2 problems with citezens soldier consept of the game

[bill2505]

1 not all civs uses citizen soldier concept specialy like the greek one

2 the fact that one time your soldiers are armored brutes and the other time are cutting trees and the other time the armored brutes again

is immersion killer

so i suggest this

a new soldier button "call to arm" and a second" get back to work)

when you press the button get back to work your spearment will get to your nearest military building or armory and will leave his weapon and start working.

if you press "call to armrs " your soldiers will go to the nearest armory or central building to get their armors

[WhiteTreePaladin]

Sort of like town bell for military?

[bill2505]

i thing yes

[bill2505]

why for military? to garrison that you mean? or for fight?

after you press the "call to arms" button" your soldiers run to armory or whatever and then they are transformed into soldiers as it was historically) and then you can use them as soldiers

[bill2505]

Armory or Barrack? we don't have a Armory building in the game.

and are already a ticket for that button "Call to the arms".

whatever.the building doesnt matter.my suggestion is about the citizent ,soldier part not the building its self =) Edited October 6, 2012 by bill2505

[MishFTW]

I'd be cool with that... each citizen soldier has toggle options between work and fight. Kind of like gates. Multiple units can be switched at once. But basic defense remains in work mode.

[dvangennip]

I feel this would add unnecessary micromanagement to the game. I get that it is realistic, but it defeats the inherent flexibility of citizen-soldiers. Plus, how would players immediately see if a citizen-soldier is ready to fight? Perhaps this transformation happens automatically but that would mean a citizen-soldier walks away from an attack to a building, only to come back to see its female citizens brutally murdered That makes the game generally less flexible, more time consuming, and perhaps frustrating because units do not do what they are ordered to.

In the same vain, switching from lumbering to working on the field would require a similar switching of tasks / equipment. My opinion is that would be less flexible and lowering the gameplay experience, even though it sacrifices a little realism.

[Patricius]

Possibly it would be necessary to send citizens to a barracks or town centre to be armed, although they should have some basic fighting ability if they are caught cutting wood or hewing stone.

[alkazar-ipse]

I feel this would add unnecessary micromanagement to the game. I get that it is realistic, but it defeats the inherent flexibility of citizen-soldiers. Plus, how would players immediately see if a citizen-soldier is ready to fight? Perhaps this transformation happens automatically but that would mean a citizen-soldier walks away from an attack to a building, only to come back to see its female citizens brutally murdered That makes the game generally less flexible, more time consuming, and perhaps frustrating because units do not do what they are ordered to.

In the same vain, switching from lumbering to working on the field would require a similar switching of tasks / equipment. My opinion is that would be less flexible and lowering the gameplay experience, even though it sacrifices a little realism.

Amen, brother.

Guys, It's really nice and all, that people can suggest things they'd like to see in the game, but maybe try to be realistic? Not realistic in what greeks did in real life, but rather realistic for...

for the programmer and the REAL players(not the ones who just start it recruite 5 horsemen and run arround the map, but rather the ones liking to have a real STRATEGY game from time to time...

When they go from working mode, let them first walk to the civ center, deposite their pik, hack or whatever, then go to the barack to get armed, for working again go to barack deposit arm, go to tc, get pik, hack or whatever.

You want a realistic game? when a unit has lived during 30 game minutes it gets a white beard, and after 5 more minutes it dies with altseimer.

When a woman gets killed she usually gets raped first, k im getting vulgair here, my point is just to say that this is supposed to be a game, and nice gameplay is much more imortant then any realism (or graphics, i'd say).

I prefere playing a fun game with bad grafics and completly unrealistic, then the most realistic and graphicly amazing one with a shi.tty gameplay...

Edited October 10, 2012 by alkazar-ipse

[alkazar-ipse]

in age of empires 3, they diminished a realism: units didnt have to deposit resources anywhere anymore, it just trikkled. And sorry to say, for whom ever might not think as I do (and I respect it), but to me it was a huge gameplay improvement...

[Phaedros]

in age of empires 3, they diminished a realism: units didnt have to deposit resources anywhere anymore, it just trikkled. And sorry to say, for whom ever might not think as I do (and I respect it), but to me it was a huge gameplay improvement...

This wasn't an improvement, this was the death of raiding... AoEO fixed that thankfully as it was a horrible idea in the first place... for another game that did this, look at Red Alert 3, raiding miners was no longer a realistic option until you had Air units... Raiding is a fundamental part of any RTS and rewards good play.

[Pedro Falcão]

This wasn't an improvement, this was the death of raiding... AoEO fixed that thankfully as it was a horrible idea in the first place... for another game that did this, look at Red Alert 3, raiding miners was no longer a realistic option until you had Air units... Raiding is a fundamental part of any RTS and rewards good play.

I must agree, though the idea of raiding, in 0 AD, could use some improvements, yet.

[Phaedros]

I must agree, though the idea of raiding, in 0 AD, could use some improvements, yet.

Well, at the moment you can launch raids much earlier in 0 A.D. versus say Age of Empires Online since you can train raiding cavalry from your civic center, so I'm not sure how much attention raiding currently needs at the present moment.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Phaedros

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I personally think that it should be implemented, but giving players the option of toggling on and off this kind of feature would be the most reasonable approach.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Thorfinn the Shallow Minded

[alkazar-ipse]

Ok, different points of view there; had not seen it in that perspective since I'm more a defensive player...

You convinced me, It motivates me to learn how to raid properly, since this makes it much more lucrative

On the other hand the resources are just "gone", should one be able to steel from killed units?

I'm not suggesting it, just questioning.

My point is, keep it simple for the "get to arms";

If I tell 5 units to attack an enemy, I know what I'm doing, no need to call them to arms and THEN click to attack...

same for going back on tree or mine or building...

Also, no need to have all workers on the map get to arm if I'm attacked on one single spot.

I have nothing against new features, and I'm not saying this idea is bad, nor that it can't be done in a good and meaningful way,

I'm just sceptic because I can't imagine YET, how this could be done well...

(as how it is done untill now fits perfectly for me; I don't care if they suddently have a weapon or put it away)

Edited October 17, 2012 by alkazar-ipse

[quantumstate]

Ok, different points of view there; had not seen it in that perspective since I'm more a defensive player...

You convinced me, It motivates me to learn how to raid properly, since this makes it much more lucrative

I have had some success with raiding. It is hard to how quite what effect it has though, also I am not very good at it (based on AoE 2 experience), I'm more of a economic boom player.

On the other hand the resources are just "gone", should one be able to steel from killed units?

I'm not suggesting it, just questioning.

Do you know that currently you get loot for killing enemy units? currently it is fairly small, 1 of each resource for female citizens about about 5-10 of a mixture of resources for normal soldiers.

[feneur]

I have had some success with raiding. It is hard to how quite what effect it has though, also I am not very good at it (based on AoE 2 experience), I'm more of a economic boom player.

I'd say you're pretty effective with it So yeah, I don't think there's any reason to complicate things with "call to arms" etc as that would only make raiding even more effective =) The current way is fine imho (I might not personally be too fond of the fact that you can raid at all, but that's another thing =) ), since you can raid, but your units can defend themselves. If they had to go to a special building to get their arms, then you would be more or less forced to raid in the early game as anything else would leave you at a great disadvantage.

[alkazar-ipse]

Do you know that currently you get loot for killing enemy units? currently it is fairly small, 1 of each resource for female citizens about about 5-10 of a mixture of resources for normal soldiers.

Didnt know, tx, just have been noticing an unnormal wood increases, so thats where it comes from ^^

[Pedro Falcão]

If they had to go to a special building to get their arms, then you would be more or less forced to raid in the early game as anything else would leave you at a great disadvantage.

That's quite what i have in mind. I think raiding should be encoraged as an alternative (and quite effective) option against "early expansionists" that leave towns undefended and without walls, then you'd gather some cavalry archers and hit-n-run the workers.

[alkazar-ipse]

sounds... scary hihi,

encouraging raiding is encouraging raider-paranoids to play iberian only...

[Pedro Falcão]

That's the point. If you play Iberians, you'll become vulnerable by sea. Every civ and every strategy has a weak point, the skill of the players (to find the weak spot of your own strategy and of the enemies' strategies and explore both as best as possible) is what must determine the end of the match, dontcha think?

[alkazar-ipse]

I do: each civ has it's bonuses to counter same things, or more bonuses to counter different things,

but then you force the player to chose a civ that fits in his way of playing instead of making him explore the different civs trying to find how they deal with things...

this sentence is quit confusing for me aswell when i read it again so, what I mean is:

-iberians have to build an ox where they attack, gauls'n britons have to make druids -> same gameplay, different civs, different ways of achieving the same thing

player can pik ANY civ and learn how to make it fit in his way of playing

VERSUS

-iberian startwalls, idk (persians good for cheap strong raiding cav? i dont know exactly but its a gess) so basicly an other civ strong at raiding

player CHOSES civ according to his way of playing

if you want to make a civ have some advantages in some way of playing (STarcraft, eventhough I never played it) then the fewer civs (3) the better.

(zergs for huge spam, aliens for technology, humans for who knows what ^^)

[Pedro Falcão]

Dude, i didn't understand exactly what you meant, but i think you are misunderstanding.

I don't know if you've seen the new tech tree Mythos_Ruler showed us, but the main idea is that the player chooses the civ that fits your style, not adapt the civ for your style. Of course (well, i hope) no civ will have a ridiculous advantage above another, except for in certain circumstances. Like the Iberians, that don't have great war ships, yet.

P.S.: Starcraft's races are balanced, you just have to find your favorite race... or play as random to show how awesome you are! (BTW, i'm a protoss player, low numbers, strong units).

[alkazar-ipse]

That's exactly what I mean:

I know that Starcraft civs are very balanced.

VERY ballanced. IF you picked the rigth civ that fits your gameplay

(Id probably be protos too, i dont like spaming )

All I'm saying is its very challenging to keep it ballanced when civ number is growing.

But I have faith it will happen.