oshron Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 1. IIRC, it's planned to have the captured building able to train your own units only, at least by default until the player research a technology. So even if the Iberians player managed to capture an enemy's dock, he will only able to train his faction ships only.2. I think for neutral buildings like the Pirate Stronghold, we should make it undestroyable by any player, like the merc buldings in Warcraft III.sounds good to me and thanks for your prompt answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorfinn the Shallow Minded Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Just my two cents, but why call it 'pirate stronghold'? That does not seem to fit a game where the building names are in the native language of the respective civilizations. Edited March 1, 2012 by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oshron Posted March 1, 2012 Report Share Posted March 1, 2012 well one other suggestion ive had is that the neutral "gaia" player to which the stronghold would go would be assigned a particular civilization depending on what the map is (for example, if the map is supposed to be set in britain or france, the gaia player would be assigned the celtic civ). potentially, this could affect the name given to the pirate stronghold. alternatively, research could be done into what civilization(s) spawned the most prolific pirates of the period and the name could be given based on that, even if it isnt a playable civilization (for example, if it was the phoenicians, it could be given a phoenician name) and the name would change to a respective name for each civilization, though the default "non-ethnic" name could/would probably still be "pirate stronghold". you could assign whatever translated name you want, though; the greek translation could potentially be "pirate hideout", for instance, or "mercenary dock" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorfinn the Shallow Minded Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Overall though, it seems more logical to not even have a mercenary building. When you begin a game perhaps you could merely choose if every civilization could hire mercenaries. (The Carthaginians of course would always be able to.) Most of the hiring should be done at the Civic Centre and would be limited to the scope of regional units. In order to get a ship built by the natives, you just pay a bunch of gold and wood and presto. However, the scale should be limited to only one ship, and at that it should be nothing more than a trireme or bireme. Edited March 2, 2012 by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escrime Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) Ramming is planned for part 1, boarding/capturing ships is postponed for now, perhaps in part 2.Looking at features intended for v1.0, couldn't the 0AD team cobbled togeather a simple ship capture system?I mean you've got loyalty damage leading to capture for buildings and damage auras for elephants and chariots both planned. So, take the former, add a simple "if this unit is a ship and loyalty equals zero, kill garrison"; take the latter and make it drain loyalty instead of health at a rate dependent on the attack values of melee infantry aboard; tack some form of graphic atop.Only problem I'd see is if two ships of the same type with exactly the same loadout bumped into each other... Edited March 7, 2012 by Escrime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oshron Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 well it would probably be good to save some other features for later releases in any case; it'll give fans incentive to come back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.