Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[Titus Ultor]

That's possible without much effort, too have damage carry over like that. Think of the Scorpion from AoK. I think this entire conversation has been done before, but earlier in this very topic, as Dnas pointed out.

Boulder and rock attacks are most useful as a shock weapon, as rocks can only roll over a few people before they can dash out of the way. As a shock weapon, rocks could disrupt formation (which, as I'm told, will have an inherent advantage), perhaps damage a few key units, if you're lucky, and maybe lower the morale of the troops. The last one most likely won't be possible in the first release, and the other two would only lead to chaos and difficulty of play.

Also, historically, employing rocks and such weapons required a great deal of effort and preplanning, both of which would, if properly implemented in 0 A.D. (as Paul would assure), involve such intense micromanagement that the relatively small benefits would leave a weakened defense.

[Vingauld]

I don't think mere mortals could get a boulder big enough to crush people going fast enough to crush people before they got outta the way. The only way to do it would be with hills...but that's getting into a lot of micromanaging.

I actualy ment rolling it from a hill..

but he it won`t be in game anyway

[Bakayaro]

The boulder-rolling is a bit too much. I mean, you still want to play as an RTS, right?

But I don't think formations should do too much, and the autoqueue annoys me as a crutch for lazy players who don't want to have to queue up more units during combat.

But hey... that's just because I play too much WC.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Well, when you play a game that has hundreds of units, the autoqueue comes in handy. WC3 is hardly what I'd call a "high pop" game.

[Phoenix-TheRealDeal]

The boulder-rolling is a bit too much. I mean, you still want to play as an RTS, right?

We in the design department actually seriously considered this just about 3 years ago, and after quite a bit of discussion decided to discard.

[Titus Ultor]

The value of formations must be large to maintain historical accuracy. If they're weakened (as in AoK), then it ignores the entire purpose of organized combat. The legions work as well as the phalanx, but quicker. All units are not given proper historical roles, but are only charged in massed groups to counter.

[Caesar]

Each civ could have their own unique formations: Romans- Maniple, Hellenes-Phalanx, ect.

[friedd0g]

im not too sure, but i beleive thats what the team is aiming for already? which would be pretty darn kool

p.s Wijit.. did you get my email mate?

Edited April 8, 2005 by friedd0g

[Caesar]

This may have been asked already, but in the scenario editor, can the names of units and heroes be changed?

I am also working on an article about the rise of christianity.

[Wijitmaker]

Not sure if it will be able to be edited in the scenerio editor... but you'll be able to mod them somewhere.

@Sam - got your email, and replied last night

[Fire Giant]

This may have been asked already, but in the scenario editor, can the names of units and heroes be changed?

←

If I get this correctly, you mean renaming them using triggers? That is planned for sure, it in fact is one of the most basic features planned for the editor - while Bobby (Cheezy) made the editor concepts, he always had those things in mind, because they were missed by the community in AoM.

[Quacker]

I can't remember if this has been brought up, but for the "create unit" trigger, there needs to be a box for the name of the unit, if one so chooses to name it.

[Lord Zorinthrox]

Quip on the Sced program: will you be able to reload the game info from teh editor, or better yet, from the main menu? This would be useful for modders, as you can keep 0ad running, say in a window, alter you mod content, save it in the game folder, and then reload everything so the mod takes affect withou having to shutdown and restart the game.

[Edited for clarity]

Edited April 15, 2005 by Lord Zorinthrox

[Caesar]

Is it possible to build roads in 0ad, or will they just be a terrain type? I ask this because many civilizations, especialy the Romans, relied on road building to secure their empire and hasten the movement of armies. If roads are not able to be built, I suggest giving them a terrain bonus for speed.

[Fire Giant]

Quip on the Sced program: will you be able to reload the game info from teh editor, or better yet, from the main menu?  This would be useful for modders, as you can keep 0ad running, say in a window, alter you mod content, save it in the game folder, and then reload everything so the mod takes affect withou having to shutdown and restart the game.

[Edited for clarity]

←

I'm probably going to be a bit vague on this, but I do not want to tell anything I'm not supposed to tell

But, yes, we have considered this idea and we're evaluating whether it's possible to implement something along those lines; not only to support the modders but also to make development easier for ourselves (you wouldn't like to know how often I've already restarted the game because of minor modifications I made to the files).

So, you might expect something like this, but we cannot promise anything, as always

[Aeros]

@Lord - I can't exactly say...

To some extent it works like that (or we'd like it to be like that), like you can replace a file in the file system and when you go back to the editor the new files will immediatly take effect. However this is very complicated and we're unsure if we'll be able to support the feature through final release. Its definately something we want to do though to make the game more modder (and developer) friendly.

@Caesar: Accourding to our Design Document, different terrains will provide different speed properties for units. We can make it so that units travel faster on roads or something along those lines, however details like that are left for testing. It may be possible that you can "build" roads in the editor for use in the campaign however I can't yet say whether that will have any impact on gameplay.

[Septimus]

how about having to have a unit garrisoned into the towers for them to work (ie attack)? Then surprise attacks would actually be surprise attacks instead of warning the player as soon as the enemy is within the tower's LOS.

[Phoenix-TheRealDeal]

Now that's a very GOOD idea.

[Vingauld]

It is an ok idea. One of the cons is that if you have to garrison towers the units are using your population limit, but if you deside to use them in an attack your camp/base/vilage/ wil be left undefended against other enemys (2vs2 or something) and that kinda sucks

[King Tutankhamun]

I was reading National Geographic for the month of May, and came upon something interesting that we could possibly do.

The article was on toxins, and one part of it was on how in around AD 199 when the Roman's attacked Hatra the citizens retaliated by throwing large clay pots full of deadly scoprions at the Romans.

And also it said that Hannibal did the same but the deadly snakes about 400 years earlier. They then catapulted those pots into the enemy fleet.

Now, wouldn't that be cool to have?

It was basically a teracota clay pot with burlap across the top and then tied with twine. Several deadly scorpions or snakes would then be put inside of it.

[Septimus]

It is an ok idea. One of the cons is that if you have to garrison towers the units are using your population limit, but if you deside to use them in an attack your camp/base/vilage/ wil be left undefended against other enemys (2vs2 or something) and that kinda sucks

←

Well that is the point, since it would be more realistic also it prevents people from doing that thing where they build gazzilions of towers and use it offensively (sorry dunno what its called ), also teaches about pop management/placement....

[Lord Zorinthrox]

how about having to have a unit garrisoned into the towers for them to work (ie attack)? Then surprise attacks would actually be surprise attacks instead of warning the player as soon as the enemy is within the tower's LOS.

Hmmm. That would be an interesting technical point to put in any RTS game, but like Vingauld said, it cuts in on pop limits. That could cut either way, but it sounds like something that would be good to add as one of thsoe options you check before you go into a skirmish or multiplayer.

You know, like in Command & Conquer, you can select "redeployable MCV" or not, or in AOMTT where you can select "one click garisoning" or not.

[Caesar]

How about allowing fortresses and towers to be abandoned if there are no units garrisoned inside? For example, in order for a player to keep a fortress in their possession they must garrison one or more units inside or else any other player can take the fortress by moving their own units inside.

[Quacker]

Kind of a Command and Conquer touch?

[Red_08]

That would be sweet!

How about also having the type of unit effect the attack and LOS?