Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[XLightningStormL]

On 5/1/2018 at 8:36 PM, Sundiata said:

Kushites will be in Alpha 23. The Kingdom of D'mt and Aksumite empire are indeed both from the wrong time-period (500BC - 1BC). Garamantes are the primary African civ that could still be done, but that won't be easy in terms of reference material, and other factions like Scythians and Thracians are a little more important with regard to the other civs already in-game. That having said, Aksumites would be incredibly cool for Millennium AD.

 

A tremendous amount of people have put a tremendous amount of effort into this and every other alpha update. You can follow the evolution of individual updates/bugfixes/new features etc. here: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/timeline

 

I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here? That Napatan and Meroitic period Kushites were more Greek than Egyptian influenced? That would be incorrect. There is clear Hellenistic influence, but at no point in their history does it become dominant. They liked Mediterranean wine and the Greek language was known by at least some Kushites (for trade and diplomacy), but they remained firmly a Nile Valley Civilization till the very end, with their own unique twists of course. They worshipped "Egyptian" gods, continued using and adapting hieroglyphs, built pylon temples and truncated pyramids. The last temple of Amun was built in the 3d century AD, for example. No temples to Greek gods were ever built. 

Also the term Aethiopia ("place of burnt faces") in classical Greek literature refers primarily to Kush and not Axum. Only later does the term become more widely applied to areas south of Kush as well, including modern day Ethiopia.  

1) There's a reason why I had doubt of them appearing in A23, it was because of uncertainty.

2) There's a reason for what I said, it's because the Timeline + A23 Release Tracker is obviously missing content, and thus too short (especially for the feature freeze a few months ago)
3) The Aethiopians are more Greek (as a whole) influenced than Egyptian (The Greeks trading with the Aethiopians, having an "Aethiopian" king partake in defending Troy [debatable], etc). I believe you are referring to Herodotus' map? Even then the "placement" of the "Aethiopians" are vague, and is more situated "as south" of Meroe (the Capital of the Kushites) rather than above it, also Classical Greek literature doesn't exactly "refer" to the Kushites as Aethiopians, that's just educated guesses, and ASSumptions, in the realms of Ancient History, nothing is "fact" unless there is a physical object that proves otherwise, the rest is the best of what "it could be"

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, XLightningStormL said:

1) There's a reason why I had doubt of them appearing in A23, it was because of uncertainty.

 

1-because is a surprise.

[Sundiata]

On 5/4/2018 at 7:43 PM, XLightningStormL said:

3) The Aethiopians are more Greek (as a whole) influenced than Egyptian (The Greeks trading with the Aethiopians, having an "Aethiopian" king partake in defending Troy [debatable], etc). I believe you are referring to Herodotus' map? Even then the "placement" of the "Aethiopians" are vague, and is more situated "as south" of Meroe (the Capital of the Kushites) rather than above it, also Classical Greek literature doesn't exactly "refer" to the Kushites as Aethiopians, that's just educated guesses, and ASSumptions, in the realms of Ancient History, nothing is "fact" unless there is a physical object that proves otherwise, the rest is the best of what "it could be"

Okay... that's not exactly true... There is no debate about the fact that "Aithiopia" primarily refers to the areas directly to the south of Egypt in Antiquity. Only later does it become more widely used, as the true extent of Sub-Saharan Africa started becoming apparent. Aethiops means something like burnt face, and refers to black people in general. The vast majority of black people in the Mediterranean of antiquity, however, would have been from Kush or its periphery, by simple virtue of geography and recorded history. Areas further south of Sudan only become more widely known to the Greeks after Alexander, but even then, direct contact between the Eritrean coast and the Greeks of Ptolemaic Egypt was mostly limited to the city of Adulis...

Herodotus is not the only one who referred to Kush specifically as Aethiopia, even naming Meroë specifically as the "capital of the other Aethiopians"... 

Strabo narrates the Kushite-Roman war (in his Geography, Book XVII, 54), and specifically refers to the areas south of Egypt as Aethiopia, including "Aethiopian cities" like Pselchis (Dakka) and Nabata (Napata). 

How about the words of Emperor Augustus himself? He too, leaves no ambiguity about what he meant with "Ethiopia": 

• "On my order and under my auspices two armies were led, at almost the same time, into Ethiopia and into Arabia which is called the "Happy," and very large forces of the enemy of both races were cut to pieces in battle and many towns were captured. Ethiopia was penetrated as far as the town of Nabata, which is next to Meroë"   - Emperor Agustus -  from the "Res Gestae Divi Augusti" (The Deeds of the Divine Augustus), the funerary inscription of the first Roman Emperor, giving a first-person record of his life and accomplishments, including the invasion of Kush.

Even the Bible refers to "Candace, Queen of the Ethiopians" in the New Testament story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40). Kandake was the Meroitic title for the queens of Kush, including the ruling queens of the 1st century AD...

Notwithstanding that the Ancient Hebrew term "Cush", from the Old Testament is invariably translated as "Ethiopia" in the Greek version, for example: "King Tirhakah of Cush" became "King Tirhakah of Ethiopia". Obviously referring to the Kushite King Taharqa... 

The specific facial features of most Africans portrayed in Mediterranean art (including Greek and Roman), usually referred as "Ethiopians/aethiopians", clearly show people of Nilo-Saharan ancestry, as you would find among the Kushites, not people with Afro-Semitic Habesha features, as you would find among the Afro-Asiatic speakers of D'mt or Axum.

 

 

Axum only becomes dominant in the horn of Africa from the 4th century AD, and they definitely had some Byzantine influence, but you shouldn't conflate the more narrow meaning of Aethiopia in Classical Antiquity, referring to the area directly south of Egypt, with the broader meaning of Aethiopia from late Antiquity and the early medieval period onwards, referring to black Africa as a whole. Only later still, does it become more specifically associated with the modern day country of Ethiopia, which in itself was primarily known as Abyssinia until 1935-ish.   

  

Edited May 6, 2018 by Sundiata

[jemadux]

Can we add there the civalazation the Jewish People ?
hmm.. as heroes we can add some biblical figures like solomon , david , Kings ... etc .

but for no reason the Jesus Christ
[/spoilers]
 

[Lion.Kanzen]

11 minutes ago, jemadux said:

Can we add there the civalazation the Jewish People ?
hmm.. as heroes we can add some biblical figures like solomon , david , Kings ... etc .

  Reveal hidden contents

but for no reason the Jesus Christ
[/spoilers]
 

Is out our time frame by 500 years or more  is like we add Normands or Post Classical Mayans.

 

[wololoo]

On 5/11/2018 at 4:19 PM, jemadux said:

Can we add there the civalazation the Jewish People ?
hmm.. as heroes we can add some biblical figures like solomon , david , Kings ... etc .

  Reveal hidden contents

but for no reason the Jesus Christ
[/spoilers]
 

I love that idea, I I think there was some action going on between Romans and ?Judea?? 66AD? My concern is finding unique unit types for the Hebrew? faction. Maybe a Castle/temple unique. 

I would like to make a serious suggestion for the game -> Player pings. Flares or pings on the map to show allies a specific location. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 minutes ago, wololoo said:

I would like to make a serious suggestion for the game -> Player pings. Flares or pings on the map to show allies a specific location. 

Planned.

[Guaire]

I think that Tartessos could be a very good faction to add.

[JonasTuo]

Spoiler

 

is it possible to make african-tribe like factions? that lives in huts and etc?

Edited May 18, 2018 by JonasTuo

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

45 minutes ago, JonasTuo said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

is it possible to make african-tribe like factions? that lives in huts and etc?

Do you have a specific tribe or ethnicity in mind?

[JonasTuo]

not really, but I know there are some groups like the Berbers have been in africa since BCE, or like Mursi or Hamer, just saying it would be interesting and nice to more african tribes in. Come to think of it all of these are quite old tribes I think, but i believe africa has been inhabited since 3000 bce 

[Lion.Kanzen]

@Sundiata that's call is for you.

[Nescio]

45 minutes ago, JonasTuo said:

i believe africa has been inhabited since 3000 bce 

Seriously? More like 300,000 years ago, when homo sapiens branched off. Or are you one of those who believe the universe was created in 4004 B.C.?

[Sundiata]

1 hour ago, JonasTuo said:

but i believe africa has been inhabited since 3000 bce 

More like 300.000 BC  

 

1 hour ago, JonasTuo said:

or like Mursi or Hamer,

The Mursi are a Nilo-Saharan people, who share similarities with the Nuba, who can be recruited as mercenaries when playing the Kushites. You could just build a bunch of Nuba mercenary camps (round huts, thatched roof) and pretend that they are Mursi  I guess the Blemmyes and the Noba could have their own spin off, but they really wouldn't be all that spectacular during our timeframe (500 BC - 1AD).

Having a culture like the Hamer as an independent playable civ would be impossible to balance. They'd have like 3 buildable structures (big hut, medium hut, small hut) and would only field primitive  spearmen, clubmen and archers. Imagine them facing Greek Hoplites or Roman Legionaries, or an army from any civ in-game actually. It would be a slaughterhouse... They're also not historically connected to any other civilization in-game except for Kushites. You know Kushites are in the newest release right? 

The Nok culture is probably right up your alley. Right time-frame. "Typically African" (round huts are assumed), while also demonstrating a certain level of sophistication. Known for their beautiful teracottas (which can provide references for a number of units). An Iron Age people (some of the earliest in West Africa). They also fielded cavalry. We just know spectacularly little about them, know nothing of their language and they are far removed from everybody else in-game, geographically speaking. 

 

1 hour ago, JonasTuo said:

some groups like the Berbers have been in africa since BCE,

Garamantes, a Southern Berber people (basically "proto"-Tuareg) are really interesting and quite relevant (controlled trans-Saharan trade routes, and had Roman and Carthaginian interaction), and they could be done architecture wise. Units would be very challenging though, and they have no navy whatsoever (they lived in the middle of the Sahara). They didn't live in huts though, but mudbrick structures (sometimes several stories high)... And even some cut stone structures (temples). They had fortifications and an urban elite. Fielded chariots... Had a written script, "Tifinagh", derived from Phoenician.

There's some nice beginning reference posts on them in this thread:

 

The Numidians, a northern Berber people are equally interesting, but shorter lived and heavily influenced by Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans and Greeks.

 

I would argue that Thracians and Scythians are a little more important for now, but Garamantes certainly have my vote for a possible future civ.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Sundiata

[Lion.Kanzen]

21 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Garamantes, a Southern Berber people (basically "proto"-Tuareg) are really interesting and quite relevant (controlled trans-Saharan trade routes, and had Roman and Carthaginian interaction), and they could be done architecture wise. Units would be very challenging though, and they have no navy whatsoever (they lived in the middle of the Sahara). They didn't live in huts though, but mudbrick structures (sometimes several stories high)... And even some cut stone structures (temples). They had fortifications and an urban elite. Fielded chariots... Had a written script, "Tifinagh", derived from Phoenician.

There's some nice beginning reference posts on them in this thread:

 

The Numidians, a northern Berber people are equally interesting, but shorter lived and heavily influenced by Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans and Greeks.

 

I would argue that Thracians and Scythians are a little more important for now, but Garamantes certainly have my vote for a possible future civ.

It would be nice add them to Terra Magna as proposal.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Lion.Kanzen

[coworotel]

Suggestion: separate volume control for music inside/outside a match (I usually leave the MP lobby open waiting for people to join a game while I watch youtube, so the music is incovenient, but I like it when actually playing the game).

[legendEx]

I like how the gaia puts up a fight in jebel barkal, polar sea and danubius, especially the former.

More like it is needed where the gaia is more of a real opponent than the Standard AI player. it can be an opponent (or a map) where the gaia either has it own pre-built base/town, or enter a map from one or two direction/s with increasing number and frequency overtime but not to the point where the game's framerate instantly drops. Doesn't have to be historical, just for fun playing in Sandbox Mode.

Suggestion:

A 'Gaia Bot' aka 'Fauna/Bandit Bot' (Color: Grey)
-'Gaia AI' entity but somewhat different from the Regular Gaia (White) that wander the map, they can either be a well organized group of bandits of varying levels, or wild animals that will flood a player's base or everyone's bases, along with the whole map
-Friendly to regular gaia units/buildings, takes no sides by default (unless you change it's behaviour)
-The Bot has two versions: the Bandit Version and the Fauna Version
-The 'Bandit Gaia AI' possesses special unique buildings that ,when captured and depending on what type, gives you access to their own specialized features; 
  - Black Market/Smuggler's Hideout = SH (Small Market) gives 2x the trade profit, BM (Large Market)= 3x trade profit (needs some balancing)
  - Research Buildings = certain building/s like a 'Smithing or Siege Encampment/Building' gives access to certain unique upgrades to your units/heroes/buildings on top of what you can research in your own chosen Civ
  - Economical Buildings = these type of buildings either gives the player a +% Gather Rate for 1 type of resource or gives your workers a resource drop off multiplier for 1 type of resource (e.g. 'Tool Storage House (Small and Large))
  - Resource Buildings = they function similar to the Farm and each gives you a different resource once a player assigns 5 workers max to 'gather' from them but unlike the farm they have a much slower gather rate, even if you researched all the necessary boosts these unique resource buildings will only give you a 'normal' gather rate the same way if you did not research all the +% farm gather rate throughout the game (e.g. Makeshift Mine/Quarry/Timberyard)
  - Unit Production Buildings:

- Bandit Camp = Appearance is either the 'Mercenary camp' structure entity or an alternate design of the former, trains basic Mercenary and Bandit units

- Bandit Compound = Stone structure similar to 'Military Settlement' with less territory control, trains late game Merc, Bandit Units                                   

- Bandit Stronghold = Fortress structure that doubles as a 'Civic Center' with 2x the defense stats of the former with only 4/5 territory control radius of the latter, trains Merc and Bandit Champion Units + Bandit Leader/Warlord/Hero

'Unit Composition''
-The 'Bandit Gaia' Version has it's own unique 'Bandit' units (Basic, Advanced, Champion, and Hero Units)
- Killing the units it control gives you 2x loot and x1.5 exp but in exchange all their unit stats are slightly higher than their normal counterparts
- Includes All trainable Mercenary Units in the Game, as well as Random Units that serves as a stand in for bandits using looted equipment

 

As for the Fauna Gaia AI, various (slightly buffed) non-food resource Wild Animals like Lions, Wolves and Artic Foxes, can either spawn/enter the map's edge from different directions not long after the game starts then proceed to go after everyone depending on the settings while their spawn size and aggressiveness grows with every successive wave. Or, they spawn from Gaia Structures like 'Dens' or 'Caves' on certain terrains or 'Designated Areas' at regular Intervals, or a combination of the two.

Win conditions can be chosen like usual along with staying alive until a specified time is reached or a player can play an endless game with an indefinite spawning Fauna/Bandit Bot on Sandbox/Very Hard Difficulty or choose to be an uber hardcore player by adding regular AI/Human players into the mix

 

Also fps performance issues when there's too many units in one gameplay and 'inconvenient/impractical' looking building placements on uneven terrain, just saying.

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by legendEx

[Genava55]

I have a vague idea about an economic + slave system + mercenaries. It is starting with the introduction a new resource: money/gold.

My idea is that each factions can build different buildings permitting the production of specific goods (ceramic, transformed food, bronze dishes, etc.) and each goods need a specific quantity of raw material (food, wood, metal or stone). Each building need to be connected with a market or a port to sold your product which give you a quantity in coins/gold. The interest for the player is firstly a capital gain (the product sold gives a higher value in gold than if you would have sold the raw material). Finally, the buildings need workers to be efficient and productive. You need to use a part of your population, putting them in the buildings to work.

My second idea is a slave system. I have seen that it was already suggested before. In this case, I suggest it because it fit well with the previous idea. The player can use money/gold to buy slaves, but to be interesting it should have an advantage. Either a better productivity (a slave work harder and longer) or either to be not included in the population account (I'm not in favor of this one since a slave needs to be feed and to be housed). The backslash: the slaves can't protect buildings from conversion, can't fight, can't build anything and maybe can be stolen.

My third idea is to pay all the mercenaries in coins/gold with the advantage of a fast training. They should be more expensive than normal units and maybe with a temporary limit (after 3 min they are disbanded if you don't pay again for example).

Why am I suggesting a money system? To give the possibility to players to focus on a economic system with good advantages but with increasing risk since opponents could focus on a few buildings to disturb the resources of the player. We can even force the players to build the productive buildings far enough of the market. It also increases the motivation for players to scout the opponent's base.

 

 

 

[coworotel]

20 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

I have a vague idea about an economic + slave system + mercenaries. It is starting with the introduction a new resource: money/gold.

My idea is that each factions can build different buildings permitting the production of specific goods (ceramic, transformed food, bronze dishes, etc.) and each goods need a specific quantity of raw material (food, wood, metal or stone). Each building need to be connected with a market or a port to sold your product which give you a quantity in coins/gold. The interest for the player is firstly a capital gain (the product sold gives a higher value in gold than if you would have sold the raw material). Finally, the buildings need workers to be efficient and productive. You need to use a part of your population, putting them in the buildings to work.

My second idea is a slave system. I have seen that it was already suggested before. In this case, I suggest it because it fit well with the previous idea. The player can use money/gold to buy slaves, but to be interesting it should have an advantage. Either a better productivity (a slave work harder and longer) or either to be not included in the population account (I'm not in favor of this one since a slave needs to be feed and to be housed). The backslash: the slaves can't protect buildings from conversion, can't fight, can't build anything and maybe can be stolen.

My third idea is to pay all the mercenaries in coins/gold with the advantage of a fast training. They should be more expensive than normal units and maybe with a temporary limit (after 3 min they are disbanded if you don't pay again for example).

Why am I suggesting a money system? To give the possibility to players to focus on a economic system with good advantages but with increasing risk since opponents could focus on a few buildings to disturb the resources of the player. We can even force the players to build the productive buildings far enough of the market. It also increases the motivation for players to scout the opponent's base.

Maybe you would like Delenda Est.

[macemen]

On 7/27/2018 at 6:38 PM, Genava55 said:

I have a vague idea about an economic + slave system + mercenaries. It is starting with the introduction a new resource: money/gold.

My idea is that each factions can build different buildings permitting the production of specific goods (ceramic, transformed food, bronze dishes, etc.) and each goods need a specific quantity of raw material (food, wood, metal or stone). Each building need to be connected with a market or a port to sold your product which give you a quantity in coins/gold. The interest for the player is firstly a capital gain (the product sold gives a higher value in gold than if you would have sold the raw material). Finally, the buildings need workers to be efficient and productive. You need to use a part of your population, putting them in the buildings to work.

My second idea is a slave system. I have seen that it was already suggested before. In this case, I suggest it because it fit well with the previous idea. The player can use money/gold to buy slaves, but to be interesting it should have an advantage. Either a better productivity (a slave work harder and longer) or either to be not included in the population account (I'm not in favor of this one since a slave needs to be feed and to be housed). The backslash: the slaves can't protect buildings from conversion, can't fight, can't build anything and maybe can be stolen.

My third idea is to pay all the mercenaries in coins/gold with the advantage of a fast training. They should be more expensive than normal units and maybe with a temporary limit (after 3 min they are disbanded if you don't pay again for example).

Why am I suggesting a money system? To give the possibility to players to focus on a economic system with good advantages but with increasing risk since opponents could focus on a few buildings to disturb the resources of the player. We can even force the players to build the productive buildings far enough of the market. It also increases the motivation for players to scout the opponent's base.

This is a very elaborate and complex economic system. Consider that this is an RTS and you would have to go through all this trouble in *every* match, effectively making quick matches impossible. It's also an awful lot to pay attention to requiring an insane  amount of clicking.
Such an economic system might be fine in a slow paced turn based strategy where you play a match for hours or days on but in a fast paced RTS 4 kinds of resources is as complex I would ever go.

[macemen]

I like how diverse the civilizations are, each having a unique look and feel. It was very surprising to me to find out that although they have units that look very different they are exactly the same when it comes to stats. That is, a gallic spearman will have the exact same stats as the roman triarii or the athenian hoplite, all they differ in is the looks and perhaps the training cost. I think this is confusing and a missed opportunity, although it does make the game simpler. Effectively, the difference between civilizations comes down to the list of unit classes they can train, which is even less difference than AoE2 civilizations had, where different civilizations would differ in the available levels of upgrades for certain units and available techs.
I know that introducing unique stats for each civilizations' units would be a *huge* balancing effort but it would add a lot of value and would make choosing a civilization to play with more than a matter of preference on available unit classes and look. I tried to find topics that discussed this in the pass but could find nothing. What is the consensus/opinion on this?

Another pet peeve of mine is consistency. For example the Macedonian's Companion Cavalry is a champion while the Seleucid's one is just a citizen cavalry, although the units are called the same and almost look the same. I realize that two identical spear champion cavalry for the Seleucids would make no sense (they already have the Catahpracts). This is where my previous point comes in. If each unit had unique stats then the Companion Cavalry could be the same in both civilizations and the Seleucids would have access to both the Companion Cavalry and the Cataphracts which could be a unit with slightly different stats and perhaps different strategic relevance (e.g. better armored but slower and more expensive cavalry then the Companion Cavalry). Similarly some civilizations have units that look different but have the very same stats and cost (e.g. the two different Kushite champion swordsmen).

Any thoughts?

Edited July 31, 2018 by macemen

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

5 minutes ago, macemen said:

Another pet peeve of mine is consistency. For example the Macedonian's Companion Cavalry is a champion while the Seleucid's one is just a citizen cavalry, although the units are called the same and almost look the same. I realize that two identical spear champion cavalry for the Seleucids would make no sense (they already have the Catahpracts). This is where my previous point comes in. If each unit had unique stats than the Companion Cavalry could be the same in both civilizations and the Seleucids would have access to both the Companion Cavalry and the Cataphracts which could be a unit with slightly different stats and perhaps different strategic relevance (e.g. better armored but slower and more expensive cavalry then the Companion Cavalry). Similarly some civilizations have units that look different but have the very same stats and cost (e.g. the two different Kushite champion swordsmen).

 

As far as the Companion Cavalry, for the Macedonians the "Companions" were the best cavalry they had, the most elite posting in the field army a soldier could attain. For the Seleucids, the Companions were a strong cavalry arm, but not the most elite. The Macedonians and Seleucids had the same name for different cavalry units. For the Kushites, yeah, I'd make the axe champ have a crush attack (for against buildings) and the sword champ have a stronger anti-infantry attack.

 

9 minutes ago, macemen said:

I like how diverse the civilizations are, each having a unique look and feel. It was very surprising to me to find out that although they have units that look very different they are exactly the same when it comes to stats. That is, a gallic spearman will have the exact same stats as the roman triarii or the athenian hoplite, all they differ in is the looks and perhaps the training cost. I think this is confusing and a missed opportunity, although it does make the game simpler. Effectively, the difference between civilizations comes down to the list of unit classes they can train, which is even less difference than AoE2 civilizations had, where different civilizations would differ in the available levels of upgrades for certain units and available techs.
 I know that introducing unique stats for each civilizations' units would be a *huge* balancing effort but it would add a lot of value and would make choosing a civilization to play with more than a matter of preference on available unit classes and look. I tried to find topics that discussed this in the pass but could find nothing. What is the consensus/opinion on this?

 

I agree. In DE, there is a greater distinction between a Hoplite style soldier and a Spearman. They both have the anti-cav bonus and are vulnerable to missile attacks, but their stats are different and the Hoplite infantry get the "Shield Wall" aura that boosts the armor of nearby Hoplites. I am currently experimenting with making Persian and Mauryan spearmen into trashy massed Zerglings, with half the stats (including building and repair rates), but also half the total cost in resources, population, and train time.

[macemen]

24 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

As far as the Companion Cavalry, for the Macedonians the "Companions" were the best cavalry they had, the most elite posting in the field army a soldier could attain. For the Seleucids, the Companions were a strong cavalry arm, but not the most elite. The Macedonians and Seleucids had the same name for different cavalry units. For the Kushites, yeah, I'd make the axe champ have a crush attack (for against buildings) and the sword champ have a stronger anti-infantry attack.

Right, good point about the Companion Cavalry.

24 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I agree. In DE, there is a greater distinction between a Hoplite style soldier and a Spearman. They both have the anti-cav bonus and are vulnerable to missile attacks, but their stats are different and the Hoplite infantry get the "Shield Wall" aura that boosts the armor of nearby Hoplites. I am currently experimenting with making Persian and Mauryan spearmen into trashy massed Zerglings, with half the stats (including building and repair rates), but also half the total cost in resources, population, and train time.

Exactly, something along these lines. My point is that it would be nice to have a clear focus for each civilization. E.g. have each civilization focused on either infantry, cavalry, archers or a combination of these. This is already kind-of the case by civilizations having access to different units but I feel this should be emphasized even more by perhaps some additional bonus techs or slightly different base stats.

[Genava55]

On 7/31/2018 at 7:23 AM, macemen said:

This is a very elaborate and complex economic system. Consider that this is an RTS and you would have to go through all this trouble in *every* match, effectively making quick matches impossible. It's also an awful lot to pay attention to requiring an insane  amount of clicking.
Such an economic system might be fine in a slow paced turn based strategy where you play a match for hours or days on but in a fast paced RTS 4 kinds of resources is as complex I would ever go. 

It is not mandatory to have a system very demanding in click. Actually in my vision, it was something for defensive players that cannot expand fast enough against some factions. Focusing on the exploitation of one or two resources and investing in infrastructure to maximize capital gain and to buy the others resources. With the risk that the manufactory buildings could be raided. If there is an automatic production system (continuously producing goods and consuming resources) the player needs only to transfer the product to the market with a caravan. If the building is raided, the enemy could win a bonus in money. It is an inspiration from the situation of the Ancient Greece where they needed to export goods to import enough food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_ancient_Greece

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economy-of-ancient-greece/

 

 

[Sundiata]

I think it would be nice for each civ to have a specialized economic building to reflect the most important/iconic produce/export-item for each particular culture, and have this tied to an infinite coin trickle when "garrisoned", much like farming (farming coin). Think of Age of Empires III (e.g. bank, plantation). These economic buildings could be a pre-requisite for trade, or just provide a simple bonus. Coin would be used to pay mercenaries and bribes, research some techs and even build a wonder. The nuance in unit costs would be welcome, offers various strategies to play and win (economic finesse vs military domination), and the importance of the use of coin would depend on the civ (some civs are more mercantile than others). These specialized economic buildings could be things like plantations producing cash crops like cotton, or vineyards producing wine. The number of specialized economic structures you can build should be capped. 

Aside from coin, I love the idea behind the "glory" resource in Delenda Est, and would love to see it in vanilla, and have it tied to the morale of units. For vanilla, it could be called "Honour and Glory", and could be derived from building civ-specific statues and monuments, worshipping priests, battle-kills, size of territory, having lots of coin, and could be negatively affected by deaths (including "self-inflicted" cullings), loss of monuments, loss of territory, being broke, betraying allies... It could be a "percentage" (or a bar), and everything above 50% will increase the attack of all your units incrementally till it reaches (the very hard to reach) 100%. Anything under 50% would reduce attack incrementally till it reaches 0%, at which point your in-combat units are prompted to flee battle, and turn to gaia units, doomed to roam the map as stateless exiles...