stuff will be in the game. Please be patient. Philip has designed a nice animation system that will speed up animations when stats increase.

[chaosislife]

It would be better maybe to put this into the in-game Dev Console. Normal Speed -> x1.2 -> x1.5. This would end up being a game option anyway. I personally have no problem with the current speeds, because AGAIN you guys don't think about the larger picture and where the game is heading or read the Design Document. Charging & Running will be in the game, making units move faster. Technologies to speed up gathering rates, research rates, training rates, movement rates and all that stuff will be in the game. Please be patient. Philip has designed a nice animation system that will speed up animations when stats increase.

How about setting up a variety of speed buttons, say 0-9 between the civ icon and the menu button? 0 could be Engine.SetSimRate(0) or a bit higher if that causes the game to crash, then we could use the 0 setting for the pause function so we could still issue orders while paused. We could put the present default speed at the 3 -5 option and go up from there. Personally I use Engine.SetSimRate(3.0) most of the time and then increase to 5.0 or higher near the end of the game. Setting them up as buttons would make it dramatically easier to switch speeds from production/ building to battle modes.

[theShadow]

I am not sure that having an in game setting for it is such a good idea, especially in multiplayer. It would be better to have the game speed options in the match setup screen, to define a speed for the whole match.,

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

These are some suggestions I would give. I recommend that you replace the Thracian Peltast as a trainable unit in the Civic Centre with the Cretan Archer. As far as I can tell, Cretans are not as powerful. Likewise, I would like to point out that it might be better to replace the Iberian Javelinist with the Slinger as a trainable unit at the Civic Centre.