Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[newspace]

Hi everyone, I have followed 0 A.D. for a while and after A16 release I think I have some ideas for a more realistic formation system:

Currently, I find that units are moving at normal speed in formation (it is really fast because soldiers have to maintain formation while moving), they also break formation easily when engaged plus formations have not yet offered bonus in armor and attack (i think programmers are already working on it)

So my suggestion is that we can employ a kind of officer unit that each individual unit can deploy and mainatin a formation (i.e testudo and Syntagma).

- In these separately identified formation:

units will not break formation without the death of the officer or the whole team

it is also easier to give bonus on armor and attack for units in a formation: testudo guys can have superb protection against missile troops and pikemen dont have to bear unrealistically strong armor as now (pikemen are only strong in formation, individually they represent easy target - Am I right ?)

I saw this feature long ago while playing Cossacks: EU wars

- For those officers:

they are troops of higher health, armour and attack (i.e a nice centurion for the Roman)

they can have their own building and tech

they can form the formation of different sizes (16, 25, 36 ... units each). Place them near the troops and the options will appear in control panel.

to avoid being abused as a super strong type of stroop, I think they should be made expensive or tied with condition(s) (i.e one officer available for one barrack built) or both. This could make them strategically important.

P/S: It is possible to see soldiers garrisoned onboard ships for realistic naval combat and landing ?, on the wall also. I know it is a burden for programmers but it looks cool !

Edited May 25, 2014 by newspace

[Godzilla]

I would enjoy to see an arab faction

[bouke]

it is also easier to give bonus on armor and attack for units in a formation: testudo guys can have superb protection against missile troops and pikemen dont have to bear unrealistically strong armor as now (pikemen are only strong in formation, individually they represent easy target - Am I right ?)

Yes, pikemen are strong from the front in formation, individualy and from the side/rear they are very weak.

- For those officers:

they can have their own building and tech

to avoid being abused as a super strong type of stroop, I think they should be made expensive or tied with condition(s) (i.e one officer available for one barrack built) or both. This could make them strategically important.

Officers are a great idea, I think.

With moving an officers you should move the whole formation so you can move formations more easy.

Officers should be trained by a special building, sort of officers tent. For every tent 1 officer can be trained (until the officers dies, then another 1 can be trained and so on) and there should be a build limit for the tents, so there is a maximum of officers. These tents are a sort of house, but only for officers.

Its not possible to have more then one officer in a formation.

[bouke]

So my suggestion is that we can employ a kind of officer unit that each individual unit can deploy and mainatin a formation (i.e testudo and Syntagma).

Yes, each individual unit could be enhanced to an officer for that type of unit (spearman to spearman-officer, archer to archer-officer), this will cost some resource, take some time and it is only possible near an officers-tent (see previous post), so you cant get a new officer easily in a battle directy after you lost one.

[bouke]

I would enjoy to see an arab faction

Well, look up an ancient arabic faction, make a list of units, buildings, technolegies etc. Start making the art-work. The game devellopers will perhaps implent it.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Well, look up an ancient arabic faction, make a list of units, buildings, technolegies etc. Start making the art-work. The game devellopers will perhaps implent it.

the team spoke clear when said about have only 13 faction at maximum( first part). But a faction for second part like Palmyra.

[newspace]

Its not possible to have more then one officer in a formation.

And if the officer dies, that unit breaks and looses their bonus points, it will make officer tactically important and in PvP players will go officer-hunt.

I think there were differences in the ways ancient armies placed the officer in the front or in the rear of the formation, so the vulnerability of officers in each faction is totally different, this could add some value to gameplay.

Yes, each individual unit could be enhanced to an officer for that type of unit (spearman to spearman-officer, archer to archer-officer), this will cost some resource, take some time and it is only possible near an officers-tent (see previous post), so you cant get a new officer easily in a battle directy after you lost one.

Yep it is interesting but we still need to hurry the newly-created officer to the front line, by the time they get there, the unit could have been eliminated. So i think we can have an option to level up a soldier directly to the rank as ad hoc solution to keep up the fight - it should cost much more than leveling them up near the tent (I think players would loose some resources rather than the fight so they have to work out how to protect those VIPs)

[Sanguivorant]

Making siege weapons buildable by military citizens on the battlefield instead of training them in a production building?

Maybe both can be kept, and the on-site built siege weapons would be weaker than the ones made in a production building.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Making siege weapons buildable by military citizens on the battlefield instead of training them in a production building?

Maybe both can be kept, and the on-site built siege weapons would be weaker than the ones made in a production building.

Hmm mi prefer only for fixed Siege equipment than mobile. Like bolt shooter or onager . Edited June 1, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[Sanguivorant]

Yeah. This would leave the Celts and Iberians at a disadvantage though.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yeah. This would leave the Celts and Iberians at a disadvantage though.

no because are more fragile unit, low hitpoints very power full against walls and very weak against melee.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Add bonus defense to units on wall with tech may be crenellations

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Hoardings would be more more appropriate as a new technology.

[bouke]

There is a little bug/mistake with the houses. When you have done the +1 or +2 pop cap per house, you get when you make a buildplace for a house the extra bonus and get the bonus another time when you finish the house. So you get for every house you build a pop cap bonus of 16 (doing both upgrades).

Even when you destroy the buildplace you hold the given pop cap bonus.

You see the problem?

[sanderd17]

Thanks for reporting, it's fixed in SVN now: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/15391/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/components/Cost.js

[cuyo]

Hi,

I was wondering if it's planned to allow building in allies territory, that would be a neat feature.

Keep up the good work! Your game is getting awesome

[Clovisnox]

A good idea would be to put a graphical tool (within the regular "option" menu ?) to customize the keymap (for each key or at least "fr" or "de"
I guess it's possible to reassign now but not easily ?

[Tango_]

This is my personnal point of view, certainly not true for everybody>>>I agree with cuyo on the principle, because i actually think that, for example, 2v2 are more two 1v1 in the same game than a real 2v2. I explain myself:

One of the famous "strategy" (and probably the most used generally) is to build a civic center next to your opponent. Thanks to this , you can put pressure on him, and hope to beat him. So in 2v2, your ally should more or less do the same : both players expanding simultaneous on the same opponent is something i've never seen (still in the way that you age2 and build CC before fighting). The fact that each player can only build in his own territory prevent some real 2v2 battles, because allies cc (were troups are sensed to be) generally aren't so close from each other ( at least at the beginning of age 2). so, indeed, i think, and personnaly see 2v2 as a double 1v1.

SO, build in your ally territory should be something interesting. And I think i have a potential solution : An embassy .

I see things like this:

-The embassy is a building that you can build in your ally territory, and which allow you to build some buildings around it.

-The embassy should have a considerable cost, to not be abused or OP.

-The embassy allow to build only military production buildings ( barracks, stables, and why not fortresses?).

-The embassy give to his builder a zone (not his territory) where he can build. This embassy zone should be fully in the ally. territory -> no embassy buildable on your ally border and no man's land (or opponent border) to win territory.

Thanks to the embassy, allies are on the same field, so , your opponent ally will have to help. then we gonna have 2v2 battle, with a real team work. These 2v2 battles are i think the most important thing in RTS multiplayer games, because, it is together that you win, not alone.

Furthermore, the embassy concept could allow some new team strategies, and this time really thought (not the usual romans rush at 5min with 30 swords, that you and your ally do together, on the same ennemy = efficient, but boring.). Just 2 examples:

> I go age 2 asap, and my ally build army. when i am age 2, i run to build a cc near one of my opponent. CC built. My ally build embassy and a barrack (or stable) when i put some defense towers on the borders. When my ally fight, i build my eco, or an army, or think to age.

> Me and my ally know we gonna be rush. So, one of us aims to go age 3 asap. To be short : play as usually, and at a moment my opponents build cc near me. i defend the best i can. i know i wont hold on. my ally, still in the way to go age3 asap ( as the offensive is on me), come and build an embassy in my territory to help to hold on.

Conclusion : This Embassy is just my personnal idea, which can improve the game, on my mind. On the one hand, it would increase the team work, and would increase the intensity of the games. On the other hand, thanks to this embassy many strategies, based on team work, could emerge.

[Lion.Kanzen]

[...]

Good brainstorming

-May be allow allies build walls in the border of common territory.

Edited June 19, 2014 by leper
Remove useless full-quote

[leper]

Lion.Kanzen: Could you not full-quote the post just before your own post, thanks.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Ieper sorry I'm in ipad I haven't same tools.

[zzippy]

Great idea that "embassy" in team games. Definitely worth to be discussed.

[Tango_]

Lion.Kanzen -> i agree with you, but i personnaly think that only wood walls should be buildable... dont forget that the ally who has built the embassy, still isnt in his territory ... then, only the dude who has build the CC or the Colony could build stone wall (because he is "at home")...

zzippy -> sure dude

My proposition is only based on my 0AD feelings, and only aims to increase team work, if somebody has another idea, i would enjoy to read , and analyze it.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Tango_

[Radagast.]

Embassy is no bad idea, but too much art work for our team of only 2..4 artists. If you can reinforce the team e.g. by recruiting, then it might be different.

I think allowing to build more buildings in allied territory is better. And you always can send gatherers as those can already use the allied storehouses if I'm not wrong.

Please tell me if I miss the point and that is not enough for team play.

Sending soldiers to the ally, the ally then can control as mercenaries is also helpful?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Lion.Kanzen -> i agree with you, but i personnaly think that only wood walls should be buildable...

in the frontier because some times to block a common enemy I Ieper and me one time we play togheter as team and we defeat a guys that spawn elite Spartites , but to defeat his big army were build walls in leper territory to my archers and turrets bets thst army but I can build in his territory, the map was Corinthian Isthmus Edited June 20, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen