Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[Friedrich123]

Proposed changes for the fortress, additional techs and champions:

 

For most civs there is only one technology in the fortress to research: will to fight. On top of that, some may build their heroes there too. But with the upcoming changes and the effort to move hero recruitment to special buildings (i.e. ptol in alpha27), there should be another use for the fortress apart from its poor defensive capability. Therefore I propose a number of unique technologies that should be researchable inside the fortress:

These techs would be in a similar fashion like the ones in the imperial ministery (han). You will get to choose one from two mutually exclusive available techs: One has a more offensive character, the other one a defensive; i.e. Siege weapons deal 15% more damage or buildings have 25% more hp

Another set of possible technologies are: one that give a small buff in general or a big buff for a certain building/unit type; i.e. Group training time -5% for all military units or +2 pierce armour for slingers

Making these late game technologies mutually exclusive will add another layer of decision making and planning to the late game. Do I want to specialise in one unit type and risk being countered by the enemy? Do I focus on the defense as a flank in a TG or do I try doing an all out attack?

 

Additionally there should be a change to the requirements for training champions:
Some are trained in barracks others in special buildings. Take as an example the Briton Argos (swordsman) in comparison to the Maurya Visha Kanya. Both cost exactly the same, have the same training time and the same base stats. But the big difference is how you access these units:
As a Briton you just click a tech for 600 food and are able to produce your champion out of as many barracks as you like, making it cheap and easy to mass the unit.
In comparison as a Maurya you have to build a separate building costing 200 stone and 200 iron each. You have no way of effectively massing up your champions in the same way as the Briton without having to expense a small fortune.

It is normal to have 8 to 10 or even 12 barracks in the late game. Therefore to have the same production capacities as a Maurya you would have to pay between 1600 and 2400 stone and iron, being the equivalent of 2 to 3 fortresses and 20 to 30 champions worth of material (ignoring food and wood cost, as they become less important late game).

That is why I propose the implementation of one of these 3 different approaches to even out the disparity:

1.      Champions can only be build in a special building like the Harmya or Syssition

2.      Make all Champions be build in the fortress, with reduced base training time

3.      Allow Civs to upgrade their barracks or stables for a price of 150 stone and iron.
         There they may build champions at the cost of having double the training time for civil soldiers in that barrack

 

[Gurken Khan]

47 minutes ago, Friedrich123 said:

In comparison as a Maurya you have to build a separate building costing 200 stone and 200 iron each. You have no way of effectively massing up your champions in the same way as the Briton without having to expense a small fortune.

It is normal to have 8 to 10 or even 12 barracks in the late game. Therefore to have the same production capacities as a Maurya you would have to pay between 1600 and 2400 stone and iron, being the equivalent of 2 to 3 fortresses and 20 to 30 champions worth of material (ignoring food and wood cost, as they become less important late game).

It's even worse for the Han, their special building costs 300 stone and 300 iron. And since I overwhelmingly go for cav champs that hurts every time.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I'd say make the "champ building" a standard thing. Call it the 'Academy' class building. Persia's is the Tachara, Sparta's is the Syssiton, Athens' is the Gymnasion, etc. Macedon's is the Royal Barracks. 

 

Or move Champs back to the Fortress for most civs 

[Lion.Kanzen]

I would love to have anti-siege soldiers in the fortress.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

14 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'd say make the "champ building" a standard thing. Call it the 'Academy' class building. Persia's is the Tachara, Sparta's is the Syssiton, Athens' is the Gymnasion, etc. Macedon's is the Royal Barracks. 

 

Or move Champs back to the Fortress for most civs 

What I would suggest is this: let each civ train more 'generic' champions (those that are the same or very similar as the template) from the barracks/stable with the unlock champ tech. Then, for 1 or 2 champs for each civ, diversify them additionally and let them go in either the fort or the champ building, depending on their strength. Then the unit stats could also be adjusted if they are going to a building that is more expensive.

I would recommend this once we get enough ideas for cool unique units for each civ. I suppose the centurion, persian immortal, and the fire cav are already sufficiently unique.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

What I would suggest is this: let each civ train more 'generic' champions (those that are the same or very similar as the template) from the barracks/stable with the unlock champ tech. Then, for 1 or 2 champs for each civ, diversify them additionally and let them go in either the fort or the champ building, depending on their strength. Then the unit stats could also be adjusted if they are going to a building that is more expensive

It's interesting, I imagine them as royal guards or whatever.

 

Could be called basic champion.

With a Tier Rank called bronze and And those of the special buildings called silver and gold.

[Outis]

22 hours ago, Friedrich123 said:

apart from its poor defensive capability

This should be the job of a building called fortress. It should secure an area against unprepared assaults.

[Outis]

18 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'd say make the "champ building" a standard thing. Call it the 'Academy' class building

I propose at least one unique champ building and one unique tech and hero training building (Government center class?) for each civ.

[TheCJ]

On 11/05/2024 at 9:51 PM, Outis said:

This should be the job of a building called fortress. It should secure an area against unprepared assaults.

But 20 cavalry javelineers  with just one (1) defensive upgrade (or 15 with all three upgrades) can capture up to 6 barracks right under a fortress without one of them dying...
So the fortress is pretty much useless against unforeseen attacks, no?
I don't mean to say that the fortress itself can't be utilized in a great way. But often times it seems like a waste of resources, since it doesn't provide enough value for the effort you have to put into building it...

(Well, maybe I'm just bad at the game and still need to learn how to use it, idk) 

[Gurken Khan]

10 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

So the fortress is pretty much useless against unforeseen attacks, no?

Yes, I had enemies just walk/ride by. And no, if you fully garrison it. Of course then it's not an unforeseen attack...

[Genava55]

[English below]

Actuellement, le jeu est divisé en trois phases:
- La phase des villages.
- La phase des villes.
- La phase des cités.

Le problème avec ce système, c'est qu'il est centré sur le concept de développement urbain et sur le développement des grandes civilisations méditerranéennes. C'était déjà pas très pertinent pour les civilisations telles que les Gaulois et les Britons, mais ça va le devenir encore moins si on ajoute des peuples nomades comme les Scythes.

Je propose un système un peu plus neutre:
Ascension / Expansion / Apogée

1. Ascension : Cette phase initiale évoque le début du développement de la civilisation, où elle s'élève de ses modestes débuts vers des horizons plus vastes. Cela peut symboliser la période où les fondations sont posées et où les premières avancées sont réalisées.
2. Expansion : Cette phase représente la période où la civilisation s'étend et prospère, colonisant de nouveaux territoires, élargissant son influence et sa puissance. C'est une étape de croissance et d'exploration.
3. Apogée : La phase finale, l'apogée, suggère le sommet de la civilisation, où elle atteint son plein potentiel en termes de culture, de technologie et de pouvoir. C'est le moment où la civilisation rayonne de sa plus grande splendeur.

 

---

 

The game is currently divided into three phases:
- Village phase.
- Town phase.
- City phase.

The problem with this system is that it focuses on the concept of urban development and the development of the great Mediterranean civilizations. It wasn't relevant enough for civilizations such as the Gauls and Britons, but it's going to become even less so if we add nomadic peoples like the Scythians.

I propose a more neutral system:
Ascent / Expansion / Zenith

1. Ascent (or ascension): This initial phase evokes the beginning of the development of civilisation, where it rises from its modest beginnings to broader horizons. It can symbolise the period when the foundations are laid and the first advances are made.
2. Expansion: This phase represents the period when civilisation expands and prospers, colonising new territories and extending its influence and power. This is a stage of growth and exploration.
3. Zenith: The final phase, the apogee, suggests the pinnacle of civilisation, where it reaches its full potential in terms of culture, technology and power. This is the moment when civilisation radiates its greatest splendour.

[Grautvornix]

I do like your concept of abstracting civilizational advances, just how would it manifest itself in the game? Currently the villagy-town-city pahses can be cleraly indicated, described and illustrated by means of the CC development.and the related technology tree

How would that be working for a different type of civ? A sequence of nomadism,- settlement - fortified settlement?  Or Ships - harbours/trade route network - villages?

It looks like thius could have the potential to create completely new aspects and strategies in gameplay?

[Outis]

On 13/05/2024 at 8:43 PM, TheCJ said:

So the fortress is pretty much useless against unforeseen attacks, no?

What i meant to say was: if we think the fortress fails at defending an area, we should make changes to ensure it excels at it, rather than make changes to add other functions to it. It should excel at its main job first before exceling at other things.

Edited May 15, 2024 by Outis

[ShadowOfHassen]

9 hours ago, Outis said:

What i meant to say was: if we think the fortress fails at defending an area, we should make changes to ensure it excels at it, rather than make changes to add other functions to it. It should excel at its main job first before exceling at other things.

Maybe the fortress could have a few upgrades to seriously make walls easier to build. I like using fortresses as major defense areas near my walls.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

It would be interesting to show cumulative idle time of barracks, stables, and maybe civic centers in the structures tab of the results statistics. It would help inform players on how they can improve in some areas, especially when deciding between 1 by 1 autoqueue or manual batch training. What do you think?

Edited June 23, 2024 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Stan`]

It's not that hard to add but that means it will steal some of the simulation time measuring stuff that's probably not that important for most people.

[LienRag]

On 15/05/2024 at 5:52 AM, Outis said:

What i meant to say was: if we think the fortress fails at defending an area, we should make changes to ensure it excels at it, rather than make changes to add other functions to it. It should excel at its main job first before exceling at other things.

Historically a fortress was a way to interdict the area around it.

And gameplay-wise, that's what it should do.

A raid could go around it, a strong enemy force could capture it, but it should also be a deadly trap if you can block an enemy in its killzone by any other mean.

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 14/05/2024 at 4:07 PM, Genava55 said:

 

The game is currently divided into three phases:
- Village phase.
- Town phase.
- City phase.

The problem with this system is that it focuses on the concept of urban development and the development of the great Mediterranean civilizations. It wasn't relevant enough for civilizations such as the Gauls and Britons, but it's going to become even less so if we add nomadic peoples like the Scythians.

I propose a more neutral system:
Ascent / Expansion / Zenith

1. Ascent (or ascension): This initial phase evokes the beginning of the development of civilisation, where it rises from its modest beginnings to broader horizons. It can symbolise the period when the foundations are laid and the first advances are made.
2. Expansion: This phase represents the period when civilisation expands and prospers, colonising new territories and extending its influence and power. This is a stage of growth and exploration.
3. Zenith: The final phase, the apogee, suggests the pinnacle of civilisation, where it reaches its full potential in terms of culture, technology and power. This is the moment when civilisation radiates its greatest splendour.

Sure, but this is essentially the same system, right? Just different naming.

2 hours ago, LienRag said:

Historically a fortress was a way to interdict the area around it.

And gameplay-wise, that's what it should do.

A raid could go around it, a strong enemy force could capture it, but it should also be a deadly trap if you can block an enemy in its killzone by any other mean.

 

What if we made Fortresses have 8000 health, have more arrows, but shorter attack range.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Walls are pretty underused. Maybe some tweaks to cost/buildtime could be done, but avoiding wall spam is an absolute must. I think instead, some improvements could be made to wall placing. Is there any way to let walls not be obstructed by trees and destroy trees upon construction? Essentially the behavior of shrubs in the eurasian steppe biome, but for stone walls (maybe palisades too).

The existing mechanic is very centered around the resource rather than the building being built on the resource, so it might be quite an undertaking.

Edited July 28, 2024 by real_tabasco_sauce

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

21 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Walls are pretty underused. Maybe some tweaks to cost/buildtime could be done, but avoiding wall spam is an absolute must. I think instead, some improvements could be made to wall placing. Is there any way to let walls not be obstructed by trees and destroy trees upon construction? Essentially the behavior of shrubs in the eurasian steppe biome, but for stone walls (maybe palisades too).

The existing mechanic is very centered around the resource rather than the building being built on the resource, so it might be quite an undertaking.

I don't think it would be that hard to do for one who has the code knowledge.

[Grapjas]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

s there any way to let walls not be obstructed by trees and destroy trees upon construction?

Could try to add these to the tree template

<BlockConstruction>false</BlockConstruction> <BlockFoundation>false</BlockFoundation> But it would work for all structures though. If you need, I can share a snippet on how you can probably do this in components tomorrow.

Edited July 29, 2024 by Grapjas

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't think it would be that hard to do for one who has the code knowledge.

2 hours ago, Grapjas said:

Could try to add these to the tree template

<BlockConstruction>false</BlockConstruction> <BlockFoundation>false</BlockFoundation> But it would work for all structures though. If you need, I can share a snippet on how you can probably do this in components tomorrow.

Ok great, i'd like to hear suggestions. I haven't done anything in the components related to resources and foundations.

[Grapjas]

7 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ok great, i'd like to hear suggestions. I haven't done anything in the components related to resources and foundations.

You could probably do something like replacing this line with

let collisions = cmpObstruction.GetEntitiesBlockingConstruction();

then check if those entities are a tree class (or whatever class it is) and pass ret as "success".

Not sure if that would delete the trees but if not then you probably need to tweak the commit function in foundation or the IsFinished() function if you only wanted them deleted when the building is done.

[Grapjas]

Was a bit bored so i made it anyway, lol. Do with it as you (anyone) please. Delete the Foundation file if you want the trees to disappear the moment they start building, otherwise they will only be deleted until the wall is done (to prevent exploits?).

walls_destroy_trees.pyromod

Btw, the tooltips like "cannot be built on another building or resource" for walls aren't working in vanilla. A project for someone else

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

If walls were more effective in slowing/stopping melee cav and more easily sealed, then it would justify an increase in the per wall cost (especially for palisades). This way you could have less wall spam in favor of careful base design and cost effective partial walling. At the same time I think having reduced build time for palisades and/or walls is a good option.