Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[hollth]

Make wall towers less powerful imo. They're superior to normal towers with way way way more effective HP and the same attack. I would think reducing the attack and or garrison number would be a good place to start as it pushes it more towards a movement inhibiter and separates them from towers more. Alternatively towers could be buffed, but defensive buildings are already on the stronger side so nerfing wall-towers/walls seems more sensible to me.

[alpha123]

Make wall towers less powerful imo. They're superior to normal towers with way way way more effective HP and the same attack. I would think reducing the attack and or garrison number would be a good place to start as it pushes it more towards a movement inhibiter and separates them from towers more. Alternatively towers could be buffed, but defensive buildings are already on the stronger side so nerfing wall-towers/walls seems more sensible to me.

That is something we should do something about. The other big advantage of wall towers is that they build very quickly. However, the Crenelations upgrade doesn’t affect wall towers, so in practice they end up firing fewer arrows. Still, they’re a bit too powerful for the cost and build time.

My plan to solve this is threefold:

1. To require that a wall tower has at least one length of wall adjacent to it. This means that knocking down walls would be easier, and wall towers couldn’t be abused and built on their own as high-HP defense towers like they can currently.
2. Change how many arrows each garrisoned soldier adds; you could still garrison 5 units but it would only add another arrow for every two units garrisoned.
3. Unless the Night’s Watch tech is researched, non-garrisoned wall towers shouldn’t fire any arrows. Thus, they’d be harmless until units are in them.

The first one compensates for the low cost and short build time but high HP by making large sections of wall easier to take down, and the last two encourage wall towers to have a more defensive use of creating chokepoints and keeping enemy units out of your city.

[hollth]

I don't quite understand the first point. The middle section of between the towers needs to be a certain length before walls may be placed?

[niektb]

What about making wall-towers weak (in term of attack/arrows) and upgrade it by placing a watch tower atop? (That way the watch towers need to be remodeled though to make it fit in a wall)

[sanderd17]

I don't quite understand the first point. The middle section of between the towers needs to be a certain length before walls may be placed?

No, just that you can't place towers without middle section (or if you destroy all connected middle sections, the towers are taken down too).

Btw, alpha123, I have some code ready to query the wall pieces connected to a tower, or the towers connected to a wall piece. It's not on trac, as it's ugly. But you could use it to get some hints.

[Mythos_Ruler]

How about this. Wall Towers don't show up unless as a joint between two long wall segments. Otherwise, say between two medium wall segments, you just get a connector, not a tower.

[feneur]

How about this. Wall Towers don't show up unless as a joint between two long wall segments. Otherwise, say between two medium wall segments, you just get a connector, not a tower.

+1 This sounds best to me, especially since I would imagine it might be difficult to build walls in some places without being able to place short walls reliably, but it would be good to avoid allowing players to place wall towers almost right next to each other.

[hollth]

I dislike the idea from an expectancy and communication perspective, however, it does seem to be the best way to tackle it.

An another note, I think the embassies need a little more differentiation. The Italic and Gallic are almost identical

[hollth]

Didn't know where to put this so feel free to move it if its ill placed.

A bit of an inconsistency with the civilian/champion unit divide. Civilian persian chariots are stronger than british champion chariots in almost every respect. Realistically this might not be something that needs to be altered since balance needs to be looked at holistically as well. However, if there is need to nerf persian or buff Britons this is probably a good place to start. My feeling is that Britons are currently a bit too weak (but then again I lack any data) so I thought I'd bring this up. Personally the population is the thing I'd change.

[FeXoR]

How about this. Wall Towers don't show up unless as a joint between two long wall segments. Otherwise, say between two medium wall segments, you just get a connector, not a tower.

+1 This sounds best to me, especially since I would imagine it might be difficult to build walls in some places without being able to place short walls reliably, but it would be good to avoid allowing players to place wall towers almost right next to each other.

Why do you want to restrict wall towers close to each other?

For me walls/wall towers already have a bad price/value rating due to the lag of range.

I feel defense towers/fortresses are more effective.

Besides: Not placing towers between short/medium walls will

- Make the original wall idea obsolete (considering length relations and so we could directly make a new concept that might work better).

- Will cause problems (like pinnacles rising into the parapet walk) due to the design of walls.

Edited January 27, 2014 by FeXoR

[Prodigal Son]

Didn't know where to put this so feel free to move it if its ill placed.

A bit of an inconsistency with the civilian/champion unit divide. Civilian persian chariots are stronger than british champion chariots in almost every respect. Realistically this might not be something that needs to be altered since balance needs to be looked at holistically as well. However, if there is need to nerf persian or buff Britons this is probably a good place to start. My feeling is that Britons are currently a bit too weak (but then again I lack any data) so I thought I'd bring this up. Personally the population is the thing I'd change.

I can't remember the stats/prices now but it makes sense to me that a heavy scythed chariot should be stronger than a simple one. Could make the Briton one more cost effective to validate it as a champion though.

However, as I've said again chariots are a bit strange for me currently. In the game's timeframe they were more of an outdated leftover from older times, and in almost all battles in the era they behaved poorly. I wouldn't have them rank up with new horses and different cart skeleton appearing out of thin air, nor as champion units since they weren't effective enough to justify it. One-rank unit like the spartan skyrites, with high trample damage (second only to elephants) but very easy to run amok would do.

[FeXoR]

IMO Champoin units should stronger but less cost effective (have a lower cost/combat value ratio - in case I confuse terms).

That way it's good to have many civil soldiers and a few champions - and that's the way it was AFAIK.

[Prodigal Son]

IMO Champoin units should stronger but less cost effective (have a lower cost/combat value ratio - in case I confuse terms).

That way it's good to have many civil soldiers and a few champions - and that's the way it was AFAIK.

It could very easily depend on the unit, for more variety. Also, having many champions (which usually are more expensive) also restricts your economy as you have less gatherers, so already each choice has pros and cons. Making them less cost effective as well wouldn't fit in well imo. Neither makes perfect sense historically. Some ancient armies were largely professional or based on cores of elite troops rather than a huge army of militia with a few elites. Some elite units were more cost effective than average troops, scoring victories vs seemlingly impossible odds, while other ones were not and got overwhelmed by lesser units. So the choice should be up to the player instead of almost forcing them to have mostly citizen soldiers and there could also be a variety of cost effectiveness as a balancing/historical flavor factor.

Anyway I suggested improved cost effectiveness rather than balanced one for the Briton chariot, to keep it weaker than scythed ones as it should, while worth as a champion at the same time. AOE 2 has some champions weaker but cheaper than normal units and it works.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[FeXoR]

Prodigal Son: Yes, true. Thought more of less military based/organized civilizations like Celts.

We'll have to look closer how balancing works out in the end.

Because not only the (many) factions have to be balanced but the different units in one faction compared to each other as well.

With the many core concepts (civil soldiers vs champions (vs. civil cavalry only able to hunt so unique, too), enhanced damage vs., damage/armor type) it will be hard to balance those factions while keeping them feel different.

Edited January 27, 2014 by FeXoR

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Since British chariots were used for speedy transport, maybe they could be garrisoned with infantry to allow for fast attacks and retreats, but only with one unit.

[sanderd17]

Why do you want to restrict wall towers close to each other?

For me walls/wall towers already have a bad price/value rating due to the lag of range.

I feel defense towers/fortresses are more effective.

Besides: Not placing towers between short/medium walls will

- Make the original wall idea obsolete (considering length relations and so we could directly make a new concept that might work better).

- Will cause problems (like pinnacles rising into the parapet walk) due to the design of walls.

I think they still want a structure to hide the seems (a connector), but it should be garissonable, or shoot arrows. I think having two sorts of towers (one real tower, and one mere connector) would be possible.

[FeXoR]

I think they still want a structure to hide the seems (a connector), but it should be garissonable, or shoot arrows. I think having two sorts of towers (one real tower, and one mere connector) would be possible.

Yes, that will be OK for visuals.

I still don't understand why this is whanted from a balancing point of view.

The cost of (closed) walls (at least on most maps) is much higher than the cost of the siege units to raze them.

Since both sides need units in case of a siege to win the sige walls hardy seam overpowered in general.

They might counter some tactics effectively though but that's what they're for as far as I understand it.

Edited January 27, 2014 by FeXoR

[sanderd17]

It's not really about the effect of closed walls. If walls are used like they are supposed to be used, there's no problem.

The real problem arises from people who only want the wall towers, and use them as defense towers instead. They don't have a minimum range (and it's hard to give one without limiting the length of walls), they shouldn't be attackable by regular soldiers, they have a bigger armour, they cost less, ...

The plan is to, in some way, bonus the usage of walls like they should be used. With suggestions s.a. non-shooting connectors when you're not using long wall pieces, not letting towers stand allone, ...

[FeXoR]

Thanks, now I'm on the track.

What about replacing all wall towers with the connector (independent on the appending wall parts length) and make them upgradeable to wall towers (like long wall parts to gates).

This way the wall on it's own can be cheap while wall towers could be as expensive as defense towers.

Then the player can decide what he wants - but for a price.

I don't like minimum range but in case of buildings and if it's historically accurate it seams sensible. It should be longer then a siege ram but shorter then a siege tower IMO (if this value exists).

The maximum range, however, should be higher then that if a normal unit because of the higher position.

Making wall towers more expensive would enable us to balance this.

A drawback of this concept is more micromanagement though.

Edited January 27, 2014 by FeXoR

[hollth]

Thanks, now I'm on the track.

What about replacing all wall towers with the connector (independent on the appending wall parts length) and make them upgradeable to wall towers (like long wall parts to gates).

This way the wall on it's own can be cheap while wall towers could be as expensive as defense towers.

Then the player can decide what he wants - but for a price.

I don't like minimum range but in case of buildings and if it's historically accurate it seams sensible. It should be longer then a siege ram but shorter then a siege tower IMO (if this value exists).

The maximum range, however, should be higher then that if a normal unit because of the higher position.

Making wall towers more expensive would enable us to balance this.

A drawback of this concept is more micromanagement though.

I like this idea more tbh. What is happening is more clear than having some towers shoot and other not. It would be ideal if there is some visual differentiation between the two. Not sure if its possible to have this yet. IIRC there was some code that needs to be done before something like this can be achieved.

[FeXoR]

hollth:

It more Mythos_Ruler's idea with my thoughts added.

Concerning the work:

- The "wall connector" has to be modeled for every wall style (nut sure how much work)

- The code needed to replace the entity should be very similar to the "wall to gate" upgrade (simple)

- In wall placement methods the wall tower would have to be replaced with the "wall connector" (trivial)

So I can't see any real problems here.

It would be nice to have an upgrade animations, though (instead of instant entity replacement).

Edited January 28, 2014 by FeXoR

[Stan`]

What kind of Connector should it be ?

[FeXoR]

I'm thinking of an "capped tower" without windows:

- Lower part as the wall tower

- Higher than walls, not as high as wall towers

- Simple, solid top

...but this is up to discussion and ofc. the artist.

[Stan`]

Well I guess we should be opening a topic for this.

What I'd like to see in 0ad would be the ability to recruit medium and heavy units after researching the last technology. That way if you are out of money you can still manage to slow down your opponent

[menschmeier]

Hi,

I have been playing 0 A.D. for a few days now, and although the game is very good I have some suggestions:

I noticed that you already give the players a way to be faster and gaining an adventage by speed. (Hotkeys for training units etc.)

But I still think there should be more ways to step up your game. For example: Hotkeys for building Houses, doing upgrades etc. Basically, try

to make nearly everything doable without using the mouse. If then we could also customize thoose hotkeys it would be perfect.

Also, please give us players the abillity to disable the sounds troups or buildings make when we click them.

The Hud seems a little small cosidering that i have wide parts on the left and right of the screen which is wasted space. The small troop selection part of it is very

distracting too. Just make everything a little bigger and give the player a better oversight.

The overview of the control groups is good but it might be better if you put it on top of the main part of the HUD.

I know the game is still in Alpha stage and some things I mentionend might just be added in time

but I still wanted to give my feedback because I really like the game and this whole project.

Sorry for my horibble grammar I am not a native english speaker.

-menschmeier