Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

now auron, sure u have a lsight economic advantage but if u do loose that battle he will have economic advantage, you can gather much more troops near your base then away from it, and there is a good way to use walls maybe if you watched my vid of me playing vs infoman you would know, you put lines of walls infront or in random places and you put men on them and palisades are good to defend vs sword attacks on your farms and such raids just noone is really bothered to do so and yes i have played a large map but in history they werent limited to where they could expand,

a simple solution to your problem would be to have a thing where you have to built your cc atleast 200 blocks away from any cc not only yours, though i am not sure i would want this. but sure settlents can be added, maybe on them its cheaper to build a cc or something + you get the gaia units already there

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

z i prefere to make sure that my first priority is not to loose, second not to loose

[iNcog]

Just nerf civic centers so that they can't defend areas by themselves. Make them require military presence to defend an area. They can be a defensive boost which allows less units to hold off more units but it shouldn't hold off hordes and hordes of units like I noticed it would do in the past.

Same with towers. I think they were nerfed (units in buildings being vulnerable is already a good nerf in itself; and an interesting one); but yeah, you get the idea.

Are animations hard to code? It would be nice that units have different animations for when they're attacking buildings. aesthetically speaking this was one of aoe3's strong points (shameless self plug of a friend of mine).

http://youtu.be/bHwVwimEuys?t=12m58s

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

Just nerf civic centers so that they can't defend areas by themselves. Make them require military presence to defend an area. They can be a defensive boost which allows less units to hold off more units but it shouldn't hold off hordes and hordes of units like I noticed it would do in the past.

Same with towers. I think they were nerfed (units in buildings being vulnerable is already a good nerf in itself; and an interesting one); but yeah, you get the idea.

Are animations hard to code? It would be nice that units have different animations for when they're attacking buildings. aesthetically speaking this was one of aoe3's strong points (shameless self plug of a friend of mine).

http://youtu.be/bHwVwimEuys?t=12m58s

but the reason why cc were made stronger is to protect vs rushes and especially double rushed in 2 v 2, for your idea to work they would need to make maybe outposts stronger or i suggest that they make the original(the one you start with) a cc/fort and others just cc's

so they are two different buildings.

Edited October 29, 2014 by LordIgorIIIofKiev

[iNcog]

but the reason why cc were made stronger is to protect vs rushes and especially double rushed in 2 v 2, for your idea to work they would need to make maybe outposts stronger or i suggest that they make the original(the one you start with) a cc/fort and others just cc's

so they are two different buildings.

just make units?

if your opponent is making units to rush you, you should be making units to defend. you also have defender's advantage to work with, so mathematically you should be perfectly fine with weaker CCs, unless your build is very greedy

for double rush in 2v2, well, have your team mate rush your own base to defend and make sure you scout the rush coming.

Edited October 29, 2014 by iNcog

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

iNog sure you can make units but your opponent has probably 15-20 units and you wont be able to train more than 5 at a time and thus every soldier that you build will quickly be outnumbered

Edited October 30, 2014 by LordIgorIIIofKiev

[Theodotus]

"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." 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.

In my opinion, that's one of the purposes of this game: to give players a more detailed, well-rounded view of historical civilizations and leaders.

[Zophim]

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

That is correct, although they will probably end up being split up among several eras (United Monarchy, Divided Ephraim/Judah, etc).

[Zophim]

My comments are in italics.

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...

I believe this unique civ difference is meant to reflect the concept that the Spartan phalanx is a literal wall of men, wood, and bronze.

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.

I wouldn't exactly say that the Persians "liberated" the Jews, though ("changed masters" would probably be more accurate (although neither Babylon nor Persia were as heavy-handed towards their conquered peoples as Assyria was)). The Babylonians and Phoenicians are definitely both viable Aristeia mod options. The Maccabees would be a good candidate civ for a vanilla-game-compatible mod. They revolted against the Seleucid Greeks and established an independent kingdom for a good while, but were eventually absorbed by the Romans (in a rather complex era of Near Eastern history).

[Theodotus]

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).

The Maccabees managed to set up a state that resisted foreign domination for a century, no small feat! They could at least be a mini-faction.

It would be nice if the Thebans were a playable faction as well, though. They've already been in the 0 AD main menu's history section for a long time.

[Prodigal Son]

As much as I'd love several extra civs for the core game, 12 are already hard enough to balance and some of them still need extra artwork, especially the Seleucids.

[Zophim]

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

Well, let's see... chickens and other domestic animals are a different story. IIRC domestic animals in 0AD have never attempted to flee being slaughtered. I was referring to the skittishness of wild animals in my earlier post.

If you have enough ranged units (say, 3 or 4 skirmish cav) systematically hunting together, they can take down an animal fairly quickly.

Enabling trade for neutrals would be great for those players who wish to play their cards close to their faces while they decide what the political situation looks like (and posture/align themselves accordingly), and could really make for some interesting chat messages and gameplay styles. But that's just me. Others' mileage may vary.

[greenknight32]

After having a unit set to hunt an animal, and having him chase it way across the map, I started having them circle around behind the game so they ran back toward the Civic Center.

[iNcog]

iNog sure you can make units but your opponent has probably 15-20 units and you wont be able to train more than 5 at a time and thus every soldier that you build will quickly be outnumbered

if your opponent has 20 units when he attacks you and you only have 5 units to defend, then that means that your build is unsafe. you should be using a build that has more units out to defend when his attack hits.

You have defender's advantage to work with as well, since your units have no distance to travel once they're finished being trained. We also have the border mechanic in 0 AD, which prevents people from building forward bases too early in the game; this acts as a secondary defensive mechanism. On top of that, soldiers which are trained for defense can be tasked to gathering resources*, so you don't even lose out on economy if you make defensive units.

If, on top of all the defense mechanisms I just talked about, you also have very strong buildings (CCs and towers), then a match of 0 AD quickly becomes a match of "who can take the map with CCs the fastest", which isn't actually very fun. It's the primary reason I don't play the game as much as I did when I discovered it. 0 AD as of right now is all about taking the map with buildings that are much more cost-efficient than actual units. It's not very interesting no matter how you look at it.

That said, units being vulnerable even when they are garrisoned in buildings is a mechanic that helps alleviate that problem. A few more nerfs to CCs and towers and the game's design will become quite sound.

*I actually have an issue with the fact that the unit rank upgrade is now gone. before, it meant that if you wanted units which were strong in combat, you had to sacrifice your economy. so if you wanted to rush, you would get the upgrade asap, if you wanted to play defensively and economically heavy, it made sense to wait until you could safely support a house boom or caravan boom before getting that upgrade. now, that line is kind of gone and i'm not sure if that's good or not, since it makes defensive, economic play the "best", on paper anyway. well, this would take play testing on my part to confirm, just wanted to throw this thought out there.

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

i think that you misunderstood me what i said was that theoretically your opponent has more troops then you when he attacks yes? thus he outnumbers your units and defeats them after that you will only be able to train 5 at a time thus his troops will always outnumber yours

and equal players take the map at same speed thus very interesting matches.

but i like your idea why don t u make lets say forts and cc only able to garrison like 5 the rest go onto the roof of the cc and for forts aswell because i dont believe that in history they were in the fort but on the walls of the fort

give it the same mechanic as walls no?

Edited November 2, 2014 by LordIgorIIIofKiev

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

i think that you misunderstood me what i said was that theoretically your opponent has more troops then you when he attacks yes? thus he outnumbers your units and defeats them after that you will only be able to train 5 at a time thus his troops will always outnumber yours

Can't you train 5, 10, 15, 20 men at same time?

[ickylevel]

Have skirmish formation (ranged units that keep a distance automatically), a tech that must be developed at tier 2.

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

Can't you train 5, 10, 15, 20 men at same time?

mhm its a rush do if u can spare 500 food 500 wood maybe maybe but 15 20 no way + if they attack your houses ur dead, you have to play to know you guys are just throwing theory at me

*I actually have an issue with the fact that the unit rank upgrade is now gone. before, it meant that if you wanted units which were strong in combat, you had to sacrifice your economy. so if you wanted to rush, you would get the upgrade asap, if you wanted to play defensively and economically heavy, it made sense to wait until you could safely support a house boom or caravan boom before getting that upgrade. now, that line is kind of gone and i'm not sure if that's good or not, since it makes defensive, economic play the "best", on paper anyway. well, this would take play testing on my part to confirm, just wanted to throw this thought out there.

well u would need to go into second age first and by that time it woudnt be a rush

[greenknight32]

I don't see where there's a problem. You can prevent opponents from building forward CCs with cavalry, keep some scouts deployed to detect any building activity. If they invest in a CC and you destroy it before it's completed, you gain a big economic jump on them, so it's hardly a surefire strategy.

[zzippy]

If they invest in a CC and you destroy it before it's completed, you gain a big economic jump on them,..

How this? You get resources back.

... just throwing theory at me

This. Do you even play the game vs humans? Whats your nick in the lobby, wowgetoffyourcellphone?

[ickylevel]

Have ranged units have limited ammo, have this ammo replenished over time when the units are in controlled territory.

[Germanic_celt79]

I'm not sure if this has been suggested but can you add the Murus Gallicus style wall for the Gauls? It should be cheaper in stone and cost some wood. Also, it should have functioning turrets, as it often would have.

[greenknight32]

How this? You get resources back.

You sure about that?

I tried to test it, but the AI wouldn't destroy the partially-completed CC. Attacked my troops and marched on my base instead. Gives me the idea - kill the builders but leave it standing so it ties up resources.

Anyway, maybe you shouldn't get the resources back, if that's how it works - that would make the tactic a lot riskier. Or maybe you could get back only the percentage that hasn't been completed.

Capturing buildings would also make the tactic risky.

Edited November 4, 2014 by greenknight32

[Lion.Kanzen]

Some quick ideas

Add friend list to the lobby

Rating team battle

Double click to join in a match

[gracian]

Town centers should not be drop sites. That way they would not be surrounded with farm fileds which is not natural.

[gracian]

Maps should make each game different expiriance because gamers should adjust their strategies to map atributes. Maps should have more and less fertile places for farms, animals which are difficult to hunt, local minor enemies allies and neutrals, even hordes and pirates to invade map periodicly. That way maps should matter. Current state is bad- maps aspect is underestimated.