Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[ubernissen]

Didn't want to open a ticket for this one, since it's a smaller detail.

But when attacking women, shouldn't big bad warriors possess more strength and speed than the attacked?

Too often a game is finished after women have been chased across the map, since the soldiers need to stop walking before they can attack.

Historically men did possess more strength than women around the Roman era.

[Mythos_Ruler]

It's a general bug with fleeing units. Not just women, but animals and skirmishers too. We'll figure out a solution soon.

[plumo]

Some suggestions, tiny bugs, etc.

- Particles: when you select the Celtic temple,( the camp fire is animated, with smoke) in the UI, and you are looking for a good building spot. When you deselect the temple the fire and smoke particle take 1 or 2 seconds to disappear from the map. (to be clear: you don't build the temple, you just move the 'blueprint' across the map)

- Particles: the non-buildable celtic town center ( Belgian bog): smoke rises from the wrong place in the roof.

- Jubot seems to be less offensive, or is it my personal impression only?

- In acropolis ( 1vs1 version) it is possible to build an iberian fortress on the slope leading to your hill, thus effectively blocking the enemy but also your troops: you cannot decide in which direction your garrisoned troops leave the building i guess.

Suggestion: Maybe add particles to building only when researching a tech or training units? For example : Smoke out of house when training a villager, or campfire when training a druid ( celtic temple)...

Edited May 16, 2011 by plumo

[Mythos_Ruler]

you cannot decide in which direction your garrisoned troops leave the building i guess.

Units leave through the front door.

[Jubalbarca]

Jubot being less offensive than what - or are you just saying it should be more aggressive? I tend to program it to play like me, and I'm quite a turtle-ish player by nature I guess.

[SMST]

There should be some option to set the style of AI (offensive/defensive, etc.) when setting up a game eventually. It seems to me that JuBot has been more agressive in past versions, but that might just be coincidence.

[tinoesroho]

JuBot started to play defensively after 30 min of getting his butt kicked. I'm more of a fan of AIs that adapt to your style - similar to the AI in Fight Night Round 4.

[plumo]

Jubot being less offensive than what - or are you just saying it should be more aggressive? I tend to program it to play like me, and I'm quite a turtle-ish player by nature I guess.

It seems less aggressive than a week ( or two) ago. I can be wrong though.

[Jubalbarca]

JuBot's building strategy isn't perfectly optimised yet, and I've had to increase the house total to incorporate all potential eventualities. That, coupled with the way its resource gathering slows down over time, slows attack production more than in some earlier versions. The main factor is really that resource gathering slows over time because the AI only has one available dropsite; that won't be fixed until I can do a major overhaul of building placement (which won't happen this side of the 4 exams I have this week and 3 next week, alas).

Eventually I can confirm that there will be various bots available (JuBot will be a balanced player, and I'm thinking of naming the others after historical leaders so FaBot for Fabius Maximus and guerilla tactics, or AttilaBot for a cav-centric playstyle as random ideas). JuBot is something I still consider to be in very early development, so there's huge scope for work to be done. Eventually I'd like to see it playing in a very responsive manner to the player's tactics, and I'll be looking hard at things like battle micromanagement and optimising the economy. I want ultimately to build an AI that doesn't (unlike many other game AIs) need handicaps to be really competitive against human players and pull out surprises rather than playing in the horribly formulaic, blunt, and unimaginative manner that a lot of RTS AIs I've played against seem to work with.

But as I say, we're only on Alpha 5 and JuBot does have a LONG way to go. And you will kick its butt for now I'm afraid... one day it'll get its revenge.

[plumo]

Units leave through the front door.

I built an iberian fortress on a slope of my acropolis. Im quite sure i could garrison units in it from the backside, and also when i ungarrisoned the fortress, they didnt leave through the front door.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I built an iberian fortress on a slope of my acropolis. Im quite sure i could garrison units in it from the backside, and also when i ungarrisoned the fortress, they didnt leave through the front door.

Units (generally) will leave from the default bottom right side. This side will rotate along with the structure if you rotate the structure. if you ungarrison more than, say, 6 units at a time though then they will have to exit through as many sides as necessary.

[Ykkrosh]

It's the same when training units - it picks a point just outside the building's footprint, in the middle of the side it assumes is the front (hopefully our buildings all match the same directional convention), and if that point is blocked (by another unit or building; we should check for water etc too) then it picks another point about 1/30th of the way around the footprint in one direction, and then keeps alternating direction and expanding outwards until it finds a free space (else it gives up and prints an error message). (Not sure this is ideal, but it's what it tries to do currently.)

[satchitb]

I think that is the most practical solution. Be as realistic as possible, but not at the cost of gameplay.

[aldur]

just thinking of a proposal for the way you select units:

[Mythos_Ruler]

I don't like it. While the gameworld is 3D, the interface is not, and band boxes are a part of the interface. Anyone else have anything to add?

[Pureon]

I'd prefer to keep the current selection box. Adding perspective would add an unnecessary complexity.

Plus the new control groups (in Alpha 5) make unit management much easier. I had 1 large infantry group as my main attack force, one fast response cavalry group to catch any runaways, and one siege group to take care of the AI's defences - all numbered 1-3

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

This is an idea for Carthaginian soldiers. As the current concept goes, you can pretty much levy these various mercenaries such as Celtic swordsmen, Baeleric slingers, etc,... . While I like the idea, I think that it would be better if Carthage would start out with only Carthaginian troops and when they capture a territory, they can train one of the mercenary classes. The mercenaries would function a lot like super units except that they would not be quite as powerful and would give you a lower loot bonus for destroyed buildings and killed units.

[ace_aoe]

Hello, Im new here, i actually "stumbled" here but i have a idea. If anyone is familiar with the game battle realms the use a clever system in which u train normal villager and then upgrade them to warriors by sending them to the barracks/archery range etc.. i think this system can be implemented with the warrior villager with ease making for more interesting game. Pls. forgive me if this sugestion is similar to what you already have or you are to far in.

[oshron]

an idea came to me last night. first and foremost, can players construct buildings on land they dont control (either neutral land that hasnt been claimed yet or enemy territory)? i imagine that the use of this feature would depend on whether or not youre playing on a provincial map.

anyway, my idea is Palisades. in addition to stone walls, civilizations that use palisades or similar defenses should be able to build them, but only on territory that they dont officially control, kind of like those wooden forts that the US army built out in the wilderness in the 1800s, because they dont have the time to build permanent defenses. they could also be useful for scenario design.

palisades wouldnt be available on non-provincial maps (since all the land on those types of maps are entirely neutral) unless they are specifically enabled

[tinoesroho]

Located a somewhat abandoned OSS game lobby project. https://github.com/smcameron/ssgl

[plumo]

Another tiny suggestion: in combat demo maps, making sure AI player has no resources. I tested with Jubot and the AI placed 2 foundations on the map

Anyway, almost not worth mentioning.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

an idea came to me last night. first and foremost, can players construct buildings on land they dont control (either neutral land that hasnt been claimed yet or enemy territory)? i imagine that the use of this feature would depend on whether or not youre playing on a provincial map.

anyway, my idea is Palisades. in addition to stone walls, civilizations that use palisades or similar defenses should be able to build them, but only on territory that they dont officially control, kind of like those wooden forts that the US army built out in the wilderness in the 1800s, because they dont have the time to build permanent defenses. they could also be useful for scenario design.

palisades wouldnt be available on non-provincial maps (since all the land on those types of maps are entirely neutral) unless they are specifically enabled

That sounds pretty logical, but the only fortifications that I know that were built like that were Roman Forts. Nevertheless, in the Siege of Plataea, the Spartans hemmed in the small remnant of the Plataeans with two walls, but if I am not mistaken, the walls were of made of bricks since when some two hundred or so Plataeans tried to evacuate from that city they made ladders and measured them by the number of bricks used. Either way, I think that as the current system has it, the Romans can build fort structures of the likes of the forts you have mentioned.

[Mythos_Ruler]

It's fluid at the moment, but I believe we will be allowing Romans to build Entrenched Army Camps and Siege Walls in enemy territory.

[feneur]

It's fluid at the moment, but I believe we will be allowing Romans to build Entrenched Army Camps and Siege Walls in enemy territory.

That's how I imagine them at least Not sure what use they would have of them otherwise

[Mythos_Ruler]

Right, no use using an Army Camp as a forward base if you can't build it in a forward position on the map! ;D