Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[chaosislife]

No, there is a limit to 10 fortresses per player/map, and unless testing shows that's too many or too few that number is going to remain

Also, note that the Celts doesn't have two fortresses, rather there are two Celts so to speak =) Gauls and Britons. Most likely they will be split into two proper civs as we've done with the Hellenic ones, originally they were going to be "sub-civs" of their main civ. I.e. when you got to the City Phase you were going to be able to choose either Gaul or Briton if you were playing the Celts, and either Macedon or Poleis (city-states) for the Hellenes. Now it's very likely that Celts will be split as well

Well that's good, there are far too many units for the Celts right now, it's clear someone really liked the Celts. Suppose I'll be playing Gallic mostly.

[Zeta1127]

What do thing battering rams are for? Just because battering rams have a bonus against gates doesn't mean they can't deal with a fortress in numbers supported by an army.

[oshron]

Most likely they will be split into two proper civs as we've done with the Hellenic ones, originally they were going to be "sub-civs" of their main civ. I.e. when you got to the City Phase you were going to be able to choose either Gaul or Briton if you were playing the Celts, and either Macedon or Poleis (city-states) for the Hellenes. Now it's very likely that Celts will be split as well

so the civs in 0 AD part 1 will therefore be:

1. Achaemenid Persians
   
2. Athenians
   
3. Brythonic Celts
   
4. Carthaginians
   
5. Gauls
   
6. Iberians
   
7. Macedonians
   
8. Mauryan Indians
   
9. Republican Romans
   
10. Spartans
    

so, yeah, cool, ten civs in all! i would have been content with just the six that were originally planned, but awesome! does this mean that part 2 will be matching them with 10 more civs?

[Mythos_Ruler]

so the civs in 0 AD part 1 will therefore be:

1. Achaemenid Persians
   
2. Athenians
   
3. Brythonic Celts
   
4. Carthaginians
   
5. Gauls
   
6. Iberians
   
7. Macedonians
   
8. Mauryan Indians
   
9. Republican Romans
   
10. Spartans
    

so, yeah, cool, ten civs in all! i would have been content with just the six that were originally planned, but awesome! does this mean that part 2 will be matching them with 10 more civs?

We might end up with more than 10 in Part 1 when all is said and done. (Han Chinese, Ptolemaic Egyptians, Thebans, Seleucids for a total of 14, 1 more than Age of Kings had).

As for Part 2, I can maybe see having 10 factions, but we'll see. Let's list some possibles:

1. Imperial (Western) Romans -- Hadrian/Trajan era.
   
2. Byzantine (Eastern) Romans
   
3. Dacians
   
4. Parthians
   
5. Sassanians
   
6. Huns
   
7. Sarmatians
   
8. Goths/Visigoths
   
9. Franks
   
10. Herulians?
    

[oshron]

We might end up with more than 10 in Part 1 when all is said and done. (Han Chinese, Ptolemaic Egyptians, Thebans, Seleucids for a total of 14, 1 more than Age of Kings had).

As for Part 2, I can maybe see having 10 factions, but we'll see. Let's list some possibles:

1. Imperial (Western) Romans -- Hadrian/Trajan era.
   
2. Byzantine (Eastern) Romans
   
3. Dacians
   
4. Parthians
   
5. Sassanians
   
6. Huns
   
7. Sarmatians
   
8. Goths/Visigoths
   
9. Franks
   
10. Herulians?
    

#10 should be the Mayans, if you're planning to go outside the scope of the roman world right off the bat. personally, i think it would be easier to limit it to fewer civs for each release but make more releases that will be introduced over time, with the general focus of each pack being the romans and civs they encountered (for the first two) and ones that they didnt encounter (at least not on a large scale), with each of those focuses being split along the BC and AD divide that's already been decided on

Edited June 2, 2012 by oshron

[Sighvatr]

North American Natives never had a historically recorded empire. It really wouldn't make any sense if you include the Americas in this game either since this all does revolve around Eurasia.

[oshron]

North American Natives never had a historically recorded empire. It really wouldn't make any sense if you include the Americas in this game either since this all does revolve around Eurasia.

well the iberians never encountered teh mauryans, did they? i believe the original intention was just going to be rome (republican romans in part1 and both the eastern and western empires in part2) and civilizations that they historically encountered, but now that its expanding outward, anything's game. and the mayans were quite a unique culture who were at (or nearly at) the height of their civilization within 0ad's timeframe

[Mythos_Ruler]

Mayans would be cool to add, but not as one of the Part II list of 10 civs. The Romans encountered every single faction on my list, so throwing the Mayans in there wouldn't make sense.... the Mayans didn't encounter any of the factions in my list, so they would be way more random than the Mauryans (who encountered the Greeks and Persians).

[Sighvatr]

Mayans would be cool to add, but not as one of the Part II list of 10 civs. The Romans encountered every single faction on my list, so throwing the Mayans in there wouldn't make sense.... the Mayans didn't encounter any of the factions in my list, so they would be way more random than the Mauryans (who encountered the Greeks and Persians).

This ^

well the iberians never encountered teh mauryans, did they? i believe the original intention was just going to be rome (republican romans in part1 and both the eastern and western empires in part2) and civilizations that they historically encountered, but now that its expanding outward, anything's game. and the mayans were quite a unique culture who were at (or nearly at) the height of their civilization within 0ad's timeframe

Yes, but every faction here has had at least one or more conflicts with another playable faction. I know the Mayans in fact were around the time this happens, but geography and current technology of the time extremely denies the possibility of the Mayans ever fighting Eurasians.

[Mythos_Ruler]

yes i agree but they are people can experiment impossible battles.

I agree, but perhaps include the Mayans as an add-on or "official mod."

[fricus-mazighen]

how about Numidians ?

[Sighvatr]

I agree, but perhaps include the Mayans as an add-on or "official mod."

Yep. Good luck searching articles of Mayan history not destroyed by the Spanish.

[eduh]

Can't we make a new thread? This one has 95 pages already

And pleasepleaseplease an ancient RTS game is NOT cool without Egyptians. Ptolemaic would fit in very nicely

[oshron]

Can't we make a new thread? This one has 95 pages already

And pleasepleaseplease an ancient RTS game is NOT cool without Egyptians. Ptolemaic would fit in very nicely

well 0 AD isnt so much an ancient period game as a classical period game

[luk3Z]

What do you think about adding a world map where you can enter to provinces and after that game look like now (AoE style) ?

This is what I mean: forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?444288-History-of-Rome

[oshron]

id say no, though using a world map for the random map selection screen would be a good, innovative way to handle that part of gameplay, as well as regional maps for campaigns

[majapahit]

Worldmap actually nice idea to group maps.

[FeXoR]

Perhaps a (not to large) picture of the region of the world could be added to every map (random and scenario) where the rough location of the map is marked. Since not all maps are in a specific region of the world (like random biome maps) it might be a better idea to just add a picture to each map that might by default does as said above but also could display something very differently.

Edited June 15, 2012 by FeXoR

[henry_krinkle]

ideas and suggestions:

1)the AI should have a "don't stupidly charge into larger numbers" feature. If I have 20 men and they are just 1 why o why would they charge my guys? They should run run run away.....

2)Constantly having to check idling peasants and boats is no fun. Any reasonable hunter should be able to keep wandering around until they find an animal. Similarly a farmer. And so on.

3)In the game Nobunaga's Ambition (and similar KOEI games) they had random events (typhoons, disease, rebellions) which would hamper you if you neglected to build dykes, develop your city, or keep your population happy.

4)The ability to send "spies" into enemy areas to discover stuff without being killed (unless discovered?).

5) The similar requirement like AOE where you had to kill every single last enemy, destroy every last field, etc. is lame. Is this game trying to teach genocide? Since slavery is a technology why can't enemy units be enslaved (as the Romans and others did) or as one of my favorite AOE scenarios did: convert.

[chan51213]

Hello, just tried 0AD and absolutely loved it! I'm a huge fan of RTS games, and I am already looking foward to a beta version. Unfortunately I can't read code or have much knowledge of Ancient Western civilisations but I hope I can provide some useful suggestions

-Open Source! Makes it worth while to contribute (and you will see that I've been bottled up for quite some time). Expense and Philosophy-wise, this is probably the one point that makes this game so good

-Realistic naval battles! Garrisons! On Ships! Rams! I can't express how much I've waited for a decent RTS with decent naval capacities. AOE ships were a joke (arrow shooting galleys, really?!). Somebody before me suggested unit creation in ships, really love that idea

-Graphics are great, fauna interactions good.

-The thing where you can produce 5x units in one go was interesting. Definitely something unique, perhaps it can go somewhere. But I think there should be a cap, perhaps at 5x.

-Soldiers performing civil duties was very good. Very unique and appropriate

-The animal husbandry was good, would like to see changes so you can make more animals at once

-Really dig the graphics of guys throwing javelins

-Variable graphics between otherwise identical units. When I first played I thought those persian guys with different shields were of different types. How small my imagination has become.

-Random treasures on the map is good

-I noticed that while you can produce new units by upgrading the era, the units from the previous era remain unchanged. I actually like this - in traditional RTS games I loathed the bother of era upgrades and units evolving like some sort of pokemon. On the other side, I feel that there should be some sort of an advantage if you are in a more advanced society. What I suggest is: Firstly, additional upgrades, obviously. Secondly, the option to be able to train your soldiers to a higher level. So as your society becomes more sophisticated, your army becomes more organised and you are able to buy more experience for your soldiers. This way, earlier eras don't become completely obsolete but are at a disadvantage.

-Historical realism is good and all, but can there be some sort of mini-translation besides their names? I can't read ancient greek

-I noticed big units (talking about ships) overlap when placed close together

-Movement of groups of units is clumbersome. The absence of the attack-move (A+right click) command is really bothering. Ordering units into battle is a nightmare - either march straight into them doing nothing, or me doing this mobbing thing with the cursor

-I noticed that when units go from march into attack mode they do this scattering thing like in AOE. If possible I feel that it should be toned down.

-Paying wood to make farms - yes AOE did this and I absolutely hated it. Farming is supposed to be a renewable resource, wood in the game is not a renewable resource! Makes more sense to use food in farming, I mean you are using grains and seeds that you could otherwise eat...

-Siege machinery is way too small and way too fast. AOK trebuchets had that siege mode thing, didn't they? Perhaps artillery can have a transport mode like that, and then for battle they go into siege mode and become really slow or even immobile.

-Siege machinery comes way too late in the tech tree - a town with towers is untouchable for way too long. Perhaps an early ramming unit which is literally a couple of guys carrying a big tree trunk? For convenience we can designate it as 1 pop . They would be good against buildings but get slaughtered by arrows thereby providing the initiative for innovation.

-Units seem to be able to run, but they don't run towards the enemy when charging them (?)

-"spearmen damage 1.5x vs calvary" ... sign, I guess it's unavoidable but can we please keep it simple, and not a rock-scissor-paper thing? Sure, spears need to have some bonus against calvary, but it's pretty darn obvious that calvary slaughters archers so I don't think they need a damage bonus...

-Units hacking at buildings - Personally I think it is unrealistic and ridiculous. Unless if you are an archer with flaming arrows or a raider with a torch, non-siege units shouldn't be able to attack buildings - instead, they can occupy them if there isn't a garrison (only gain pop bonuses if viable, loses functionality as barracks etc if of different civilisation). If there is a garrison, my attacking hoplites would go into the building and fight with the garrison (number crunching by the computer, uncontrollable by player when in the building). If there is a door then they can hack at it until it is open. Afterwards when you have annexed the building you can self-destruct it yourself if you so desire.

-Regarding the above point I have a suggestion that would solve the garrison problem: when you create a building, it will come with a garrison already inside, and the building will provide a population bonus to compensate so the overal pop change is zero. The garrison can be some sort of upgradable militia. This would have lots of intersting implications - When you are really desperate you can literally empty your city to double your army.

-Units hacking at farms is even more ridiculous. You can harvest from it, why destroy it? Annexing it and then if you want self-destructing it seems more appropriate. Also, I don't want my soldiers constantly trying to hack an enemy farm when my villagers are plundering it

-Farms completely disappearing when fully harvested is clumbersome. But then Age of Kings was the same until they made that expansion pack... By now you probably know what I'm proposing.

-I noticed that ship movement sinulates with oar movement, but I feel that it should be exaggurated.

-Noticed that you can see opponents creating new buildings through the fog of war. Personally feel that this shouldn't happen.

-Having maps that have nations set in concrete is too ... concrete. I feel that at least in the 'match' missions you should be able to choose your nation. Hey, just start with villagers and soldiers! I don't think it is too much of a bother to build your town center. In this game where soldiers can perform civic duties, hey you even have something else to do!

-Having women as villagers is good and all, but I feel that having women only as the default villager is bad. I would like to see both male and female villagers produced at a 1:1 ratio, and then if you so desire you would be able to somehow upgrade your individual male villagers into militia. I think that this would actually be appropriate for this game. The civilisations in which women could fight (Celts) would have an advantage in the game that reflects their history. For aristocratic civilisations (Athens), they would have a disadvantage because their humble villagers ie non-aristocrats can't become proper soldiers. The Romans can go home with their 'civil duty' to their heart's content.

-Soldiers cost too much wood, and I'm not sure where stone comes in recruitment either...

-Towers seem to be a bit ... narrow. Tall enough, but narrow...

Suggestions

-Archers on horses & chariots shooting in transist - what I propose is that depending on the aggression-index, if you order a chariot to attack-move, it will go fowards to the designated point firing at units in range as they go - not stopping in the middle. I haven't seen this mechanism in function anywhere, I would really like to see this mechanism working somewhere so I can finally have my Mongolian/Hun horde

-More on the attack-move mechanism: when you order an elephant to attack-move to the other side of an enemy formation, they don't stop for some puny human in their path. The human would be damaged and pushed aside by default. If they are low on health and the damage kills them, then they are trampled. I'm thinking Command and Conquer, Red Alert where you could mow down soldiers with mammoth tanks. I guess that even infantry can have a charge-push aside mechanism? Especially if they are running, see below. This would actually make the wedge formation viable! Yay!

-I would like to see the attack-move enhanced even more. When you order a group of units to attack-move, they would constantly try to reach the destination, attacking when in range or if path is blocked. So a group of archers would fire an arrow, WALK and then when recharged fire again. I saw this mechanism in Cossacks, Back to War. There, what it implied was that if you ordered a group of musketeers to attack-move-retreat, they would do exactly that...

-If you haven't noticed by now I really would like to see the attack-move mechanism upgraded.

-Terrain defence interactions - thinking Warhammer 40,000 or even Battle for Wesnoth. I noticed that in traditional RTS games calvary was way too good because infantry didn't get any terrain bonuses. In alpine maps where horses would be at a proper disadvantage the mechanics should reflect it.

-Farming: What I propose is that there are designated areas for farming in the map depending on the terrain - ie you can't create a farm in the middle of a sand dune. So what would happen when you try to build a farm, it shows the land you can farm, and you plunk a farm on the designated land. I guess that the minimap could have a fertility indicator overlay, colour the map and screen in green and red. This would lead to a lot of tactical implications, such as the importance of fertile territory in desert maps, where you build your buildings and 'salting the land' techniques for the really hardcore. It would also get rid of AOK-remnescent eyesores, such as the fore-mentioned desert farms, and farms on pavement in the middle of a town. I'm not sure introducing a fertility multiplier is appropriate for sake of simplicity (and yes I noticed the irony).

-Formations: Here's my problem - the AgeOfEmpires-Starcraft style of unit selection and ordering is very clumbersome, and I feel that it's not appropriate for historical RTS. Sure, you can do the double click or Ctrl+1,2,3 thing, but I feel that introducing some level of convenience in formation command is appropriate for any RTS other than starcraft . What I propose is this: In the default state, unit selection is through the individual like it is now. However, there are special leader/general units to whom you can designate a team or formation. The formation under control of the leader now works like a single unit, in that it only occupies one icon on the screen, you order it around like a single unit, and when you select any individual within the formation it selects the entire formation by default. If you so desire you would/should be able to add units to the formation after it's initial creation. The formation would be Ctrl-able, and you would be able to Ctrl it with any individual units you desire. There would be some sort of table/tab on the screen that shows all the formations I've designated for convenience. To show where I'm coming from, think Cossacks, Back to War or Warhammer 40,000.

-Morale: I would like to see morale becoming important and visible. When morale hits rock bottom, the units become temporarly uncontrollable (very important!) and actively run away in the opposite direction from the enemy. Historically that happened right?

-WIth the morale thing, I am thinking a 'run' button. You turn on the run button, and the unit will run until you turn it off. Movement bonus, attack bonus, damage-morale bonus (thinking calvary charge). But when the run button is on, morale starts to drop (fatigue); when run is off, morale recovers. This would mean that when you are rallying/transporting troops, they are slow because they are walking for sake of maintaining morale (even the calvary); then if the enemy turns up on your flank with the run button on, you really are caught on your flank tactic-wise. Especially if you the player are looking at the other side of the map. A micro-management point that would seperate the wheat from the chaff.

-More on morale - killing units would give a boost to that unit's morale. Small detail, but I feel an important one. Especially if they have the run-button on and are losing morale by the clock.

-Wind: the game already has a season thing, why not wind? I'm sure that it is more relevant tactics-wise. Things that would be affected by wind would be ship movement, fire, perhaps archer range? Hey, it could even introduce a tactical edge on some maps, where the prevalent wind determines who is boss and who needs to think hard to turn the advantage. Would be especially relevant in campaigns.

-Fire: I'm not sure if Ancient Western civilisations used fire on the battlefield as part of their tactics, but I'm sure that Ancient Asia did. At the very least, if you are torching a house, the fire would spread to neighbouring buildings. I'll fold on fire spreading between ships at close quarters for sake of simplicity

-I mentioned it above, but I really think that the rock-scissor-paper mechanism should be toned down. Other things can be introduced to compensate: For example, terrain defence bonuses or penalties, minimum range for spears; this would implicate that swordsmen who don't have a minimum range can get up close to a spearman and stab him to death while the spearman can't touch him; of course the situation changes when the spearman is in a phalanx and is supported from the back.

-I didn't really try it, but can you capture sheep? You should be able to capture sheep. Definitely. Perhaps even have that thing like in AOE where the villagers shepherd the sheep to the closest mill.

-please please please please can we have walkable walls? It probably is a coding nightmare but they are walls! Fortifications! Archers shooting from behind a stone wall like in AOK is not cool! The alternative like in Cossacks where they can't is also not cool!

-Elaborating from the earlier rant, what I propose is this. Stone walls are by default unbuildable by the player aka Warcraft III - they either come with the mission, or you set the settings so they are, or it's a special mission in which somebody did a cool coding thing so you can build them. What would be buildable by default are pallisades which are not walkable. Nevertheless the stone walls would be interactive, so you could trash them if you are sieging it.

[Hospitaller]

Was reading a couple of pages back, someone argued that some armies never met each other . I think that it doesnt take away anything from the game to have armies that never met in the mix , its cool to let people experiment with historical battles that never occured in real . If historical war games would be limited to only armies that met each other they wouldnt be as iinteresting as ones letting you decide who to make war on , Of course we dont want the persian empire waging war against hitler ! but you know what i mean . As long as the civilazations are aprox from the same period in the history timeline of the world its cool.I think Historical games must be very loyal to history when it comes to recreating armies artwork , builduings . and history background and periods they lived in but leave the freedom to gamers who to make war with or against who....

[Hospitaller]

Yep your right sorry man , i think it was a discussion between sightvatr ad oshron but ye anyway , thats my point , wasnt really answering to anyone in particular i just read it passing by and wanted to remark on it , sorry , next time il use qoute , cheers man

[lewowpard]

it seems every ai bots on any real-time strategy games, including 0ad, take lightly my orders to hold position and attack. it's for their own safety, but they rather seem to follow their appetite for destruction even if swarmed by enemies which leads to their demise than obeying my orders to evacuate to places of safety. is there a way to punish such a disobedience so that they won't do that again? of course i can order them to hold ground, doing nothing, but that could get 'em killed as well.

[System Error Message]

use a language other than js for AI. Even testbot lags my system which is a core2duo about 2.4Ghz. One of the AI kept giving javascript errors though. I learnt that java isnt the best to use for modelling or programming AI.It would also be good to be able to change the location of the statusbar and menubar below since on widescreen it can get annoying. It would be better if you could let the user choose the position of the bars whether at the side of the screen or below. It would also be good if you could add more supported 16:10 resolutions like 1440x900.

[Spahbod]

use a language other than js for AI. Even testbot lags my system which is a core2duo about 2.4Ghz. One of the AI kept giving javascript errors though. I learnt that java isnt the best to use for modelling or programming AI.It would also be good to be able to change the location of the statusbar and menubar below since on widescreen it can get annoying. It would be better if you could let the user choose the position of the bars whether at the side of the screen or below. It would also be good if you could add more supported 16:10 resolutions like 1440x900.

The problem is more about pathfinding and the logic of the AI, not the JS library. Also the game isn't using more than one CPU cores at this point. Making more modern CPUs have worse results in the game.