Romans need a little bit of rethinking for balance purposes.

[Dancing]

I'll fill this out a little more, why I think they need it, but they really shouldn't be allowed to build in enemy territory. I think neutral territory is fine. I also think those walls need to cost a little more...

For now I am going to sleep However ponder on this image...

Edited January 4, 2014 by Dancing

[LordGood]

Bahaha that's awesome

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yeah, lot of imaginations, and what happens with that? How make that to you? You are Iberian. XD in a open map that not happens and agree may can be cost more wood. And decay more faster. But let to build in enemy, you need to build more defensive tower and outpost to avoid this.

Other idea is can be build slower, this way you have time to counterattack the builders.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[sanderd17]

The Roman strategy didn't work very well it seems. The walls are all gaia-owned, this means the Roman player has lost.

[Lion.Kanzen]

The Roman strategy didn't work very well it seems. The walls are all gaia-owned, this means the Roman player has lost.

we need capture Gaia buildings after player lost.

[Dancing]

Bahaha that's awesome

It really wasn't, and although he was quite civil about it, this happened after his last civic center was taken down, and he had only about a dozen soldiers. My ally green spent the remainder of the match taking them down, while I went and killed yellow. After we killed yellow, those walls were still there even with 15 siege engines working on them for 15+ minutes. That's not awesome, that's game disrupting. He even admitted so.

The Roman strategy didn't work very well it seems. The walls are all gaia-owned, this means the Roman player has lost.

He did this afterwards, with like 12 soldiers, Romans build those walls very fast, and the pathfinding is very @#$%les so a large army doesn't move as fast and my siege couldn't move back across the map. I would also like to point out that I believe something need to be done about players hiding villagers and then leaving a game. It's very annoying to spend 15-20 minutes hunting down every last unit of your opponents. At some point a timer needs to set in when the last production building is destroyed.

I think what would be fair is to nerf this roman ability of building in enemy territory to building in neutral territory, I think that would powerful enough, I also think the cost and speed of building these walls needs to be looked at. If you guys don't want to do that, then that is fine, but then why have such a powerful ability with no solid counter to, that would make romans the only civ that can tower rush. Which this person does use the romans for, I've watched him do it in a few games, he doesn't build walls... he builds the turrets from the walls. I hope that's not the intended use of them.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Dancing

[Romulus]

Let me get this straight. Whos he? Were you playing against the AI or a human player?

If that was the AI then you going to have to wait. THis is early stages of the game and AI is not finished at all.

I strongly disagree in not allowing the Romans to build in enemy territory. That won't be historically true and it will not represent them as they should be.

In the Romans time they certainly built in enemy territory and wasn't just just forts and walls, but entire cities.

And to add to that, stopping a civ from building in an enemy zone is fantasy. That simply takes away RTS and the theme that''s trying to be adopted here.

The strategies deployed by the AI is the only thing I'd agree that needs to change. Nothing more.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Romulous

[Lion.Kanzen]

I agree with that. May be can be build more slower to destroy it, but it's a strategy I ever play with Romans I do. With the Ai do this is more complicated the Ai attack the builders (Aegis) constantly, don't let even invade the territory. In AoK players build Town Center near you and castles because in that game are not a territory concept.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[Dancing]

Let me get this straight. Whos he? Were you playing against the AI or a human player?

If that was the AI then you going to have to wait. THis is early stages of the game and AI is not finished at all.

I strongly disagree in not allowing the Romans to build in enemy territory. That won't be historically true and it will not represent them as they should be.

In the Romans time they certainly built in enemy territory and wasn't just just forts and walls, but entire cities.

And to add to that, stopping a civ from building in an enemy zone is fantasy. That simply takes away RTS and the theme that''s trying to be adopted here.

The strategies deployed by the AI is the only thing I'd agree that needs to change. Nothing more.

He as in another player, this isn't a court and he isn't on trial. So I won't be naming him. Second I appreciate that some things have to be historically accurate but where do the developers draw the line between something that can be exploited because players are using it in a way that disrupts gameplay. I mean why design the territory idea in the first place if all the Roman player has to do is spam these walls in a way that costs him little? draws them all over the map, around your base, in a way that makes moving units impossible. Now I understand this may be the exception to the rule because we played on a close map. However this player has indeed used the Roman ability to build in enemy territory to tower rush. With roman walls costing 80 wood, he could build 10 little wall turrets here and there, that aren't easy to take down. So for 800 wood I gain an awesome ability that allows me to virtually control large portions of the map and disrupt my opponent from collecting other resources?

I mean surely making the decision to limit the romans from building in enemy territory is historically inaccurate, but (it's a video game... you don't just go from a village to city in 45 minutes). I don't think it's entirely unfair to have the romans be limited to their own territory + neutral territory. That is still an extrodinary advantage. No other civ could do that?

[Dancing]

I agree with that. May be can be build more slower to destroy it, but it's a strategy I ever play with Romans I do. With the Ai do this is more complicated the Ai attack the builders (Aegis) constantly, don't let even invade the territory. In AoK players build Town Center near you and castles because in that game are not a territory concept.

Which is something I left AOK for, I hated the idea of being tower rushed, because it was something that could be done, but it wasn't tactical, it was cheese. I enjoy the non-cheese aspect of this game and I think this roman ability of enemy territory building is just that... cheese. I like the idea of the territorys mattering and formations mattering, not APM towerushing or APM archer rushing which is where the curret meta for AOK lies at.

[sanderd17]

Hmmm, the siege wall towers have 10 crush armour, while regular wall towers have 5. So that makes the sieges less effective against them. Maybe we should start with fixing that

[Romulus]

No civilization did as much as the Romans. They were that sophisticated. And besides that, don't play against the Romans if you don't like or can't handle their strategy. That's just Roman nature. The Romans are conquerors and put up a mighty challenge when playing against is great fun.

The strategy of enclosing a city with walls is to starve and limit your movement on the map. Try and resist the Romans.

How boring would it be for example, if someone wanted to play as Gauls but the Romans couldn't come and reenact Caesar's great strategy in enclosing walls around the city?? That would be pretty boring.

Probably an option in the main menu that disables building in enemy territory, but seen as though the Romans is the only civ currently I know of that can, this is pointless.

Play against another civ if you don't like it.

[Romulus]

Hmmm, the siege wall towers have 10 crush armour, while regular wall towers have 5. So that makes the sieges less effective against them. Maybe we should start with fixing that

Not actually.... Towers are more steady and stronger than walls.

[wraitii]

Except they're not.

Furthermore, we need to keep some balance between civilizations. If the romans want to circle the gauls in this game, it is necessary that the gaul player be able to do something about it. And harass/annoying strategies as in the original post aren't fun, so it's something to consider.

[sanderd17]

Not actually.... Towers are more steady and stronger than walls.

I'm saying that wooden towers are stronger than stone towers in the game (at least for siege engines).

[Romulus]

Except they're not.

Furthermore, we need to keep some balance between civilizations. If the romans want to circle the gauls in this game, it is necessary that the gaul player be able to do something about it. And harass/annoying strategies as in the original post aren't fun, so it's something to consider.

I agree with you. If you play against the Romans you should be up for a challenge and fight.

In particularly why can't the Gauls be given abilities too, like perhaps faster troop creation time and make the warriors cheap by overly weak. Makes sense to me.

When Caesar came and built walls the Gauls constantly pestered him all sides. So the Gauls need to be able to have numbers and quickly.

I'm saying that wooden towers are stronger than stone towers in the game (at least for siege engines).

Oh sorry, I thought you meant decreasing the wooden towers ratio to the wooden walls

[Dancing]

Except they're not.

Furthermore, we need to keep some balance between civilizations. If the romans want to circle the gauls in this game, it is necessary that the gaul player be able to do something about it. And harass/annoying strategies as in the original post aren't fun, so it's something to consider.

I agree with you. If you play against the Romans you should be up for a challenge and fight.

In particularly why can't the Gauls be given abilities too, like perhaps faster troop creation time and make the warriors cheap by overly weak. Makes sense to me.

When Caesar came and built walls the Gauls constantly pestered him all sides. So the Gauls need to be able to have numbers and quickly.

Funny story Gentlemen, this was a 2v2 romans and iberians vs romans and iberians... the gauls were not present at this battle.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Romulous I dare to you. You need learn to don't underestimate the enemy. Try to play against Mauryans or Ptolomies.

[Romulus]

Romulous I dare to you. You need learn to don't underestimate the enemy. Try to play against Mauryans or Ptolomies.

Haha I haven't yet. I am playing against the Greeks for now. Then probably move west and battle the Iberians a bit

Edited January 4, 2014 by Romulous

[Lion.Kanzen]

Haha I haven't yet. I am playing against the Greeks for now. Then probably move west and battle the Iberians a bit

Be aware with the Succesors. I'll try to install the release and test some multiplayer.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[Mythos_Ruler]

Thing is... These siege walls are a City Phase structure. You should have had enough scouting and vision of the map to see him actually doing this and move to stop him. Did you not try to stop him? Why did you let him do this to you?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Thing is... These siege walls are a City Phase structure. You should have had enough scouting and vision of the map to see him actually doing this and move to stop him. Did you not try to stop him? Why did you let him do this to you?

much of new player don't explore,that why they are defeated.

We need more visible rank to create teams. The best strategy in lobby is Civic Center near enemy settlement. But if your team don't help to attack is useless.

[Dancing]

Thing is... These siege walls are a City Phase structure. You should have had enough scouting and vision of the map to see him actually doing this and move to stop him. Did you not try to stop him? Why did you let him do this to you?

I explained in my previous post, but the romans can build those walls quicker than they can torn down, I had three armies, one in his base, one in yellows and one at home, when I went to move my armys back to support the one at my base the pathfinding got them stuck in some trees, however my ally was there supporting me. my opponent only had a handful of units, and they were able to do that, without a civic center without any houses... I mean Mythos_Ruler if this is how you want the Romans to be used, then let me know so I can start doing this to others.

[Dancing]

much of new player don't explore,that why they are defeated.

We need more visible rank to create teams. The best strategy in lobby is Civic Center near enemy settlement. But if your team don't help to attack is useless.

I take that as an insult, because I believe I am revealing a legitimatly unbalanced feature of a civilization and your response to my protest is "oh he is just a newb, that's why he lost." That's disrespectful and insulting. Because 1) we didn't lose, and 2) I was disattisfied with that match, because I thought the design philosphy behind 0 a.d. was formations and unit composition and economic management matter more than just pure APM. I respected that idea, and outlook. I think what you can do with the Romans now not only spits in the face of that very idea, but is just poor game design either in oversight or by accident.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Dancing

[Lion.Kanzen]

No. I'm not talking about you.l

Today play 3 matches and anyone explores the map. Only a game team with Ieper we had good battling we defeated one but the other resist until he resign was incredible one hour of battle against Sparta vs Mauryan (me) and Ieper's Carthage.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen