Jump to content

Suggestions for 0 A.D.


Recommended Posts

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.

In that case I will only play 1vs1 :) Or they should lincrease the pop limit to 300. In those days batlles where with huge armies and people want realism right ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3,7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here's some suggestions I have for the game. I've tried to avoid obvious ones (like improved pathing), but probably many of them have been discussed before. BUGS (1) When constructing buildi

This is my feedback regarding Promotion Animation: I don't like it. How about following the Red Alert 2 tradition? A Promotion Visual popping over the unit's head It's a little bit like the Move

A Compass for the Map. No need to explain why it's a Nice-to-have. But what I kind of want as a consequence is to make that gold map border a little bit thicker so that I could use it to rot

Posted Images

I smell a Gametype. King of the Hill-ish, where you must capture and hold the citadel and fortress at the center of the map for a period of time. Certainly not original, but much cooler with the garisonable fortress/tower aspect.

You could add that to seige towers; they only move and/or attack with units garisoned inside of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I'd like to see for siege? Realistic siege engine movement. AoK wasn't too far off, with the trebuchets packing up to move, but even then there weren't draft animals. It just looks wierd visually to have lifeless, underscaled siege equipment moving around the map on their own accord.

Btw, thanks Gunthahaha.

Edited by Lord Zorinthrox
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, maybe you won't even have to "assume" given that you'l be able to see the unit(s) right there in the tower or manning the seige :)

This is true. When I said "assume", i meant in the fact that you won't have control over those units, and you won't have to actually create them seperate and them task them to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A physics engine is more than just graphical pleasure and an annoyance.

In regards to physics engines - I agree, there is *some* benefit other than visuals or annoyance. Unfortunately, the advanced nature of such programming challenges outweigh the benefits, as has already been stated. :)

One thing that did impress me with regards to AOE3 is the implementation of ragdoll physics. Though that could be categorized as a "graphical pleasure", it certainly may end up looking better than "static" animations. We'll see if it ends up being a plus or minus in terms of gameplay :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You know what I'd like to see for siege? Realistic siege engine movement. AoK wasn't too far off, with the trebuchets packing up to move, but even then there weren't draft animals. It just looks wierd visually to have lifeless, underscaled siege equipment moving around the map on their own accord.

Btw, thanks Gunthahaha.

I totaly agree with this in RTS games it now looks like those siege weapons have engines or something it feels weird, even in age of MYTHOLOGIE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much huge compared to modern examples of huge armies. However, I can assure you that if the pop limit can reasonably be increased without damaging much, then it will be done.

The abandonment idea does sound very fun, though. I sort of like it.

My only complaint with it is that, historically, towers and forts were simply almost never left abandoned. At the very least, a small garrison of low quality troops would always remain in there. Pretty much the only way that a fort would have no garrison inside would be A) to repel a siege or attack, :) if the garrison was summarily wiped out, and then the fort was burnt out and abandoned (Hun-style), or C) if their design and purpose was to be a stop-gap measure. I'm trying to think of other examples, but those seem to be the key.

Finally... wouldn't any player with any level of experience simply destroy fortresses and towers before they can be taken? This could be remedied with a RoN-style "raze timer", I suppose.

However, if a player could be caught off-guard (if they had just built a tower in an "offensive" matter, and hadn't quite garrisoned it, yet) or if they could be distracted (attack them from one flank to get all of their forces ungarrisoned to stop you, and then grab their towers and retreat your first attack), it could be an effective, clever tool, if only a little cheap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The abandoned fortess idea would work very weel for 0ad, and add some extra challenge. It will keep players from building unnecessary fortresses, if you cant control it, dont build it. Another idea that could go with this is that abondoned fortresses will gradualy fall into disrepair if no one controls it- eg. lose hitpoints periodicaly when no units are inside, and the next player to take control has to repair the fortress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will units be able to fire from bows and then switch to swords?

I plan to participate on development of Medieval mod for 0AD and I'd like to have Kataphraktoi, who will be equipped with short bows and swords, in game. It would be better than in AoK or AoM.

Ability of units to dismount would be appreciated, too. But in FAQ is probably written, that it won't be in game. Shame.

Also limited ammunition (and some carriers of ammunition to refill it) could be cool, too, but players should be allowed to disable this option. But I think, that it won't be in game too, because units will have quite high Hps to be killed by single arrow, so consumption of arrows will be huge.

If you are speaking about abandoning fortresses, I got idea. I always disliked in AoK, that when I wanted to destroy my building, I just pressed Del and building dissappeared. I thing, that workers should be assigned to that task (which would look ar reverse of building of structure), and it could return lots of resources from it.

I also don't like idea of nonexistence of willagers and their replacement with regular soldiers (it isn't absolutely bad idea, but I think, thet it should be modiffied, or it could be used like the way of differencing of civs). In German society, every man was warrior, but it wasn't true in Roman society.

Roman citizens should be trained to soldiers, while germans should be all soldiers with willager skills.

This would differenciate nations alot, because as German, you would have lots of soldiers (weaker, but able of farming...), while as Roman, you would have less soldiers (because you would have to take care about willagers, too), but of considerably better quality. This will also more historically accurete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, those are some of the better ideas I've seen in a while :)

Few comments:

1) Learn Javascripting and xmls and you will be amazed at what you can do with modding

2) Republican Rome (the Rome featured in Part I of our game) is a bit different than the impressions you get from movies lately that tend to feature Imperial Rome. (Historians, correct me if I'm wrong but...)Soldiers in the Republican Army were actually Roman Citizens with homes, families, farms, and buisnesses. After the war was over, they would return to their homes. Unlike later on in Rome where there was a career as a soldier, the employing of mercinaries, or forcing of defeated enemies to participate in their army.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Jason said :) The Romans we will be portraying are from the Punic War era, so roughly from 250 to 150 BC, the time of great expansion and conquest. All soldiers were citizens called up for service on a need basis. You were not required to serve continuously but you were expected to fight some 15 battles in your lifetime if necessary. Normally at this time Roman fielded four standing legions made up of yearly lottery "winners" and volunteers who served continuously. In extreme cases these legions were reinforced by huge numbers of men forming new legions when necessary. Unlike later these men provided their own weapons and armor, their wealth and age determining their position in the battle line and their troop type. While later Roman armies were not the Gladiator/Ben Hur mass of clones either, Punic era armies were full of men with different armor types and were quite varied compared to their later counterparts (who had standardized equipment and were professional soldiers). For example in 0 AD the Romans will be using:

two types of breast-and-backplates

muscled cuirasses

4 types of chainmail hauberks

2 types of scale armor

5 types of helmets

It also allows for us to portray the great battles of the Second Punic War and the Macedonian Wars in their historic equipment :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

In respect to the Roman units, will there be any Imperial/Marian Legions in the first half of 0ad?

Although the Punic-style soldiers would exist through most of the period covered by the first installment of 0ad, the famous Marian legions would exist for the last 100-150 years of the game, and as Imperial legions for the last 30 years of 0ad.

Maybe the Marian-style soldiers could be the final upgrade for the Roman units, since it seems sort of important that events like the rebellion of Spartacus, and the campaigns of Julius Caesar should played with their historical units.

Another thing about the Roman units- since 0ad will have spearmen, swordsmen, and ranged infantry as separate units, how will you compensate for the fact that the Marian Legions carried Pila that could be used as either a spear or a javelin, and a gladius sword- 3 units rolled into one (this question probably wont be applicable for the first installation of 0ad, but I'm just curius).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 units rolled into one (this question probably wont be applicable for the first installation of 0ad, but I'm just curius).

That's a very good question, Caesar89.

It wont be applicable in either Part 1 or Part 2 of 0ad. The principal differences between the two part are merely the addition of the 'later' civs giving more breath to the game. We might also in that meantime discover that there is a thing or two we can learn to do in order to enhance gameplay, too. There are some things on the 'back-burner' that are not 'cost-effective' (in terms of time to accomplish and expertise to do so--not in dollars which we ain't got anyway) at this time that we still want to 'look at' for the second part.

As I am the 'responsible party' for the soldiers concept, I'll attempt to explain it to you... briefly I hope. :P

Firstly, 0ad is a game, and not a historical simulation. Ergo, there are bound to be some variance from what was and what is... for the sake of gameplay.

Secondly, an analysis of weaponry of the era (500BC~500AD) yields that there were only 9 basic weapons types used, other than siege engines employed by anybody, during the period. Another notable thing is that there was very little in the way of 'standing professional armies', though in some cases there were what we might term as 'royal guards'. Interestingly though, the majority of soldiers, regardless of civ, were merely 'called up' at the whim of the king or potentate.... we call them "Citizen Soldiers".

One could nitpick on some very rare occurences of 'other' weapons types, but dont bother. An elephant or a horse drawn chariot is a cavalryman.

That works. :P

Note that a citizen soldier might be primarily armed with any one of those 9 typical weapons, though with some variability within a civ based upon its culture. Thus we have to look at each of the civs and determine what types of weaponry they in fact did use.... in order to determine what kinds of citizen soldiers A civ will get... no two being exactly alike.

I'm sure you;ll follow all of that so far.

One more thing to mention about citizen soldiers before I break down what they are is... that ALL citizen soldiers are not JUST soldiers, they are also citizens... they do things like farm and hunt and build thangs, as well as going off to do warfighting if commanded to do so. We divide 'em up this way: infantry citizen soldiers farm, chop, wood, mine stone and ore, build and repair structures; cavalry citizen soldiers hunt, herd, and are able (sometimes) to capture female citizens. Ergo, all citizaen soldiers have economic tasks to perform (or that they can perform).

Now then, as to the 9 types, you;ve already seen that they are divided as infantry or cavalry, and this is the way that shakes out:

Infanty:

*swordsman (melee)

*spearman (melee)

*javalinist (ranged)

*slinger (ranged)

*archer (ranged)

Cavalry:

*swordsman (melee)

*spearman (melee)

*javalinist (ranged)

*archer (ranged)

And there ya have it, foot and mounted... citizen soldiers. Now the type of sword may vary, or spear, or bow, whathaveyou... that is left up to the individual civ designers and the historians to work out... and not all civs are gonna get all 9 trooper types... in fact, noone will.

OK, why this way when you and I and darned near everybody else KNOWS that most troops fought with more than one weapon? The main reason esthtically is that we gave units, say all units, 2 or 3 weapons to fight with, they'll end up being quite the same... as other units. Another is that it is 'costly' in programming terms (something we have to always keep in mind) to have units that are 'changelings' more than once... they can change from doing thier econ tasks to military and back, but beyond that it gets 'difficult'.

However, we are not totally ignoring the fact that in most societies there were such as 'professional soldiers'. In the 'city Phase' of the game you will be abel to reain what we call "Super Units" that will be able to fight either melee OR ranged.... there'll be 2 of them for each civ... but you are limited as to the toatal number you can have on the terrain at any one time. HERE then you;ll find such as the Persian Immortals or the likes of Alexander's Companions... but in a limited quantity... which simply means that you will have to depend upon citizen soldiers to provide the bulk of your army.

Remember too, that 0 A.D. is a time that never was, so we have some lattitude wrt respect to the timeline of the historical record... I mean we are not following a timeline as the game develops from gamestart. We start out with a village, build it up to a town and then on to a city... and each time you advance you get more stuff.

And that pretty muich covers it, I think. :P

Well, as to whether Roman's legionairres turn out to be Camilian Reform or Marian Reform, or something sorta in-between, that's up to, again, the individual civ designer for Romans and the Historians on the team. There doing a good job. Someone(s) of course will always find something to 'pick at', and then unless GROSSLY in error my response will be, "Hey, mate... it's a game!" B)

Oh, and your question about the Pilum, it will be uised as a ranged weapon. Up to you how many spears and swords and all that you put with it, mate. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gracias Ken B) Well put as always.

Regarding Marian legionnaires, we felt that to make the Punic War realistic ingame it was important to make sure we had the right troop types in place. In addition the Marian-era featured highly standardized troops, at least by Punic standards. Unlike the Imperial era there were no "standardized" auxillaries and some of the more exotic troop types like archers and slingers would still have more in common with their native people then the more Romanized troops of the 1st/2nd century AD. In addition Marian legionnaires in Part I would be so stinking similar to Imperial troops in tactics and general appearance that it made sense to go for the more varied Camillans.

But as far as Marians go, perhaps one of the first official 0 AD addons will bring the campaigns of Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar to life :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read in FAQ, that there will be provinces in the game. How it will work?

You will develope each your province in turn-based mode like in Total War series an when enemy attacks you, or you'll attack enemy's province game will turn to RT mode?

What means that possibility to rewrite history?

I'd like to have something like history log about your advance and some way to export it into some usefull format. It's hard to explain, but I'd like to have some possibility to show my friends (or just for me) how shape of area controlled by my forces changed with time.

Wouldn't be better to rename ore to metal? Because you would need lot of ore to produce armour for just one man.

Will this game be open source? It's probably written in FAQ, but I forgot it and I'm too lazy to search it again.

Edited by godlike
Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan for provinces/territories is quite detailed and subject to change, so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail here.

But it's not going to be like Total War (no turn-based mode) ... Here, a single game map is split into different areas (provinces) that the player must seize (and hold onto) in order to exploit that region. As it turns out, Empire Earth 2's territory system is remarkably similar to what we came up with many, many months ago (although more complex in a lot of ways).

Consequently, recorded games (replays) should hopefully be adequate to handle your second request, since you're recording the growth of your territory during the course of a single mission.

We chose "ore" because there are a number of different minerals and metals (steel, gold, iron, silver, bronze, etc) that would have gone into manufacturing equipment or producing coin. That'd be more accurate, but since the player would then be managing a whole lot of extra resources that are gathered in exactly the same way (mining), it seemed like extra effort for no gain. So gameplay won out over authenticity in this case and "ore" provides a way to refer generically to precious minerals.

We do not currently plan for the engine to be open source. But, we are focusing on making it data-driven so that modders can alter the entity/UI/logic scripts and so affect gameplay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Stan` featured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...