Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[Pariahbass222]

See i have yet to understand why rome was left without them? That's how roman colonies were founded. Legion moves in with civilians and by the morning a fortified town sits where there was once a field. That was just roman. Also, anyone know when the reforms tech could come into play? Saw the units in the editor and it just tickled me pink. Anyway but romans with palisade is keeping true with their historical nature and doctrine.

[Zeta1127]

The thing is, the Romans technically do have palisades in the form of siege walls, but they are only available in the city phase.

[Lion.Kanzen]

The thing is, the Romans technically do have palisades in the form of siege walls, but they are only available in the city phase.

hmmm but the palisades are pasive not have turrets to attack and the size is minor related to the space where is set to be placed.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I suggest add message when the Ai reach a new phase like AoK. Is not a great suggestion but I want to know how fast is now the Ai.

And I have a question about commands what is new for A17, the attack move have new options right? how can I use? How work the new balance?

Playing I see the economy now is faster I like how faster is

Other suggestion why not create a pasive Ai good to defense but slow to expand and to attack(rush) , the actually Ai is rush and good defender but why not focus in some aspect like AoM you can select the Ai and give personalities.

I'm happy with Petra now is time to start give some diplomacy may be dame tribute to avoid attack or stop

[Pariahbass222]

I just want a17 out lol

[dgbug3]

My opinion on the caves it may be a good idea, but in effect what would happen is the cap for graphics would increase, and therefore it might make it really lags maybe in Beta 17?

I think the no 1. priority should be the AI's. I think you should have Easy- Hard and then legendary, mythic, brutal, and then chaotic, then Impossible. Now why impossible? You may never beat it but it would significantly improve your skills in certain levels, if you only want to defend in a castle defense map etc.

My only other complaint is the trade, I mean trade can be implemented so that traders can trade with enemies. Now other then those two I don't see a lot of reasons besides the known to complain.

Map editor needs work. (You can't go down.) Other then that the game is great. I like it more then AOE, and some other games because it's really unique. Now If you decided to shell this out on say steam or something and charge $10, I wouldn't care honestly. That's still pretty cheap, and you would gain more $$. But thanks for not though.

I suggest add message when the Ai reach a new phase like AoK. Is not a great suggestion but I want to know how fast is now the Ai.

And I have a question about commands what is new for A17, the attack move have new options right? how can I use? How work the new balance?

Playing I see the economy now is faster I like how faster is

Other suggestion why not create a pasive Ai good to defense but slow to expand and to attack(rush) , the actually Ai is rush and good defender but why not focus in some aspect like AoM you can select the Ai and give personalities.

I'm happy with Petra now is time to start give some diplomacy may be dame tribute to avoid attack or stop

we agree AI is no 1.

[RuleMaker]

You must punish the quitters otherwise there is no point in playing this game online... just wasted 2+ hours playing against player "berttl", and when I was like 10 minutes from winning he left the game... "sorry i have to leave", I asked him to resign at least to which he says "NEVER"... there are many asses out there and you must punish them by subtracting points from their accounts or something. I played about 10 games in alpha 17 and had at least 6 of them ended with someone quitting, of course unless they are winning the game. Many people out there don't have any decency so this is a big issue and kills the game balance, moreover it kills my will to play it anymore.

[rolf.sievers]

I guess you can just count that one as a win, especially since you were about to win anyway. IMHO, you leave — you loose.

On that account, I don't think you should be able to leave the game without resigning. That is just an unnecessary distinction. Why are those buttons kept separately anyway? (Should be “resign” when you play and “leave” when you observe.)

Edit: I didn't play 0ad multiplayer yet, so I was unaware about the existing rankings as Itms kindly pointed out to me on IRC.

Edit2: There are changes planned, by the way. But currently no one is actively working on it. (AFAIK)

Edited October 17, 2014 by rolf.sievers

[feneur]

Map editor needs work. (You can't go down.)

I guess you mean lower the terrain? If so that's possible, just right-click/right-click-and-drag instead of left-clicking when using the Alter terrain tool (See http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Atlas_Manual for more information on how to use Atlas )

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I would suggest that Cleopatra should not be a Ptolemaic hero. The only relevant accomplishments she is remembered for is seducing powerful men. I would rather recommend that Arsinoe the II be her replacement. Arsinoe the II was supportive of Ptolemaic naval conquest and would be appropriate in that respect.

[Zophim]

I have some positive feedback after playing a little Alpha 17, as well as suggestions for the game in general. Thanks in advance for reading!

I haven't tried out every civ yet, but based on what I've seen so far, here's what I liked (in no particular order:

1. Progressively higher tech costs.

2. More techs to select (including, I was happy to see, civ-specific ones, such as Rome's Sibylline Books, which had already been in the Republican Roman design doc for quite some time).

3. Unpairing of many techs (although I don't know if this is simply a placeholder, pending a different system).

4. Smoother process in moving groups of units across the land without formation hang-ups (although I noticed that very large groups tend to leave some of their members behind).

5. Rams can actually damage units now.

6. The Mod Selector.

7. Units on walls.

Now for the suggestions:

1. Enable each hero to be trained only once - simply retraining a particular hero once he dies is rather unbelievable (and unrealistic) and removes some of the player's responsibility to make wise decisions. Players would be compelled to use their hero judiciously if they knew he wasn't expendable.

2. Enable trade with neutral as well as allied players. I don't believe a player should have to be outright allies with another player in order to enjoy economic benefits; even if a player is operating as an "isolationist", I think he should have the freedom to engage in trade with other civs without the obligation of military aid that an alliance would entail. Perhaps being allies with a player could grant someone a trade bonus, but I'd prefer that we not bar non-allies from trading altogether.

3. Re-implement the skittishness of huntable animals (known as an "escape distance"). Currently, an in-game animal waits until it has been stabbed/shot to decide to flee, which is not true to life. For those who might object that implementing escape distances would make hunting too difficult, that's where ranged units come in useful.

4. (this might not be practicable right now, but I think it could be classified as one of those "Nice to Have" features) Implement "fertile farmland" terrain textures, much like what was discussed in this topic. A red square when placing a farmfield would mean "unplantable", a yellow square would mean "possible but low yield", and a green square would mean "fertile, high yield."

[DonSkallon]

First I want to report a possible problem with the Spartan Civilisation in 0ad: No matter how far you age up, stone walls do not become available.

Spartans can only build pallisade walls. Or was this intended? Historically, Spartans used to build great walls and structures of stone so...

Second I want to suggest a new civilisation to be added to 0ad: Israëlites. I know, it has been suggested before, and rightfully so.
Seems entirely appropriate given the geographical area and timeframe of 0ad.

How can they NOT be in the game? They fought the Romans and the Greeks who both conquered their land and they were liberated by the Persians from

Babylonian slavery. It would only seem sensible to put Israelites in the game. Perhaps also Babylonians(allthough they may be a bit too early for 0ad)
Phoenicians may also be appropriate in this game.

Furthermore: Enable soldiers to take spoils of war. Destroy all enemy units around an enemy building and the building is yours. Example:

Conquer an enemy storage-building and the building and all the resources stored there are yours. Allow melee soldiers to quickly finish off

the 4 men driving enemy siege weagons; Then allow 4 of your men to man the empty siege weagon and use it yourself.

At last: Allow soldiers to set fire to buildings and farmlands. Shooting arrows and hacking away at farms is rather silly.
Also shooting and hacking away at walls and guard towers seem silly. Stone walls should only be possible to bring down

using catapults, trebuchets and ballistas/scorpions. Wooden pallisade walls could be burned down. Same goes for guardtowers:
Wooden outposts may be burned, stone guardtowers ought to be brought down using catapults or trebuchets. Would make the game alot more strategic.

Edited October 28, 2014 by DonSkallon

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

Great ideas

Edited October 28, 2014 by LordIgorIIIofKiev

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

First I want to report a possible problem with the Spartan Civilisation in 0ad: No matter how far you age up, stone walls do not become available.

Spartans can only build pallisade walls. Or was this intended? Historically, Spartans used to build great walls and structures of stone so...

Second I want to suggest a new civilisation to be added to 0ad: Israëlites. I know, it has been suggested before, and rightfully so.

Seems entirely appropriate given the geographical area and timeframe of 0ad.

How can they NOT be in the game? They fought the Romans and the Greeks who both conquered their land and they were liberated by the Persians from

Babylonian slavery. It would only seem sensible to put Israelites in the game. Perhaps also Babylonians(allthough they may be a bit too early for 0ad)

Phoenicians may also be appropriate in this game.

Furthermore: Enable soldiers to take spoils of war. Destroy all enemy units around an enemy building and the building is yours. Example:

Conquer an enemy storage-building and the building and all the resources stored there are yours. Allow melee soldiers to quickly finish off

the 4 men driving enemy siege weagons; Then allow 4 of your men to man the empty siege weagon and use it yourself.

At last: Allow soldiers to set fire to buildings and farmlands. Shooting arrows and hacking away at farms is rather silly.

Also shooting and hacking away at walls and guard towers seem silly. Stone walls should only be possible to bring down

using catapults, trebuchets and ballistas/scorpions. Wooden pallisade walls could be burned down. Same goes for guardtowers:

Wooden outposts may be burned, stone guardtowers ought to be brought down using catapults or trebuchets. Would make the game alot more strategic.

1) no problem, spartans have the best champion unit in the game so they werent given walls to sort of balance it out i think,

2)i think that the developers are pretty busy with 12 civs and its hard enouph to balance already but a mod for the israerlis would be great

3) i think that capturing building will be implemented, but for the siege i agree great idea like i said on my thread

4)good idea, in my opinion farms should be possible only destroyed by siege and arrows and hack dont destroy the farms but decrease their efficency and the efficency can be brought up again by "repairing"

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

I have some positive feedback after playing a little Alpha 17, as well as suggestions for the game in general. Thanks in advance for reading!

I haven't tried out every civ yet, but based on what I've seen so far, here's what I liked (in no particular order:

1. Progressively higher tech costs.

2. More techs to select (including, I was happy to see, civ-specific ones, such as Rome's Sibylline Books, which had already been in the Republican Roman design doc for quite some time).

3. Unpairing of many techs (although I don't know if this is simply a placeholder, pending a different system).

4. Smoother process in moving groups of units across the land without formation hang-ups (although I noticed that very large groups tend to leave some of their members behind).

5. Rams can actually damage units now.

6. The Mod Selector.

7. Units on walls.

Now for the suggestions:

1. Enable each hero to be trained only once - simply retraining a particular hero once he dies is rather unbelievable (and unrealistic) and removes some of the player's responsibility to make wise decisions. Players would be compelled to use their hero judiciously if they knew he wasn't expendable.

2. Enable trade with neutral as well as allied players. I don't believe a player should have to be outright allies with another player in order to enjoy economic benefits; even if a player is operating as an "isolationist", I think he should have the freedom to engage in trade with other civs without the obligation of military aid that an alliance would entail. Perhaps being allies with a player could grant someone a trade bonus, but I'd prefer that we not bar non-allies from trading altogether.

3. Re-implement the skittishness of huntable animals (known as an "escape distance"). Currently, an in-game animal waits until it has been stabbed/shot to decide to flee, which is not true to life. For those who might object that implementing escape distances would make hunting too difficult, that's where ranged units come in useful.

4. (this might not be practicable right now, but I think it could be classified as one of those "Nice to Have" features) Implement "fertile farmland" terrain textures, much like what was discussed in this topic. A red square when placing a farmfield would mean "unplantable", a yellow square would mean "possible but low yield", and a green square would mean "fertile, high yield."

its already hard to hunt some animals so if they move away from you straight away makes it a bit harder, lots of micro big pain, i dont want no chickens running away from me and hunting animals with melee big pain, and by saying that ranged units come useful they already arent very precise when hunting

sure trading with neutral allies can be implemented but will anybody really do it? u can just trade with yourslelf + your merchs arent but into danger

[niektb]

Hebrews (or Israelites) would be a strange choice to me to add.

Except for the Maccabean revolt there happened nothing mention-worthy in the time span 500 B.C. - 1 B.C. (being conquered is not really mention-worthy).

If that's everything I think there are better candidates to be added (if there were any civs to be added).

[Lakeman]

This is my first post in the forum. As a longtime RTS fan, I've been following this game since I discovered it about a year ago, and I'm absolutely enthralled with this project. I look forward to each beta iteration, and in the longer term I'm also excited for campaigns and the 1-500 CE civs.

Anyway, I finally had to register because I EMPHATICALLY disagree with the following suggestion:

I would suggest that Cleopatra should not be a Ptolemaic hero. The only relevant accomplishments she is remembered for is seducing powerful men. I would rather recommend that Arsinoe the II be her replacement. Arsinoe the II was supportive of Ptolemaic naval conquest and would be appropriate in that respect.

While Arsinoe II would be a fine Ptolemaic hero, none of the current ones need to be replaced. To say that "The only relevant accomplishments [Cleopatra VII Philopator] is remembered for is seducing powerful men" is simply an ignorant statement (and I mean no offense, as a great many people share this ignorant point of view). I recommend Stacy Schiff's "Cleopatra: A Life" if you want to know more about why she is definitely worthy of being a Ptolemaic hero in 0 A.D. She was quite a remarkable leader, and while she may be best remembered in popular consciousness for seducing powerful men, that was only one aspect of her long and complex reign.

[thamlett]

Israelites/Hebrews will be available in the Aristeia (Bronze Age) mod in the future.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

"While Arsinoe II would be a fine Ptolemaic hero, none of the current ones need to be replaced. To say that "The only relevant accomplishments [Cleopatra VII Philopator] is remembered for is seducing powerful men" is simply an ignorant statement (and I mean no offense, as a great many people share this ignorant point of view). I recommend Stacy Schiff's "Cleopatra: A Life" if you want to know more about why she is definitely worthy of being a Ptolemaic hero in 0 A.D. She was quite a remarkable leader, and while she may be best remembered in popular consciousness for seducing powerful men, that was only one aspect of her long and complex reign."

My statement I would argue is not an ignorant statement. Perhaps it was not worded well, but to most people, that is what she is only famous for. While Cleopatra may have been a competent leader, Arsinoe II, from my knowledge, seems the better of the two. Not only was she actively involved in the First Syrian War, but also had wide influence in other matters. For the purposes of a game focussed on war, Cleopatra seems to be an incompetent military commander at least (Battle of Actium), making her a poorer choice. Would you explain your rational to having her in game besides citing a book? It is not as much a matter of whether Cleopatra was a ruler, but what makes her a better hero than Arsinoe the II. You yourself pointed out that Arsinoe the II would make a fine Ptolemaic hero.

[Lakeman]

"While Arsinoe II would be a fine Ptolemaic hero, none of the current ones need to be replaced. To say that "The only relevant accomplishments [Cleopatra VII Philopator] is remembered for is seducing powerful men" is simply an ignorant statement (and I mean no offense, as a great many people share this ignorant point of view). I recommend Stacy Schiff's "Cleopatra: A Life" if you want to know more about why she is definitely worthy of being a Ptolemaic hero in 0 A.D. She was quite a remarkable leader, and while she may be best remembered in popular consciousness for seducing powerful men, that was only one aspect of her long and complex reign."

My statement I would argue is not an ignorant statement. Perhaps it was not worded well, but to most people, that is what she is only famous for. While Cleopatra may have been a competent leader, Arsinoe II, from my knowledge, seems the better of the two. Not only was she actively involved in the First Syrian War, but also had wide influence in other matters. For the purposes of a game focussed on war, Cleopatra seems to be an incompetent military commander at least (Battle of Actium), making her a poorer choice. Would you explain your rational to having her in game besides citing a book? It is not as much a matter of whether Cleopatra was a ruler, but what makes her a better hero than Arsinoe the II. You yourself pointed out that Arsinoe the II would make a fine Ptolemaic hero.

I'm sorry, apparently, I misunderstood your statement; I thought you were asserting that seducing powerful men was indeed Cleopatra's only serious contribution to history, which is not accurate. I agree with you that that is what she is most famous for to most people. However, I certainly don't think that that should be the basis for which heroes are chosen to be in 0 A.D. I also don't think the heroes necessarily have to be chosen due to military command skills alone, as diplomatic skill was and is very important as well (although this is not [yet?] well-represented in the game) and Cleopatra was a skilled diplomat. I am no historian, and it's a very debatable point, but I would certainly not call her an "incompetent" military leader either, despite Actium. I wouldn't actually argue that she is a "better" hero than Arsinoe II to include, but I would argue that she is not a worse choice. The limit of 3 heroes per civilization is arbitrary anyway, so why not include both of them?

[auron2401]

Cleopatra aside, Back to suggestions.

My suggestion: Settlements.

Currently, civic centres and military settlements, can be placed wherever you want them, The only condition is: Is this structure More than 200 (meters? miles? How does 0ad scale it?) away from another one.

Now while I find this works okay-ish, sometimes.. it doesn't create a sense of usefulness, they are literally just a form of territory, everyone just slowly expands, and doesn't give an @#$%-rats about certain locations.

Anyway, Settlements would function as follows (for the non-aom player)

Settlements are neutral/gaia structures, which are placed on the map before the game start (either by random map generator or by or by the map maker).

Civ centres can only be placed on said settlements (and military settlements if ptol/selu)

Why is this good?

• Allows map-makers and random-map scripters to regulate game flow.
• Fixes Priorities: Usually Your first priority would be "build civ centre next to enemy territory, build towers", it would be "build on the civ centre in the middle, to have the most control over resources"
• Allows for custom maps where civ centres are closer than 200 whatevers apart.
• allows for maps where there is only 1 settlement per-player on the map (where you have to kill off players to gain access to more tracts of land.
• Would make roman military camp and siege wall, not so absolutely useless.
• Maybe make palisades not useless, if they are allowed to be placed in neutral territory?
• Would make skirmish maps more competitive, in the way starcraft (and the aforementioned AoM) does it. Which is definitely good.
• Get's rid of the WW1 Trench-warfare gameplay which is the current trend. (which is almost entirely BAD)

A problem which would be imposed if this were implemented, as it is, 0ad is a territory based game, and for 9/10 cases, you can only build structures WITHIN said territory.

Potential solutions for said problem:

1. Outpost structures, which provide a very small territory area, (maybe half of a military settlements) which you can place storehouses on. (Also functions as a tower?)
2. Allow Farms, farmhouses, and storehouses to be built in neutral territory.

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

Now auron, lets get some things clear sure, you may think that the priorities are to build a civic center next to the enemy and tower up, but this isnt as easy since its next to oponnent so he can mobilise quicker and have more troops at his disposal. Me infact i prefere expand near my own territory since it allows me to have access to more resources and move the border further away from my main base. This would limit the game too so much and scouting everywhere woudnt be necesary. Not forgetting that infact building sotrehouses and farmhouses in neutral territory would render mauryan elephants useless to a certain extent since they are much slower so it would be more effucent just to build a farmhouses and storehouses pretty useless. Your idea would limit so much and render the game completely different.

[zzippy]

1st priority is to win. 2nd too. aso.

[auron2401]

Now auron, lets get some things clear sure, you may think that the priorities are to build a civic center next to the enemy and tower up, but this isnt as easy since its next to oponnent so he can mobilise quicker and have more troops at his disposal. Me infact i prefere expand near my own territory since it allows me to have access to more resources and move the border further away from my main base. This would limit the game too so much and scouting everywhere woudnt be necesary. Not forgetting that infact building sotrehouses and farmhouses in neutral territory would render mauryan elephants useless to a certain extent since they are much slower so it would be more effucent just to build a farmhouses and storehouses pretty useless. Your idea would limit so much and render the game completely different.

No, it's VERY easy. If you have a slight economic advantage over your enemy, then it's not only easy, it's the best thing to do.

The storehouses / farmhouses was just a temporary solution to any problems which may come out of it. Considering it's a VERY Game changing idea, Certain elements being rebalanced are DEFINITE, You lack INSIGHT, LordIgorIIIofKiev!

My idea wouldn't limit.... ANYTHING, infact, it would make some elements of the game actually USABLE. Eg, who the hell uses siege walls and siege forts? You don't need them! You can build anything, everywhere! Thus you can build walls everywhere!

..also, have you.. EVER, played a large map?

[iNcog]

oh so civic center rushing is still a thing. ):