Nomad Gamestyle

[Sanguivorant]

A very popular one in most RTS games.

Basically, you start out with nothing but a few units and some resources, and you play the game from there. In most Nomad maps, you often have enough resources to build the town or city centre. In some Nomad maps, you are given just enough resources to build a resource-gathering site, and you have to collect the resources you need to build your town centre.

Obviously, for the latter, it cannot work, because if you do not have a city centre, you have no territory and you therefore cannot construct any resource gathering site.

How can this be implemented in the game?

I prefer an option so that Nomad can be played in any type of map, but I am not aware of how map scripting works.

[Radagast.]

Best would be to have a general solution that also fits real nomadic tribes.

Once we have the possibility to pack each and every building, we can easily have Nomad maps too.

e.g.

Armies that travel, construct their tents, in this time they have some territory. Once the tents are packed, no more territory and the journey continues.

Now concrete idea of the code currently on my side, but a solution should be general enough to allow all these variants without code duplication.

[Stan`]

We should just add Enriques tents to xmls with carts

[Lion.Kanzen]

You mean the starting game mode or nomad tribe gameplay?

[thamlett]

I think it would be a nice game mode, although it is already partially implemented with the "Migration" scenario.

[David_J_Rogers]

Maybe if you go into the Nomad gametype for a map, you have a cart that can kind of do everything. If it unpacks, like Hephaestion said, it will create a miniature town center. Thus the player can build buildings that would be found in a traditional style of gameplay. Once the resources in that area are depleted, again like Hephaestion said, they could repack their town center and keep their buildings there to create a new base elsewhere.

Maybe for the nomad gameplay there would be primitive buildings as well as a limited amount of buildings since nomads moved where there was food.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Maybe if you go into the Nomad gametype for a map, you have a cart that can kind of do everything. If it unpacks, like Hephaestion said, it will create a miniature town center. Thus the player can build buildings that would be found in a traditional style of gameplay. Once the resources in that area are depleted, again like Hephaestion said, they could repack their town center and keep their buildings there to create a new base elsewhere.

Maybe for the nomad gameplay there would be primitive buildings as well as a limited amount of buildings since nomads moved where there was food.

from Age of Mithology. We recently discuss thst, I don't remember where is the topic but was recentrly .

This can be considerate neutral special buildings. We can call them settlements system. Create a colony over a native settlement.

[hhyloc]

I remember something like this was mentioned on the wiki as well, a planned feature, given that the wiki is largely outdated I'm not sure if it would apply but personally I think it's a interesting game setting.

The player start with some random citizen soldier and women and maybe a hero? And they must find a good site to build the civ center, or we can use the neutral settlement (if it implemented).

[Radagast.]

Once the resources in that area are depleted they could repack their town center and keep their buildings there to create a new base elsewhere.

What I also like about the Nomad System is that this way you would find abandoned houses of foreign cultures in the middle of nowhere. Of course they would quickly decay as there is no more territors once the Nomad tent has been packed, but they would stay at least for a while.

Once we have visual decay too, i.e. make the decaying buildings look more and more broken with time, then it would really be fascinating.

I think it would be a nice game mode, although it is already partially implemented with the "Migration" scenario.

Ineed, I almost forgot about that in this context. Good you mention it.

This can be considerate neutral special buildings. We can call them settlements system. Create a colony over a native settlement.

I wonder if we should allow Nomads to settle in foreign territory. From a historically accurate view yes. Because e.g. Robin Hood also settled in a countryside that belonged to someone (some king/lord/city).

We talked about mercenaries, where we settled on neutral mini factions being available as mercenaries. And also to have the chance to build buildings in neutral territory (like the roman entranched fort/camp) . These neutral buildings could be used to train mercenaries. Also there could be neutral build types which belong to the mercenaries , just like a tavern in the wild where mercenaries and adventurers gather.

The player start with some random citizen soldier and women and maybe a hero? And they must find a good site to build the civ center, or we can use the neutral settlement (if it implemented).

Should we allow creating settlements (!= military camp) in neutral territories only to a special unit type (like pioneer or scout or animal which bears a tent / pulls a wagon)?

Yes, 0AD is too quick to have an up to date wiki. Let's keep up the speed and 0AD finally really takes off.

[Flavius Aetius]

I would really like to see the Scythians and Sarmatians added to 0AD. They were an important part of the Black Sea military and culture.

Otto Maenchen Helfen's "On the World of the Huns" is essential reading for understanding Nomad Culture and Psyche, and covers the Sarmatians a bit as well as the Huns.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Flavius Aetius

[dvangennip]

Just as a note for anyone thinking of coding this: I did some work a year ago in preparing a patch. It's on trac as ticket #1919, and includes a (then) working implementation of packing and unpacking of structures into units and back. I'm not sure if it also accepts structure to another structure and unit conversion to unit.

For anyone interested: It should be easy to get the code to work with the current codebase and see what bugs remain. I stopped short of implementing a proper GUI button placement (the pack/unpack button went on top of the first other trainable unit/buildable structure button). But it would be useful for truly nomadic civilisations to have this patch updated and added to the codebase. I remember there was some discussion back then to use a more generic Transformation component instead of the additions I made to the Pack component.

[Radagast.]

Thanks dvangennip. Awesome patch.

Now we have to create a component for it then?

Which different transformations could we have?

Are there others than entity

• Actor changes on button click (or javascript function call somewhere by the AI)
• Unit conversion
• ?

I know Sanderd17 has luckily fixed the Actor changes on tech research for Alpha 16 ... perhaps he has already created another component ?

[McAllisterw]

Would playing as a nomadic faction not require larger maps and longer game-play times?

As things stand I think it's still likely that if you gave a faction nomadic qualities (perhaps quicker build times and the ability to pack their civ-centre/other buildings up and move on), the gameplay for them wouldn't be much different to other factions. You build a settlement and start building an army. There would be no huge incentive to move on, yes resources would run out, and the food might run out faster as the compromise for the faster build times might be that you have no food-generating buildings or fields; but you could still send resource gatherers out to get them from elsewhere, just as you do with a settled faction.

The alternative of packing everything up and moving on might not appeal as by this point you've got a reasonable army and are not far off making some kind of final-assault on the enemy town; it might seem a bit undesirable in game-play terms to have to go back to town-building at this late stage, even if it is going to be a lot faster than for a settled faction. Also your enemy might be considering making a final assault on you and since you've presumably built fortifications to defend yourself, you wouldn't want to leave all that behind and expose yourself to annihilation.

If we had some particularly large maps, and the ability to simply build big base, then build big army was nerfed a bit, the nomadic factions might seem like an excellent strategic choice. Resources are more spread out and the fact that you can pack up your civ-centre, go on the move and then very quickly get a settlement going again near to some fresh resources would be an advantage. The size of the map and the fact your enemy isn't as likely to have build up a massive army means that you aren't at as great a risk when moving, of encountering a marauding army that makes light work of killing the units carrying your buildings. You could also have nomadic faction's units enter some kind of migration mode when they have no civic-centre which makes them stronger, just to mitigate against the vulnerability of having your civ-centre contained within a unit.

[Stan`]

I think something that might motivate moving would be that theýll be no territories on those maps so buildings would lose health when placed.

Also would be nice to have the regrowth system so that if the game is to last ressource reappear

[dvangennip]

Thanks dvangennip. Awesome patch.

Now we have to create a component for it then?

Which different transformations could we have?

Are there others than entity

• Actor changes on button click (or javascript function call somewhere by the AI)
• Unit conversion
• ?

I know Sanderd17 has luckily fixed the Actor changes on tech research for Alpha 16 ... perhaps he has already created another component ?

Hi, it works by adding a <Pack> node within a unit's or structure's XML template file to indicate into which template it should transform. See the trebuchet for an example. The code of the patch adapts the entity Pack component handling such matters. Currently (the 0 A.D. code as it is now), can handle unit -> unit packing and unpacking. My patch would facilitate unit -> structure, and structure -> unit, so a civil centre to cart and back is possible.

I'm not sure if this patch interacts in any way with the fixes by Sanderd17... There may be potential bugs in how it handles garrisoned units (because those need to be transfered to the new entity as well), and training queues. Other than that, it would support the kind of play you guys are discussing.

When I did some testing, I did not really notice clear benefits from a moving cart and the transformation to civil centre. Having a unit walk over and build a civil centre is just as easy (albeit slower to construct). Within the gameplay of 0 A.D., having such movable civil centres allows for very quick landgrab, so that opposition cannot build their civil centre on your territory... unless the territory influence of nomadic entities remains small (that would be realistic I guess). More advanced structures such as castles do not fit well with the nomadic idea, so in end game situations I suppose a permanent base will always be favourable/necessary. Nomadic civs definitely require a rush strategy to work.

One think I thought of back then was to restrict normal civilisations as to where those can expand or create new territory. If those could only expand (thus having a maximum distance between civil centres, not being able to capture land wherever they want), that would restrict their grip on territory and open up advantages for nomadic civs if those do not have such requirements (and can set up shop everywhere). I feel such a restriction would be necessary to make nomadic civs truly competitive at later stages of the game (also because defense and siege is likely weaker from a historical perspective, and fleeing to fight another day isn't really an option).

A clear downside of this territory expansion restriction is that some maps might pose problems as there might be a minimum distance between civil centres due to landscape features (think large bodies of water, or mountain ranges). A civ would then not be able to expand at all, unless the restriction can be lifted for maps with large bodies of water.

[Flavius Aetius]

Thinking about this, then something like the Scythians would only have a limited range of buildings. I'd say it would make sense for them to be able to build buildings in any territory (like the Roman Camp and Siege walls).

They would not have stone buildings. Everything would be wooden. Can probably take inspiration for the civil center from Attila's palace, which was a rectangular 1-story structure with 2 outbuildings and a palisade in a Gothic/Sarmatian style.

However, you'd probably be best off balancing it between packable and unpackable buildings to represent the semi-sedentary lifestyle of the Scythian people.

A plausible building list:

Civil Center (Can Pack)

House (It would be better to have a "Scythian Tent" unit) (Can Pack)

Resource Building (Can Pack)

Palisade (Cannot Pack)

Fortress (Cannot Pack)

Farm (Cannot Pack)

Food Deposit Building (Can Pack)

Barracks (Can Pack)

Could probably create a "Wagon" unit specifically for their buildings. I have images of Sarmatian Wagons I can post.

[Radagast.]

@McAllisterW:

You awesomely listed quite a few problems those nomadic tribes faced. Why shouldn't they face the same problems in 0AD?

Practically when on the run, there will be no reproduction. On the other hand there should not be any restrictions for them, they should be able to build whereever they want like Flavius said.

They should prefer to build/wander in neutral territory for as long as possible. => Potential field away from the enemy.

Actually this is true for all units. They should try to avoid enemy hotspots.

Currently citizens are really tough and even cross by enemy towers and walls which harass them with heaps of arrows. The losses are so high that it'd be better called Untergang instead of gathering resources.

Using this potential field would garant citizens' care at least a bit for their health.

Still in the late game this method would ensure that nomadic tribes get angry and come into conflict the more recklessly the others tribes grab their lands. We could use this for Native Indians, Sinti & Roma or Cossacks (in another Mod).

@Stan: Oh yeah, regrowth is brilliant. And we have it for fish already I think. For berries it was discussed and for fields it's related to the amount of workers depleting the soil but else infinite I think?

Within the gameplay of 0 A.D., having such movable civil centres allows for very quick landgrab

Do you think we could go without any territory and a slow decay for them, like stanislas & Flavius proposed?

Or should we reserve this functionality without territory to nomadic mini-civs? (like Beduins?)

One think I thought of back then was to restrict normal civilisations as to where those can expand or create new territory. If those could only expand (thus having a maximum distance between civil centres, not being able to capture land wherever they want), that would restrict their grip on territory and open up advantages for nomadic civs if those do not have such requirements (and can set up shop everywhere). I feel such a restriction would be necessary to make nomadic civs truly competitive at later stages of the game (also because defense and siege is likely weaker from a historical perspective, and fleeing to fight another day isn't really an option).

To have normal civilisations required connected territory? Sounds like an option but what about islands ... and campaigns where this might be needed?

I think nomadic tribes would not be too weak. They could have buildings which can be built in forests and mountains. When they wander around they will have good scouts and avoid all enemy armies. That's the more natural solution I believe. And we can come up with other features for them (like farther vision, less required food & water to survive as they are used to the hardship, and more .. ).

Hi, it works by adding a <Pack> node within a unit's or structure's XML template file to indicate into which template it should transform. See the trebuchet for an example. The code of the patch adapts the entity Pack component handling such matters. Currently (the 0 A.D. code as it is now), can handle unit -> unit packing and unpacking. My patch would facilitate unit -> structure, and structure -> unit, so a civil centre to cart and back is possible.

Anar sila calima tielyanna. The honour is mine. It sounds amazing. What a luck you created that patch. We could even use it for a wizard mod, just like hp or LoTR.

I'm not sure if this patch interacts in any way with the fixes by Sanderd17... There may be potential bugs in how it handles garrisoned units (because those need to be transfered to the new entity as well), and training queues. Other than that, it would support the kind of play you guys are discussing.

We should indeed try it. This way the women could stay inside the tent while we pack it onto the camel to protect them from enemy fire.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I would really like to see the Scythians and Sarmatians added to 0AD. They were an important part of the Black Sea military and culture.

Otto Maenchen Helfen's "On the World of the Huns" is essential reading for understanding Nomad Culture and Psyche, and covers the Sarmatians a bit as well as the Huns.

can be good if you provide little tips and info about the steppes cultures, I only know about how looks their warrior and the legend of amazons.

We need understand the big migration to Roman Empire in order give some gameplay that can be accorded to that understanding.

[Stan`]

I have another idea make village steady and have some sort of conversion system that allows you for a limited time to dwell in the village. Then you have to move othewise the area deals damage to your units. This way you could mix civilsations like it was the case during the crusades where persians built over templar buildings.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Thinking about this, then something like the Scythians would only have a limited range of buildings. I'd say it would make sense for them to be able to build buildings in any territory (like the Roman Camp and Siege walls).

They would not have stone buildings. Everything would be wooden. Can probably take inspiration for the civil center from Attila's palace, which was a rectangular 1-story structure with 2 outbuildings and a palisade in a Gothic/Sarmatian style.

However, you'd probably be best off balancing it between packable and unpackable buildings to represent the semi-sedentary lifestyle of the Scythian people.

A plausible building list:

Civil Center (Can Pack)

House (It would be better to have a "Scythian Tent" unit) (Can Pack)

Resource Building (Can Pack)

Palisade (Cannot Pack)

Fortress (Cannot Pack)

Farm (Cannot Pack)

Food Deposit Building (Can Pack)

Barracks (Can Pack)

Could probably create a "Wagon" unit specifically for their buildings. I have images of Sarmatian Wagons I can post.

Yep, you're getting the general idea of how we see nomad factions playing. I would say they could have an "ox cart" similar to the current Mauryan Worker Elephant, that steppes factions can use for a universal dropsite.

And perhaps steppes factions don't have "territory" like the other factions do, or otherwise use territory and borders differently than other factions do.

[Flavius Aetius]

That's what I was thinking, that borders worked differently. The corral would HAVE to work for the Scythians because all Steppe people relied on sheep for their livelihood.

Here are some Scythian/Sarmatian toys of actual Carts found in the Crimea:

These models of Pecheng Tents are similar to carts that Sarmatian and Hunnic families lived in:

War carts attached to horses were 2 wheeled though, like Chariots but different. They were used to carry wood for rafts it is known.

They could have a non-mobile unit called the Kurgan, which all steppe peoples used to bury their dead. I'd imagine it would have some sort of special purpose. Temple maybe?

Edited April 30, 2014 by Flavius Aetius

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yeah posted these in eyecandy tread.

http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16959&p=284529

And there was the first time we discuss that.

http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17219&hl=scythians

Edited April 30, 2014 by Lion.Kanzen

[av93]

I think that nomad gamestyle should stick to the original age of empires mode, a game that you start without cc. If there're different new aspects, rename to another game mode. Maybe i'm a little bit conservative with things like that...

[Lion.Kanzen]

One is a game starting mode other is faction style mode

[Flavius Aetius]

Yeah, the Game starting mode is called Migration in 0AD. The faction nomad style of gameplay is different.