Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[B-29 Bomber]

First, I'd like to say that this is one of the best games I've seen, both Free and paid.

My Suggestion: As it is right now Towers and other such defensive buildings can't be built within a certain distance of another of the same type. I have no problem with this! On the contrary, it makes perfect sense! However, there is no visual representation of where that minimum distance is, though it does tell you. I think it would make things a bit easier if there was a visual representation on the game map.

I'm playing as the Britons against the Romans on the Corinthian map.

[Farawyn]

yes check one of the left panels

yes but when using mouse

[Farawyn]

maya civilization is planned?

[Lion.Kanzen]

maya civilization is planned?

No, because the classical age is outside of planned time frame, in the forum the modders like me we discuss to add them as Civilization pack about precolumbian civs.

[auron2401]

Well, i see, ticket opened 2 years ago

Btw, the 2 others propositions are IMO the most interesting, because would clearly improve the gameplay and relations between players, patrol button suggestion is interesting but can wait 2 years more.

Most of the feature tickets were opened a long time before they were implemented, a way to have a "planned features" list, if you may.

I see a plumed archer scrub. :3

Edited May 6, 2015 by auron2401

[sanderd17]

maya civilization is planned?

We try to keep us to civs that got in contact with each other, between 500 BC and 1 BC. Starting from the Roman and Hellenic civs. So mostly centered around the Mediterranean.

[Zeta1127]

My post on page 148 has so far been ignored.

[Lion.Kanzen]

My post on page 148 has so far been ignored.

Open it as new topic is very relevant but no all here can help to solve

[Ayakashi]

We try to keep us to civs that got in contact with each other, between 500 BC and 1 BC. Starting from the Roman and Hellenic civs. So mostly centered around the Mediterranean.

But having civs that never had contact fight each other in a 'what if' scenario is incredibly fun! Kind'a like the appeal of Deadliest Warrior but more historically accurate and less 'stupid'!

This is why want RoTE to be 'official', but that's up to the CoM... or is it Kimball, I guess!?

Edited May 7, 2015 by Ayakashi

[RoekeloosNL]

Not all fortress models and defense tower models are equipped for this. And I'd rather invest artistic and programming resources in other work.

It seems like a lot of work for little gain, and maybe even end-user confusion.

Would it be possible to enlarge a tower with a platform to build a catapult or scorpion on and do so with a mechanic that when you click on a tower you get a option in your UI to upgrade your tower with artillery. And lets say you only have a X-amount to build so you can't upgrade every tower and maybe even some new tech's to increase te amount and abilitys.

I think its a well worth investment and creates some new defence/attack tactic,s to the game.

Some champion or elite iberian cavalry already shoots flaming javelins. And some catapults shoot flaming rocks.

And for the cav shooting fire javs i dont agree on and sould be just normal javs maybe you can give a upgrade abillty that add,s different javelins but not with fire. If 0.A.D try's to be as historial and realistic as possible then i don't think that iberian cav sould have that abillty i believe only the huns did something like that.

[niektb]

But having civs that never had contact fight each other in a 'what if' scenario is incredibly fun! Kind'a like the appeal of Deadliest Warrior but more historically accurate and less 'stupid'!

This is why want RoTE to be 'official', but that's up to the CoM... or is it Kimball, I guess!?

Just so you know it, the Han would've easily beaten the Romans if they would ever get into touch. I'm not sure if that's a fun game to play

Kimball has no vote in it anymore (after all the ownership of the project was transferred to CoM and with it his vote, right?), so it would be up to CoM and WFG.

[Zeta1127]

Lion, my post is just a friendly suggestion to any member of the team about some cleanup of outdated tooltips, nothing more, and nothing less.

[Farawyn]

Kind'a like the appeal of Deadliest Warrior but more historically accurate and less 'stupid'!

Spartan is deadliest warrior S1

[auron2401]

Besides being the most over-rated Unit in history, spartiates were never that great.

Their track record isn't so fantastic compared to most athenai hoplitai, for example. Sure, a LITTLE bit better,
No, the deadliest warrior, was easily the roman legionairy.

There is a reason rome had an empire, and sparta did not.

Edited May 8, 2015 by auron2401

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Besides being the most over-rated Unit in history, spartiates were never that great.

Their track record isn't so fantastic compared to most athenai hoplitai, for example. Sure, a LITTLE bit better,

No, the deadliest warrior, was easily the roman legionairy.

There is a reason rome had an empire, and sparta did not.

And what is your basis for this claim? The Spartans defeated the Athenians on land time and time again and were practically undefeated until the rise of Thebes. Surely Roman legionnaires were capable, yet most were simply conscripts prior to the Marian Reforms and suffered many defeats. There is not simply one reason that Rome had an empire while Sparta did not. (Naturally when Sparta was in its height it only controlled most of Greece with a league.) Reasons for Spartan decline were many including decreased birthrates and unequal land-distributions. Romans, realise, were pathetic in defeating Hannibal in Italy unless it was by attrition.

[Ayakashi]

^^

You lot above are probably missing the point here! I was simply suggesting that if 0AD is to let us pit civilizations from the same time but never met against each other (e.g China vs Rome) it can be very fun, in the same way how Deadliest Warrior pits warriors that never met against each other is fun. Except in the context of 0AD things will be more historically accurate as opposed to walking stereotypes as were in Deadliest Warrior, or most other RTS games as a matter of fact!

Anyway lets not turn this thread into a pub argument and keep it to suggestions shall we!? Mods probably won't be happy

Edited May 9, 2015 by Ayakashi

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

There is a reason rome had an empire, and sparta did not.

That reason is because Sparta did not want an empire. Almost everything they did, every alliance, every league, every battle, was to defend their peculiar way of life, not to build an empire.

Edited May 9, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Farawyn]

In addition to armor, it would require a percentage of agility (technically same effect compared to the armor). This would be useful for the monks of Deadliest Warrior (example).

Or else a dodge probability.

I like the first suggestion

PS: Note that the French version of DW is bad.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Farawyn

[greenknight32]

The Roman's big advantage was logistical. They built fortified military camps that were basically temporary cities - they sometimes became permanent cities. They were able to support their legions in the field indefinitely. Other peoples, when you defeated them, they went home - the Romans went back to their camp and prepared for another attack.

[Lion.Kanzen]

The allíes can have the possibility to build into the allied territory , now with new system is very interesting feature specially team vs team online.

[DarcReaver]

Maybe a bit off topic, but I don't want to spam mass topics in this forum. So I post here instead.

What about ship warfare? I've read some cool stuff in your wiki about ramming and entering ships in naval combat. I REALLY love that idea - I also loved naval combat in Rome II, which has ramming and entering possibilities, too.

If you look at age of empires, naval maps are pretty boring - just spam galleys all day long and hope you have more than your opponent.

The idea of ships being real "tactical" weapons with flanking and ramming is just awesome. I'd love to see something like that. As for implementation, I'd love to see no transport ships at all. Instead, all regular ships are spawned with a garrison, but are rather expensive.

For example you construct a Trireme, and it comes out armed with like ... idk 20 soldiers. When it's out the Trireme can be used to transport these troops to the shores to raid enemy villages. Additionally, you can later on build/upgrade them with ballistae, catapults and stuff like that (maybe even individually). Little fishing ships can be garrisoned with a few spear infantry units/archers to raid/capture/ram enemy fishing ships early on, creating a very unique dynamic on the sea.

As a drawback, most ships would be VERY expensive, take long to train and be rather slow. That way, loosing ships/microing/repairing them becomes very important. That would be something entirely new and very awesome.

Edited May 29, 2015 by DarcReaver

[Lion.Kanzen]

About Total War Naval... The first time I see that idea was in Rise and Fall : Civilization at War , you use the ships as platforms and the units fights and invade other ships, even fights like they do it over the land into ship the platform itself

So I don't see the problem , introduced in the same way.

.http://youtu.be/xq-ZVyHo5x8

( the heroes in this game uses 3ird person perspective) but the other use are manipulated a classic RTS

Edited May 30, 2015 by Lion.Kanzen

[Prodigal Son]

Maybe a bit off topic, but I don't want to spam mass topics in this forum. So I post here instead.

What about ship warfare? I've read some cool stuff in your wiki about ramming and entering ships in naval combat. I REALLY love that idea - I also loved naval combat in Rome II, which has ramming and entering possibilities, too.

If you look at age of empires, naval maps are pretty boring - just spam galleys all day long and hope you have more than your opponent.

The idea of ships being real "tactical" weapons with flanking and ramming is just awesome. I'd love to see something like that. As for implementation, I'd love to see no transport ships at all. Instead, all regular ships are spawned with a garrison, but are rather expensive.

For example you construct a Trireme, and it comes out armed with like ... idk 20 soldiers. When it's out the Trireme can be used to transport these troops to the shores to raid enemy villages. Additionally, you can later on build/upgrade them with ballistae, catapults and stuff like that (maybe even individually). Little fishing ships can be garrisoned with a few spear infantry units/archers to raid/capture/ram enemy fishing ships early on, creating a very unique dynamic on the sea.

As a drawback, most ships would be VERY expensive, take long to train and be rather slow. That way, loosing ships/microing/repairing them becomes very important. That would be something entirely new and very awesome.

While I generally don't like the current naval combat with garrisoned ships being much stronger in attack to ungarrisoned ones, having them trained with a starting crew is a nice workaround, since it prevents many possible imbalances/annoying cases like having to constantly move new ships around to add troops to them or losing your only/few garrisoned ones and being left with a much weaker navy even if you still have many ships. Having less and stronger ships sounds valid as well, given the huge ship size in the game which makes large navies a messy/buggy display. Marine units could also make sense this way. You can unload the ship's starting crew to land, instead of having some ships train units.

Capturing ships with some visible boarding action (or just similarly to structures if visible implementation is hard) would be a nice feature as well. Ships could be geared for ramming, boarding or ranged combat (or a couple of those each) giving different tactics/ship classes and civ bonuses.

Still, fighting with fishing ships in a no from me, and transports should be available to ferry land troops, the merchant ship could easily double as a transport.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Prodigal Son

[DarcReaver]

While I generally don't like the current naval combat with garrisoned ships being much stronger in attack to ungarrisoned ones, having them trained with a starting crew is a nice workaround, since it prevents many possible imbalances/annoying cases like having to constantly move new ships around to add troops to them or losing your only/few garrisoned ones and being left with a much weaker navy even if you still have many ships. Having less and stronger ships sounds valid as well, given the huge ship size in the game which makes large navies a messy/buggy display. Marine units could also make sense this way. You can unload the ship's starting crew to land, instead of having some ships train units.

Capturing ships with some visible boarding action (or just similarly to structures if visible implementation is hard) would be a nice feature as well. Ships could be geared for ramming, boarding or ranged combat (or a couple of those each) giving different tactics/ship classes and civ bonuses.

Still, fighting with fishing ships in a no from me, and transports should be available to ferry land troops, the merchant ship could easily double as a transport.

Exactly, this creates another dynamic for naval combat, and it also lowers the risk tradeoff between "going full naval" and "going full land force" like it is in AoE. If you go full land on island maps you're pretty screwed because your enemy can take the sea without problems - and out econ you. So you're forced to go for the sea every time and hope you can manage your resources well enough to maintain sea control. With ships coming with garrisons you can play out both ways - going full sea is not such a huge risk since you still have soldiers that you can put on the shores. And with the herdable system on land, huntables and such you still can maintain good eco if you're not planning to rule the sea. As ships are very expensive to get and take long to train.

The idea of fishing ships being garrisonable was my idea to get early dynamic into the naval warfare early on without having to rely on "real" ships in age 1 - it also fits well with the military citizen system that currently is in place. Promotes early action besides going eco on the sea at start. You can use those ships both ways - as defense and as offense. They shouldn't be able to ram though. But you can go ahead, harass and capture enemy ships this way.

It shouldn't be so that you loose all your ships in the blink of an eye against marauding fishermen tho.

Edited May 30, 2015 by DarcReaver

[niektb]

Maybe give fishermen a max garrison of 1/2 (and no attack/boarding capability)?