Cool Ideas

[Keaton the Wise]

Hello all.

Wouldn't it be nice if individual civic centers had to upgrade to town and city. Then there could be an option or easter egg or something that let you name individual civic centers and the towns and cities around them. Then a warning could pop up telling you which city is being attacked. I was also thinking that if you wanted to know which city they were attacking, there could be some kind of spy unit that the enemy can take control of but will report back to tell you their plans. On a completely unrelated idea, what if instead of training cavalry units, you train horses and normal infantry and you can just garrison them onto the horses. Or something like that. Anyway, hope you like my ideas.

Frequent user,

Keaton the Wise

[sanderd17]

What would your advantage be when you upgrade your second cc? Currently, you upgrade to the different phases to get access to more buildings, units and technologies. But if you already have access to them, upgrading doesn't help a lot.

For the cavalry, while it would maybe look nice, I think it's a bit difficult to handle. Too much micro management.

[ProvencalLeGaullois]

I think such idea are more adapted for a game with a bigger scale.. like FreeCol, FreeCiv and such... I saw there is a campaign map in 0AD, maybe between towns on the map it would be interesting to make some differences between minor and major towns, citys, villages...

[Keaton the Wise]

I understand that some of these ideas would be awesome but impossible. I do, however, think that you should look into the city naming. I don't think it would be that hard to implement in the game.

Looking forward to the new version,

Frequent user,

Keaton the Wise

[Lion.Kanzen]

I understand that some of these ideas would be awesome but impossible. I do, however, think that you should look into the city naming. I don't think it would be that hard to implement in the game.

Looking forward to the new version,

Frequent user,

Keaton the Wise

The cívic center is good for Campaing. The horses I see that in other games and is not the best, but if the hero can be mounted/dismounted ability?

[sanderd17]

mounting would work for chariots and/or elephants I think, as those units can have an initial attack plus some added attack for mounted units.

[Keaton the Wise]

For the animal mounting, maybe there could be a building that makes mountable animal. Almost like the corral building. The animal can just wander about like animals from the corral until its mounted and then you have control of it.

[Lion.Kanzen]

mounting would work for chariots and/or elephants I think, as those units can have an initial attack plus some added attack for mounted units.

yeah units can space to have a ranged infantry units this can be includes Pezhetaroi.

Chariots, Elephants. And other similar.

[Keaton the Wise]

And you should also be able to tame wild animal so units can ride them.

[Lion.Kanzen]

And you should also be able to tame wild animal so units can ride them.

may be only for Elephant. But is not bad idea for modders, you know in some mod in Sci-fi you can rammed a giant spider alien. Or bear in other.

The process to tamed is considerate micromanagement. You can tame and have a unit for less cost if you give training. Obviusly this can be a alternate form to get a unit.

[Keaton the Wise]

Why only elephants? What's wrong with horses or even camels?

[Mythos_Ruler]

Why only elephants? What's wrong with horses or even camels?

The problem is one of management, micromanagement specifically. Because you're not only managing your army, you are simultaneously managing your economy, city building, technology research, and overall strategy (macro). When you add management to one aspect (needing to train horses and riders separately), then you need to remove management from somewhere else. Where would you sacrifice management in order to add it to your horse and rider scheme?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Why only elephants? What's wrong with horses or even camels?

it's more interesting tamed a big beast like a elephant, than I horse or camel,the other is the time, I can imagine a process by percentage to do it. Thst need time, if you want a big army of cavalryman, you don't find each horse in map to do it, it's simple you train the units. But elephants is different not all civs have the possibility to have a elephant.

Now with I forget the camels but I don't see why I need camel in my civ, even for desert and horse bonus but in don't see why use them if for example I'm using Romans or Gauls in a Desertical map.

[Keaton the Wise]

Perhaps you could still be able to train cavalry but it would cost less resources to train or tame horses.

[Lion.Kanzen]

The problem is one of management, micromanagement specifically. Because you're not only managing your army, you are simultaneously managing your economy, city building, technology research, and overall strategy (macro). When you add management to one aspect (needing to train horses and riders separately), then you need to remove management from somewhere else. Where would you sacrifice management in order to add it to your horse and rider scheme?

it's not bad idea if is a alternate form to have a unit. A female needs scape from a danger, from hero can be nicely dismoun Alexander or Julius Caesar. But not all,units. Can be a trick for special moments not a big feature.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Perhaps you could still be able to train cavalry but it would cost less resources to train or tame horses.

Some civs will have the ability to capture wild animals, such as elephants, camels, and horses, and garrison them at the corral to gain a training boost (cost or train time) for that type of unit. This will probably be as "realistic" as we get with this kind of thing.

[Keaton the Wise]

Ok. Another idea, if you don't mind . Do you plan to add surrendering to the AI? A possibility similar to taming animals is to make enemy soldiers surrender if they feel like they can't win.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Some civs will have the ability to capture wild animals, such as elephants, camels, and horses, and garrison them at the corral to gain a training boost (cost or train time) for that type of unit. This will probably be as "realistic" as we get with this kind of thing.

if thst the way, if we have many alternates to do something.

For example enter in a walled city, I can train a spy and give to him order to open gates. I don't need a siege engine, but how I can stop a soy spamming or rush, it's simple you can have a single spy by each Civ Center in the map.

[Lion.Kanzen]

As I said before, the game can have special abilities button that are unlock by a technology.

[Keaton the Wise]

if thst the way, if we have many alternates to do something.

For example enter in a walled city, I can train a spy and give to him order to open gates. I don't need a siege engine, but how I can stop a soy spamming or rush, it's simple you can have a single spy by each Civ Center in the map.

Spies? Are there spies in the current version? Or the new version? Or are you talking about a different game?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Spies? Are there spies in the current version? Or the new version? Or are you talking about a different game?

Not, I'm talking a other cool idea, I seen in other RTS games. Example Rise of Nations and Empire Earth 2.

[Keaton the Wise]

That is a good idea! They have spies and stuff in a game called 7 Kingdoms.

[hollth]

I think it would be good if we could expand the market system a bit. Instead of only being able to traverse between two points make it so that it can travel between multiple docks/markets (and have a small bonus). There would have to be some sort of restrictions in place to prevent abuse cases though. Only able to travel to a certain number of trade points per player perhaps? (2 markets 1 dock per player?) A distance requirement similar to the civic centre might work too. That would also reward people who had larger empires more. I suspect that this one is could still be prone to abuse though so i tend to favour the limiting number of points per player

[hollth]

Also a small improvement that should be implemented (not urgent though) is that when building foundations are destroyed the player loses some resources instead of gaining them all back.

While things are being build they should have reduced armour or otherwise be more vulnerable too.

Im not sure if this last one is in or not. When a building is being built and attacked I don't think it requires additional resources to get it to full health so it is essentially repaired for free.

[quantumstate]

I think it would be good if we could expand the market system a bit. Instead of only being able to traverse between two points make it so that it can travel between multiple docks/markets (and have a small bonus). There would have to be some sort of restrictions in place to prevent abuse cases though. Only able to travel to a certain number of trade points per player perhaps? (2 markets 1 dock per player?) A distance requirement similar to the civic centre might work too. That would also reward people who had larger empires more. I suspect that this one is could still be prone to abuse though so i tend to favour the limiting number of points per player

Trade income is proportional to distance travelled. So it is most efficient to have markets as far apart as possible. Adding intermediate markets into this system is just confusing because either it is less efficient due to the shorter distances or you need some complicated logic about the total route length and then you need to stop it being exploitable. The purpose of distance increasing income is to give an advantage to a player who controls a large part of the map. Having people create a longer circular route within a smaller base goes against this.

Also a small improvement that should be implemented (not urgent though) is that when building foundations are destroyed the player loses some resources instead of gaining them all back.

Why do you think this should be the case? If you attempt to build something and it gets destroyed you have already lost out because you wanted it built and now it is delayed, also since the enemy destroyed it they probably attacked the builders at the same time so maybe you lost some of them.

While things are being build they should have reduced armour or otherwise be more vulnerable too.

They already do have less armour.

Im not sure if this last one is in or not. When a building is being built and attacked I don't think it requires additional resources to get it to full health so it is essentially repaired for free.

This was debated. It was decided that we want it to work the way it does. It doesn't cost any additional resources to "repair" while building. I see no gameplay problem with this. The building is already being delayed and more worker time is needed to build it.