Jump to content

Suggestions for 0 A.D.


Wijitmaker
 Share

Recommended Posts

PLAYER CHAMPION

I would like to see a custom hero that represents the faction you are playing with, as in Age of Empires 3. A character who can build houses and civ centres and has special abilities depending on the culture.

NO HISTORICAL HEROS MASHUP

Limit the historical heros you can have to 1, so that you don't end up with heros of different eras fighting together.

Im starting About this one , may be have whole new advanced match setup panel, limit heroes 1-3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's the difference between a simulation and a game. A game should (my opinion) always favoring the gameplay over realism.

A 'war game' traditionaly prefers realism though...

"These games are based upon real events and attempt to represent a reasonable approximation of the actual forces, terrain, and other material factors faced by the actual participants"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/HG_Wells_playing_to_Little_Wars.jpg
Edited by greycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 'war game' traditionaly prefers realism though...

"These games are based upon real events and attempt to represent a reasonable approximation of the actual forces, terrain, and other material factors faced by the actual participants"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/HG_Wells_playing_to_Little_Wars.jpg
he may be are taking about RTS all RTS are a wargaming but not all wargaming are RTS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 'war game' traditionaly prefers realism though...

"These games are based upon real events and attempt to represent a reasonable approximation of the actual forces, terrain, and other material factors faced by the actual participants"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/HG_Wells_playing_to_Little_Wars.jpg

The highest percentage of war-themed games that are not wargames come from the video game industry. Most markedly real-time strategy games (such as StarCraft) deal with combat nearly exclusively, but the gameplay-enhancing conventions of the genre also destroy realism. For example, in actual combat, vehicle armor is generally a binary proposition. Either the round penetrates and the vehicle is knocked out, or it does not and the vehicle is unaffected. RTS games make a habit of giving a vehicle a "health bar" that generally allows it to survive even powerful single shots, but each hit reduces its health by some amount, allowing a high volume of rifle fire to knock out a well armored tank. Other notable genre conventions include the construction of buildings and vehicles within the timeframe of a battle (i.e., hours, if not less) and a lack of any command and control, supply, or morale systems.

A major determinant of the complexity and size of a wargame is how realistic it is intended to be. Some games constitute a serious study of the subject at hand, whereas others are intended to be light entertainment. In general, a more serious study will have longer, more detailed rules, more complexity, and more record keeping. More casual games may only bear a passing resemblance to the subject, although many still try to encourage the same types of decision making as the player's historical counterparts, and thereby bring forth the "feel" of the conflict.

Wargames tend to have a few fundamental problems. Notably, both player knowledge, and player action are much less limited than what would be available to the player's real-life counterparts. Some games have rules for command and control and fog of war, using various methods. While results vary, many of these mechanisms can be cumbersome and onerous in traditional games. The "edge of world problem" raises the issue of what to do at the artificial boundary of the physical edge of a board game, in contrast to real life where there is no "edge" and units off-board can have a tangible effect on a scenario. Computer wargames can more easily incorporate these features because the computer can conceal information from players and act as an impartial judge (even while playing one side). However, due to interface issues, these can still be found to be as frustrating to the player as traditional methods.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for making a Egyptian civ.

I wanted to suggest to make a Arabia and China civ...after all it is the silk road and other game ignore what is happening at these times in these areas. Good game, but I think their is way more western civs in the game and I think it need to be even out. At this even Egypt can be considered western. or well starting to become westernized.

Thank You, the game looks awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that it is not possible to have units on top of manned defensive buildings.

Instead, would it be possible to have a second set of building "sprites" displayed when they are garrisoned so that "virtual" defenders would appear on top of them (actually part of the animated sprites) when they are attacked (or even a sentry or a night-watch in the other case)? Not unlike in Rise of Legends.

721293-928114_20060405_005.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not, the mahout is a person, and I don't think elephants can even garrison buildings can they? having advanced archers on the rooftops seems like a happy medium between champion and basic units.

also, we would need animations, and some way to code them to aim and fire with enemy soldiers in range. A lot more trouble than it's worth atm imho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrain has little to nothing to do to how well an individual soldier from a culture fights. Its mostly only the strategies and personal condition involved that terrain and weather applies. It does not make sense to me that somebody gets a bonus for being next to a tree?

in many cases was a ambush in other was the Weather.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I added a patch that has support units with slow healing. Units won't die on destruction but eject, in keeping with the trend.

I don't think it'll make early raids necessarily ineffective, they just need to put more focus to destroying houses. AFAIK that was one central focus in the real-life raids back in the days.

good you can use our trac to open tickets and be part of team. Or team contributor.

Sorry I'm asking one for one. I considerate necessary put clear some things, open tickets in the trac for people want contribute with a patch , and close tickets that can be discussed like a common issue problem o ask trough IRC Channel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding a model, even an animated model, should be possible. But the model wouldn't resemble the garrisoned soldier in any way. It can look strange, if you garrison an elephant in a fortress, that suddenly a regular unit appears on top of it.

we can add some line like to forbidden class to be show at top.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...) having advanced archers on the rooftops seems like a happy medium between champion and basic units.

also, we would need animations, and some way to code them to aim and fire with enemy soldiers in range. A lot more trouble than it's worth atm imho

You are right, it would be only cosmetic.

To be precise, this kind of animated model would be a half-mesure between an visually empty fortification and a "terrain" fortification where normal, non-resized, garrisoned units would go and fight with bonus. It would be an alternative to a tower "with a flag on top", however much costlier to program. So, no elephants, no riders, no champions, no civilians. Only pre-determined defenders based on the civ. For the Roman, archers, sentries and pila throwers on the walls and maybe a ballista on upgraded stone towers, for instance.

Maybe such fortification parts could be described as objects like "formations". Going near a garrisoned enemy fortification would create an instance of such "formations" depending on the health of the structure (when at detection range). To decrease the computing load, a wall would appear manned only if flanked by a garrisoned tower. When the attack is over, the "formation" would be dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

General Meldor, when playing a match, there is a unique emblem for each faction with a tooltip in the top center of the screen that shows who you are playing as, and I believe the number of gathers per resource is a planned feature.

Edited by Zeta1127
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding a model, even an animated model, should be possible. But the model wouldn't resemble the garrisoned soldier in any way. It can look strange, if you garrison an elephant in a fortress, that suddenly a regular unit appears on top of it.

actually, it WOULD make sense: the elephant is stored away in the fort and the guy commanding it goes to the ramparts to defend. same reason a tank driver would still be trained to fight on foot if the need arises

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Stan` featured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...