Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[lilstewie]

Will there be more units added to the current factions?

[feneur]

Will there be more units added to the current factions?

Generally speaking not for part one at least. It's more likely units will be removed as the more units=the harder it is to balance the game, and, perhaps more importantly, the more units, the more alike each other they will get, in other words: what's the point for a player to train two separate kinds of units to fill the same role.

[lilstewie]

^^^^^^

Okay, just curious.

[oshron]

Generally speaking not for part one at least. It's more likely units will be removed as the more units=the harder it is to balance the game, and, perhaps more importantly, the more units, the more alike each other they will get, in other words: what's the point for a player to train two separate kinds of units to fill the same role.

incidentally, pertaining to this, i think that units that would use axes or maces (and other such weapons) should be the "swordsman" class. personally, thats how i always imagined axe-wielding units (like vikings) working without having to add much more to the game's functionality. though if i were to suggest any new broad unit class, they would be supportive ones: "Standard Bearers"/"Flag Carriers", which would give a morale boost to any allied units that can see it, and "Horn Blowers"/"Drummers"/"Bards", which would do the reverse: they would give a morale boost to units that they see. there are already Priests in-game, who function as healers, so later civs could either have access to a distinct unit class that could convert enemies (rare in any case) or Priests for some civs could be amended to have conversion abilities. alternatively, there could be an espionage-class of unit that not only scouts but can also bribe enemy units, which would function in the same way as conversion but at a cost of metal (simulating money)

also, an idea occurred to me recently for a Part 2 civilization the other day. i was looking up the historical Kings of the Britons and noticed that the first one began around 9 AD. according to legend, King Arthur died at the Battle of Camlann around 537 or 539 AD. i'm not saying that an Arthurian civilization should necessarily be included, but maybe an Anglo-Saxon civ could be included with some editor-only units for Arthur, his court, and figures related to Arthurian myth (like the Questing Beast and the Green Knight, for instance, which are overtly fantastical as opposed to just folkloric), and the Court of Camelot could be included as an editor-only Wonder. there could even be a campaign focusing on Arthur as a historical person which pits him, leading the Brythonic Celts from Part 1, against the invading Anglo-Saxons

[feneur]

incidentally, pertaining to this, i think that units that would use axes or maces (and other such weapons) should be the "swordsman" class. personally, thats how i always imagined axe-wielding units (like vikings) working without having to add much more to the game's functionality. though if i were to suggest any new broad unit class, they would be supportive ones: "Standard Bearers"/"Flag Carriers", which would give a morale boost to any allied units that can see it, and "Horn Blowers"/"Drummers"/"Bards", which would do the reverse: they would give a morale boost to units that they see. there are already Priests in-game, who function as healers, so later civs could either have access to a distinct unit class that could convert enemies (rare in any case) or Priests for some civs could be amended to have conversion abilities. alternatively, there could be an espionage-class of unit that not only scouts but can also bribe enemy units, which would function in the same way as conversion but at a cost of metal (simulating money)

Standard bearers/"musicians" (to summarize =) ) were considered a long time ago, but were postponed together with morale. Imho we should not start to try and put these things back at this point in development of part one. I think it would be a good idea to reconsider all of these things for part two though, but then to take it in a larger context: To me the theme of part two will be (at least from how I imagine it) more story-based and focused more on individual units. This could include things like triggers/cinematics to create story-based scenarios and campaigns, morale (and things like standard bearers to influence it), attrition/logistics/supply, spy units, etc. It would probably require us to automate the economy since you'd hardly have time to micromanage both the economy side and the war side, but we'll have to see how complicated people feel the economy is in part one (especially since it should be less management heavy once we implement a better farm system).

[oshron]

Standard bearers/"musicians" (to summarize =) ) were considered a long time ago, but were postponed together with morale. Imho we should not start to try and put these things back at this point in development of part one. I think it would be a good idea to reconsider all of these things for part two though, but then to take it in a larger context: To me the theme of part two will be (at least from how I imagine it) more story-based and focused more on individual units. This could include things like triggers/cinematics to create story-based scenarios and campaigns, morale (and things like standard bearers to influence it), attrition/logistics/supply, spy units, etc. It would probably require us to automate the economy since you'd hardly have time to micromanage both the economy side and the war side, but we'll have to see how complicated people feel the economy is in part one (especially since it should be less management heavy once we implement a better farm system).

that's part of the reason i suggested the "musicians" as being in Part 2 the previous civs could also be amended to include them if such units were included. but i definitely agree; balancing the economic and military aspects of the game takes priority over the inclusion of more units or civilizations

what do you think of my second idea? i'd just like to get some input on that

[MoLAoS]

Why don't you focus on gameplay innovations? I'm not asking that to be silly or anything, but to highlight the fact that different people have different skills. In other words: it's not a choice between adding one type of feature or another in a given release, but rather between adding what features the currently active developers are able to (and since we're volunteers: want) work on for the next release or not at all. And that means that given the currently active developers we've seen more development in terms of graphics than gameplay features lately. To be fair we have added gameplay features in the last couple of releases as well though So it's not all graphics even at this point (since we do have active developers who are skilled in that area as well).

There are a lack of people interested in implementing gameplay features? That seems like the opposite of how it should be. I guess I'm biased since I dislike graphics programming. Can you really not find people interested in doing something as simple as javascript to add stuff they have wanted to see in games? IIRC the world is loaded with people who can't use compiled languages but really want to design game mechanics. I'm surprised more haven't popped up here.

[CommanderL]

I think there should be a way to cue farms at the mill ? so that way when the farms are depleted the farm is rebuild and the cost of said farm is deducted

[feneur]

There are a lack of people interested in implementing gameplay features? That seems like the opposite of how it should be. I guess I'm biased since I dislike graphics programming. Can you really not find people interested in doing something as simple as javascript to add stuff they have wanted to see in games? IIRC the world is loaded with people who can't use compiled languages but really want to design game mechanics. I'm surprised more haven't popped up here.

No, there is at most a current lack in activity from gameplay programmers And even so there is 1 (and a half if you count wraitii who's mostly been focusing on the AI lately, but did some graphics related stuff earlier) active graphics programmer, and at least a handful other programmers who are relatively active (hard to define some people as solely being focused on gameplay programming though as some might do some GUI work in addition to gameplay programming etc). And almost all patches we receive from people who are not as closely involved in the development are either engine fixes or gameplay implementations, very few have been related to the graphics side. So it's not an overall trend, just that currently we've had one very active graphics programmer and of course graphics are more easily "marketable" than a myriad of engine fixes or similar

[FeXoR]

Generally speaking not for part one at least. It's more likely units will be removed as the more units=the harder it is to balance the game, and, perhaps more importantly, the more units, the more alike each other they will get, in other words: what's the point for a player to train two separate kinds of units to fill the same role.

The balancing reason is not entirely true. You could just balance the "needed" units (to have all roles filled) and make the others a bit less powerful. That way things will be balanced and still a great variety of units will be available. Only one strong unit can break the balance, not a variety of weak ones as long as for each role about equally strong units are available for each faction.

That (one overpowered unit) might be a problem with e.g. war elephants and Iberian ranged elite cavalry. They can only fill the role (siege like) when dealing enough damage to structures but will then be overpowered against units if units have no high armor against crush damage (as it is now). Similar thing with other siege weapons. Guess buildings should have less crush armor while units should get more crush armor (compared to as it is now).

Edited September 30, 2012 by FeXoR

[feneur]

The balancing reason is not entirely true. You could just balance the "needed" units (to have all roles filled) and make the others a bit less powerful. That way things will be balanced and still a great variety of units will be available. Only one strong unit can break the balance, not a variety of weak ones.

But that would just make them even more meaningless. And true, that might balance the game in the "no unit/civ is overpowered" sense, but at least to some extent we have to balance the units in terms of "all units should be useful" as well. A balance between the different units. If a unit is not useful there's no reason to include it in the unit roster for a civ at all, then the only use it could have is to confuse new players and make it harder to learn the game =) It's another thing to have more units available for e.g. scenarios, but all units which can be built in a normal game should be useful in some situation. That doesn't say that all units has to be useful in every match you play, some may only be good against say elephants and then they'll not be useful in a match against a Briton opponent, but there should be situations at a whole where using that unit can be what gives you the advantage necessary to win

[FeXoR]

But that would just make them even more meaningless. And true, that might balance the game in the "no unit/civ is overpowered" sense, but at least to some extent we have to balance the units in terms of "all units should be useful" as well. A balance between the different units. If a unit is not useful there's no reason to include it in the unit roster for a civ at all, then the only use it could have is to confuse new players and make it harder to learn the game =)

Yes, that's a bad thing.

It's another thing to have more units available for e.g. scenarios, but all units which can be built in a normal game should be useful in some situation. That doesn't say that all units has to be useful in every match you play, some may only be good against say elephants and then they'll not be useful in a match against a Briton opponent, but there should be situations at a whole where using that unit can be what gives you the advantage necessary to win

An citizen soldier, even if a bit weaker than others, can still be useful to gather stone/metal because it might costs the resources easiest to get on a specific map. For elite units this argument won't work of cause.

In general I agree with you.

Edited September 30, 2012 by FeXoR

[Zeta1127]

Two minor things, the Devotio Cavalry generic name has an unnecessary period at the end, and are the Carthaginian mercenaries, specifically the Gallic Mercenary Cavalry and the Italic Mercenary Swordsman going to get specific names?

[Iskandar]

My ideas for the game:

1)For the names of the units and the constructions of the Iberians in the game is used the Spanish and the Latin but the Iberian language was similar to the Basque (source wikipedia). I propose to use the Basque.

2)The Roman Civic Centre must be calls "Forum", not Municipium, as for the Greek, for which "Agorà" is used. Likewise, the Market must have called "Mercatus" or "Emporium", not "Forum."

3)To add town bell to make to garrison Civic centre, Fortress and Towers from the women, like in AOE II, AOE III and AOM.

4)To add the function "Explore" to order to an unit to automatically explore the map, like in Rise of Nations.

5)To add a lot of more technologies, particularly to increase the harvest of the wood, to strengthen the unity "priest", and other. I love the quantity of technologies that offer for every civilization AOE and AOE 2.

6)Leos, wolves etc... must be aggressive toward the units that draw near to them and toward other animals like gazelles and sheeps.

7)The naval battles must be projected like in Rise and Fall: Civilization at war and technologies must be added for strengthening the ships.

8)He must be been able to create an only unit for every type of hero: only one "Leonidas", only one "Agis" etc.. like the greek heroes in AOM. It is not realistic to create three Leonidas!

9)To improve A.I. in base to the model of the AOE II's A.I., and for the Naval A.I., in base to the model of Rise and Fall:Civilization at War.

10)To add the wonders for each civilization!

11)When the women hunt, must use the javelins or arc and arrows! When they fish, they must use the fishing nets, like in AOE II.

[Pedro Falcão]

1)For the names of the units and the constructions of the Iberians in the game is used the Spanish and the Latin but the Iberian language was similar to the Basque (source wikipedia). I propose to use the Basque.

The team is well aware of that, but we couldnt find sufficient material to change it, so it was agreed to use Spanish, instead, that is at least related to the Iberian Peninsula.

2)The Roman Civic Centre must be calls "Forum", not Municipium, as for the Greek, for which "Agorà" is used. Likewise, the Market must have called "Mercatus" or "Emporium", not "Forum.

I think you are confusing Civic Centre with Political Centre. Plus, the greeks were very proud of their culture, so to use their own language to name buildings.

3)To add town bell to make to garrison Civic centre, Fortress and Towers from the women, like in AOE II, AOE III and AOM.

It is already planned, just not implemented yet.

4)To add the function "Explore" to order to an unit to automatically explore the map, like in Rise of Nations.

I think it is an already planned feature, too.

5)To add a lot of more technologies, particularly to increase the harvest of the wood, to strengthen the unity "priest", and other. I love the quantity of technologies that offer for every civilization AOE and AOE 2.

Can't say much about this, you'll have to ask what are the plans of the team.

6)Leos, wolves etc... must be aggressive toward the units that draw near to them and toward other animals like gazelles and sheeps.

Unit behavior is also already planned

7)The naval battles must be projected like in Rise and Fall: Civilization at war and technologies must be added for strengthening the ships.

The naval battle system has not been implemented yet. I doubt it'll be just like those, but it'll be very fun, too.

8)He must be been able to create an only unit for every type of hero: only one "Leonidas", only one "Agis" etc.. like the greek heroes in AOM. It is not realistic to create three Leonidas!

The developers are aware of this too, just have some patience.

9)To improve A.I. in base to the model of the AOE II's A.I., and for the Naval A.I., in base to the model of Rise and Fall:Civilization at War.

Personally, seeing how far our AI has reached since last year, i'd be surprised if someone doesn't like it when the game comes live.

10)To add the wonders for each civilization!

Are the wonders so important? I myself could live without them, but sure, if not wonders, something similar is being planned for those game modes you are fond of.

11)When the women hunt, must use the javelins or arc and arrows! When they fish, they must use the fishing nets, like in AOE IIi.

Some of units are lacking some animations, yet, but they'll come.

[Iskandar]

The team is well aware of that, but we couldnt find sufficient material to change it, so it was agreed to use Spanish, instead, that is at least related to the Iberian Peninsula.

I think you are confusing Civic Centre with Political Centre. Plus, the greeks were very proud of their culture, so to use their own language to name buildings.

I don't agree. If for "Civic centre" you intend "City", then it is correct for the Romans to use "Municipium", but for the Hellenes you must be used "Polis", not "Agorà." If for "Civic centre" you intend "Town centre" then it is correct for the Hellenes to use "Agorà" (what central square is literally translation), but for the Romans then you must be used "Forum" (what it literally means is central square). In every case, on any dictionary of Latin "market" is translated with "mercatus", "emporium", "nundinae" or "nundinatio." not "Forum". In fact for the Hellenes it is used "emporion" to call the market, not agorà.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Well, an agora was a public open place used for assemblies and markets. Either word works, but due to the general layout of the building, agora seems more fitting.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I don't agree. If for "Civic centre" you intend "City", then it is correct for the Romans to use "Municipium", but for the Hellenes you must be used "Polis", not "Agorà." If for "Civic centre" you intend "Town centre" then it is correct for the Hellenes to use "Agorà" (what central square is literally translation), but for the Romans then you must be used "Forum" (what it literally means is central square). In every case, on any dictionary of Latin "market" is translated with "mercatus", "emporium", "nundinae" or "nundinatio." not "Forum". In fact for the Hellenes it is used "emporion" to call the market, not agorà.

I actually agree with you, and it's not a difficult change to make.

[mixtappe]

Mis puntos de vista:

1.el juego va muy bien en cuanto a gráficos

2.la creación de edificios es muy lenta

3.en jugabilidad es aceptable

4.creo que le faltan muchas pero de verdad muchas tecnologías pero creo que para estar en fase alfa no esta mal

5.creo que le faltan muchos comandos avanzados como el age of empires 2,3

6. traducción al español

[bill2505]

idea

1 what about every male citizent - soldier when you click on them have a random name.

for example

you click on a greek hoplite = Socrates pausanios ( socrates son of paysanias)

Edited October 7, 2012 by bill2505

[Sighvatr]

I want the ability to name my units, Bob.

[oshron]

idea

1 what about every male citizent - soldier when you click on them have a random name.

for example

you click on a greek hoplite = Socrates pausanios ( socrates son of paysanias)

personally, i think that would be far too much complication. it worked with very specific generic units in AOM, but i think it would just make things difficult in 0ad

[alkazar-ipse]

personally, i think that would be far too much complication. it worked with very specific generic units in AOM, but i think it would just make things difficult in 0ad

Yes, please dont do bullsh.t features, an individual name for each unit is really not necessary.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Yes, please dont do bullsh.t features, an individual name for each unit is really not necessary.

We had informal discussions in the past about adding personal names to each unit, then at the end of the match you'd have a casualty list and what rank they achieved, etc. But it's really just one of those things that don't affect gameplay at all and kind of a "fluff" feature.

[bill2505]

Yes, please dont do bullsh.t features, an individual name for each unit is really not necessary.

bullshit? how is going to affect your game a name

Edited October 8, 2012 by bill2505