Suggestions for 0 A.D.

[Unarmed]

Haha, that would be terrible, but at the same time, why not? Must have happened so many times throughout history!

In another game, Seven Kingdoms, where diplomacy was very important and waging war could mean your troops would deflect or civilians would rebel. I always gave enemies of my biggest enemies a lot of support. Those enemies of my enemies sometimes turned into very big civilizations which I could not win of.

It was one of the reasons I love Seven Kingdoms. So I try to convince the developers to take a look at this game and take some of it's diplomacy features (something like soldiers deflecting and civilians rebelling I do not suggest, because I think it's too radically different)

I can see the problem of some people wanting things simple all over the forums

It's not that bad. But I thought of some ideas and I could sense resistance, some people came up with very true concerns, and I'll admit not all of my ideas are well-thought or that good. And I'm not expecting everyone to agree, I always like it how some people modify my idea into something better, but some I got the feeling they are not interested in something new at all, even if I came up with a golden idea.

, also people who don't want to take the project any further than a clone of AOK, which sort of baffles me to be honest!

I feel you. I think it's good that it stays true to AOK, and the core is AOK. If somebody would suggest no phases or no base building, I would not agree.

I found this game searching "free Age of Empires like game".

I haven't played AOK, I remember vaguely playing the demo but uninstalling it very soon. I have played a lot of Age of Empires 1 and Empire Earth 1.

Those two games are enjoyable, but I feel they lack depth and become very repetive. Something I was fine with back in the day, but nowadays I don't like that. I gave Age of Empires 1 and Empire Earth 1 away to a second hand shop for this reason, but not Seven Kingdoms. And I remember vaguely that I played a very early Alpha of 0 A.D. in which you could only play as the Greeks. I was put off because I thought it was a exact copy of Age of Empires.

Now that I played it in a later stage and read more, like the design document, my faith is restored. Though right now the gameplay is still very much like Age of Empires 1 and Empire Earth 1. Things like new historical accurate civilisations and authentic biomes are great, they make a already great game even better, but they do little for gameplay. The new things are well-though and good additions and they do change gameplay in a good way, but I don't think they make the game that different or deeper.

The game should not be overly complicated, but in some fields I think it wouldn't hurt to make it more challenging. Economy right now is important early game, but once I make the market and reach the latest stage, I float resources and economy is not that important anymore. I like the idea that late game the economy goes it's way, but I feel like it could indeed be improved. (note that I have only played singleplayer so far)

There's also multiplayer vs singleplayer. I can enjoy multiplayer, but I think I can enjoy long and deep singleplayer games which I need to save even more. People who play multiplayer don't want things that could distract. While people who play singleplayer could really enjoy things that could distract in a multiplayer match where you want it basically like this (my theory):

-Versus, free-for-all or team match, not worrying about who's a enemy or who is not (I could really enjoy the latter, who's enemy who's not, even in multiplayer)

-Gather, build, upgrade, build army, destroy opponents

I feel like making things optional, like the lock teams option already in the game (expanded diplomacy should not be a issue with this), is a great way to please different kinds of people. This can be done by maps which is not that good, the best way is through options or gamemodes, but I guess this is a lot of work.

EDIT: What I forgot to say: Age of Kings is rated high. So I can understand people who want it to be a exact remake with few changes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

On the other hand that's 14 years ago.

If I look at Starcraft 2, which does not seem to have anything (radically) new (I'm not sure), it is very popular and very high rated. (I have no idea why it is rated so high and why it is that popular, I looked at videos and reviews, and I'm confused. What's so good about this? It does look well-made, but what makes this game a 9 and not a 7?)

I think I'm going to make a off-topic thread about Starcraft 2, I don't want to discuss that here.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Unarmed

[Sighvatr]

@unarmed: how about instead of giving soldiers names, we give them titles like "badass slinger"?

[oshron]

alternatively, there could be some names which are randomly given to units which reach a certain level and are thus distinguished enough to justify their receiving some kind of characterization among nameless soldiers

[Unarmed]

@both

I thought it was planned that units would be given randomised names? Seven Kingdoms always had this, though I never remembered any of them except for the king who had the name of the player. Most of the time he would be named "Yanick the Great", my name with Great in it like Alexander. WARNING: may cause megalomania.

I didn't propose giving units your own names, though it would be kind of a cool gimmick.

And yeah my hero "proposal" is a bit tongue in cheek.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

The Developers prefers Latin or Greek titles hahaha sighvatr.

Unarmed that idea is similar to empire earth 2 with expansion the art of supremacy. When heroe kills many units reaches a hero status. Heroes in that game are units with bonus attack.

-------------

Thanks for new changes in SVN the sounds in UI are very good. I'll post in Spanish fb page.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Unarmed]

Unarmed that idea is similar to empire earth 2 with expansion the art of supremacy. When heroe kills many units reaches a hero status. Heroes in that game are units with bonus attack.

Since Art of Supremacy is not rated that high I assume it was not that great. I read one review which did not mention it being a decent addition.

Funny, I did not know but it's pretty much the same idea as mine.

My idea was more or less a joke, since I don't expect the developers to suddenly change the hero system, because one player comes up with a idea that might not work at all.

That being said, I don't like the hero system. I like the heros themselves, the aura and stuff like that. But I don't like that in a hour of gameplay I could potentially have Philip of Macedon number 30 facing me.

I prefer how Age of Empires 3 and Dawn of War 2 have this (?and Warcraft 3?). You start with a hero in the beginning, since we have three you would pick one like you pick a faction. So you only get one here and that's it. I would love to have them level up, I don't want it to be WoW, but three levels that take some time to gain yes I would love. There is a unit very useful for scouting, but I like the idea of your hero being a bit of a scout. And I can see the fun of what I saw in a Warcraft 3 video where you kill stuff (in case of 0 A.D. dangerous animals, in history some kings did this as a sport) to make your hero level up.

Naming your hero. Sounds good, but I'm not sure if everyone likes:

Hero 1: named after a particular infamous German dictator.

Hero 2: Mr. Dirty McPoopy Pee.

Hero 3: Booby McGee.

Hero 4: (Censored)

Hero 5: Elton John IV

Hero 6: (Censored)

Etc.

EDIT: From another topic:

What I loved in Seven Kingdoms was that you first needed to research siege engine technologies before you could build them, and you could improve them; you had catapult 2, catapult 3 etc. Well that's not what I loved, what I loved was that you could sold them to other kingdoms (Seven Kingdoms 1) or better exchange them for another technology to other kingdoms (Seven Kingdoms 2). But I'm not sure if this from Seven Kingdoms can be brought into 0 A.D.

Talking about siege engines. I would like upgrades or abilities:

For Romans: bee munition (yes you read that correctly!)

For Greeks: incendiary munition (I thought I read that Greeks used pots with combustible material, needs citation.) EDIT: Wikipedia:

Incendiary arrows and pots containing combustible substances were used as early as the 9th century BC by the Assyrians, and were extensively used in the Greco-Roman world as well.

I have more ideas but I'm going too much off-topic, so I will post it elsewhere if I can. EDIT: Will post it here, since we are talking about siege anyway:

In AD 199, the defenders of the fortress of Hatra (Iraq) repelled the besieging Roman legions by hurling scorpion grenades—clay pots filled with live Death Stalker scorpions from the desert.

I'm not sure which civilization this is, but it would be a nice unique upgrade for a fortress.

I also had the idea of a upgrade for the outpost. You can choose to upgrade it with someone who throws stones but then you can't choose the stone foundations upgrade. (it would be very weak)

And I think civil centers should not have arrows but stone projectiles instead (like slingers). Makes more sense. (again inspirited by Seven Kingdoms, but the second one)

Edited July 6, 2013 by Unarmed

[Zeta1127]

Whatever happened to the idea of giving the Castra Vallum (Entrenched Camp) the ability to be upgraded into a Forum (Civic Center)?

[oshron]

this thought just occurred to me. this would be for the purposes of certain game modes and not contribute to the historicity of civilizations or otherwise affect the game very much

basically, two editor-only units, called Founders (one male and one female), are included for the purposes of some game modes. if you've ever played a "nomads" type game mode of other RTSs (like in AOM) then the idea is similar. basically, you get one man and one woman who are the founders of your civilization in an area: they can only build one thing, a free building called a Settlement or something similar, which they can then be garrisoned into in order to immediately upgrade it into a free Civic Center, which removes them from the map in the process. this is basically so that the player can determine where their first Civic Center is located for certain game modes. i'm specifically thinking of this as being used for pre-designed multiplayer maps, but the Founders could also be used in regular skirmish modes and for aesthetics in campaigns (basically they'd look like upper-class citizens)

[albertus]

Sorry if I'm asking a stupid question. I'm newbe here and also fair beginner in playing 0ad. I wanted to learn playing this game against AI oponent but every setting I tried was too hard for me. I tried both qBot and Aegis Bot on the easy level and it always quickly ended with massacre caused by periodically attacking hordes of the AI opponent's armies. I've been trying this in 1 x 1 scenario (Belgian Bog) and even when I have been training units, gathering resources and building infrastructure as quickly as I was capable, there was no way to defend neither even prarticulaly succeed in an attack. All the stats have shown that AI was at least twice as quick than I was capable in all the game activities. When I chose Scaredy Bot, it surrendered at the gamestart instantly. I haven't find a scenario map so far which can be played against Tutorial Bot.

Is there a way to set the game in order to be able to play against AI on the beginner level - that means user friendly level for learning all the features and having enough time to build stronger economy and infrastructure and train an army which is not supposed to be outnumbered and massacred by the first few opponent's attacks...?

Ubuntu Studio 12.04, 0ad Alpha 13

Edited July 23, 2013 by albertus

[wraitii]

albertus: This is currently a bit of a problem as the AI easy mode is still too strong. There is currently no real "dumb" AIs though you can try playing with testbot. To play with tesbot, go to binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/ai/testbot/, open data.json, and remove the "hidden": true line (you will have to remove the comma at the end of the line before that one.)

Testbot should be much easier to play against.

If it's still too strong, I recommend you get used to the game without AIs first.

Making the easy mode easier is however planned, and there should be an easier AI in Alpha 14.

[albertus]

albertus: This is currently a bit of a problem as the AI easy mode is still too strong. There is currently no real "dumb" AIs though you can try playing with testbot. To play with tesbot, go to binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/ai/testbot/, open data.json, and remove the "hidden": true line (you will have to remove the comma at the end of the line before that one.)

Testbot should be much easier to play against.

If it's still too strong, I recommend you get used to the game without AIs first.

Making the easy mode easier is however planned, and there should be an easier AI in Alpha 14.

Thanx, I'll try it.

[AchilliesWithoutHeel]

I don't know if you plan on doing so already, but animations for the formations would be awesome. For example you would see your Roman Legions form into the Testudo or your Spartans interlock shields in the Phalanx etc.

[Nolanjoker]

that wolud be asome, and cavalry form edge and cantabric.

[Sighvatr]

I do wonder what ever happened to the entrenched camp suggestion to have the ability to change to a town center?

How about a game mode where players may pick and choose where they decide to place a town center on a map? At start, a player is randomly chosen to place his/her town center on the map first; then the next player in order places their town center. After all town centers have been placed, the fog of war is generated and thus begin the game.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Sighvatr

[EveryTime Period]

What would be awesome is if this game grew to the size that would include many famous empires throughout history.

- Bronze age

- Iron Age

- Medeval

- Empires (Colonial)

^^ this would be awesome!

[Nolanjoker]

there are Bronze Age mod.

[oshron]

What would be awesome is if this game grew to the size that would include many famous empires throughout history. ^^ this would be awesome!

it would be better to make independent games with the same engine and basic gameplay styles rather than shove a million different factions--many of them the same cultures, just in different time periods--into a single game. if you wanna play a game like that, just go for Empire Earth.

How about a game mode where players may pick and choose where they decide to place a town center on a map? At start, a player is randomly chosen to place his/her town center on the map first; then the next player in order places their town center. After all town centers have been placed, the fog of war is generated and thus begin the game.

there could be a nomad game mode like in AOM (kinda building on that "Founders" idea i mentioned before)

[Safri]

I can imagine a huge economic power giving units to it's less economically ally. If implemented I think I would favour it over resources. Imagine if you have game without locked teams, you give a ally units and the next thing you know, your ally declares war to you and your own units are turned against you!

What you could do is 'loan' your units to an ally. I think Hearts of Iron did this. It would basically allow you to give your units to your allies to control, so they could do what they liked with them, but you could recall them at any time. Would stop your own units turning on you.

[Heinrich]

Some suggestions:

- I think the team should orientate on Warcrat 3 because the rpg-part there was very fun, so: a Level-System for the heroes. Heroes are able to kill dangerous animals or hostile soldiers to get experience-points. They can lvl up until lvl 15 (or something like that) and with every lvl up they get more HP and passive bonusses (which you can choose). If they die they dont loose their lvl but they are now more expensive to recruit.

- Potraitcards of the heroes in the left top corner so you know every time where they are and how much Hp they still have.

- Researching technologies should take more time and a voice should let you know if the technology-reasearching is finished.

- The mauryan longbowmen need a stronger attack (Maybe a cut between normal bowmen and longbowmen?)

New civilisation:

-The Aksumite Kingdom:

After Armenia the Aksumite Kingdom was the first realm which converted to Christianity in ca. 330. Capital was Aksum in modern Tigray, northern Ethiopia. Spoken language was Ge'ez and Greek. It was a mighty trading-empire.

Units: Tribal untis, light skirmisher-infantry and few expensive ethiopian cavalry units. Elephants, mighty nubian bowmen and fast arabian cavalry.

Heroes:

- Ezana (The king who converted his realm to Christianity. He was a mighty warlord)= Riding the horse from the last pic, wear a sabre and roman chainmail armor, no helmet

- Frumentius (He was the man who converted Ezana to Christianity. He was the founder of the Tewahedo-Church, the oriental church with the most members today. Maybe he could be a healer or one who give a bonus to friendly units?)= Typical monch with a staff. On the top of the staffe is a coptic cross.

- Kaleb (An aksumite king who invaded the himyarite kingdom in 520 ad because the himyarite king massacred several christian habitants)= Riding an quilt-armored horse, wear a quilt armor and a lance. He could wear a crown just like on the coin:

King Kaleb

Take a look here:

- http://www.google.de...,r:41,s:0,i:211

Edited August 9, 2013 by Heinrich

[AchilliesWithoutHeel]

Some suggestions:

- I think the team should orientate on Warcrat 3 because the rpg-part there was very fun, so: a Level-System for the heroes. Heroes are able to kill dangerous animals or hostile soldiers to get experience-points. They can lvl up until lvl 15 (or something like that) and with every lvl up they get more HP and passive bonusses (which you can choose). If they die they dont loose their lvl but they are now more expensive to recruit.

Not a bad idea. As long as the level of the hero would stay the same and not reset when you started a new battle; allowing that hero to be more personal to you. Perhaps you could even customise a hero yourself? Similar to LORT BFME2 on the PC.

Also going to AOE 3 I liked the fact that you would have like your "home city" where you would get upgrades, perks etc. Perhaps a similar thing to this would be good. I love customisation...

And again, animations for formations would be very awesome. This may be better as well if you could say for example get 20 Roman Spearman and 20 Roman Swordsmen and "merge" them so that they sort of "one unit" ? If that makes sense. And an icon would appear at the top right/left of your screen and if you clicked it you highlight that group of units you just merged. This would allow you to control your units more effectively. Just an idea. Please comment.

[Nolanjoker]

only the inventory hero are the best. many users wants mixes AoE With Blizzards tactical gaming.

indeed mauryan boeman needs a plus, attack or long range. they can be the best archer in the game.

[oshron]

And again, animations for formations would be very awesome. This may be better as well if you could say for example get 20 Roman Spearman and 20 Roman Swordsmen and "merge" them so that they sort of "one unit" ? If that makes sense. And an icon would appear at the top right/left of your screen and if you clicked it you highlight that group of units you just merged. This would allow you to control your units more effectively. Just an idea. Please comment.

i don't think you'd need to establish a specific function to make a group of mixed soldiers march in formation; you'd just select the appropriate units and give them a simultaneous command

however, having "banners" for groups of units like in Age of Mythology would also be useful. in that game, i personally liked to set up a particular type of unit with a hero if i could (for example, when playing as Poseidon, i'd match Theseus with my hoplites, Hippolyta to the archers, Atalanta with cavalry to exploit their speed, and Polyphemus with myth units and siege). this way, the player could easily match up squads of complementary units for an ideal purpose (like hoplites with a complement of archers and javelinists) or add a hero to whatever group of soldiers he would most benefit (mounted heroes would go best with other horsemen, etc.)

[AchilliesWithoutHeel]

i don't think you'd need to establish a specific function to make a group of mixed soldiers march in formation; you'd just select the appropriate units and give them a simultaneous command

I mean like you would create a group, so for example if I highlighted 20 Spearmen and 10 Swordsmen and made them into a group, then I could make about 4 of these and line them up with easier control. What i mean by this is that you wouldn't have to keep highlighting the units you could just click e.g a banner at the top right of the screen. Maybe when you grouped a general and banner would appear boosting morale? Or perhaps you could train a general and merge them into a at least a group of 20 units and any you units you added to the group would get a boost from this general/captain whatever!

[zoot]

I mean like you would create a group, so for example if I highlighted 20 Spearmen and 10 Swordsmen and made them into a group, then I could make about 4 of these and line them up with easier control. What i mean by this is that you wouldn't have to keep highlighting the units you could just click e.g a banner at the top right of the screen.

Isn't that what control groups are for?

Ctrl + 1 (- 0): Create control group 1 from the selected unit/units/building/buildings

1 (- 0): Select control group 1

[Nolanjoker]

like Rome tw ? if is that, you can programing sorcial formation. like a cohort?