My Suggestions After Testing Alpha 17 SVN (And In General)

[Stan`]

Maybe a good middle point would be default ressources - > as it is now (With improvements)

Deathmatch ressources, less macro more micro ?

[Prodigal Son]

Maybe a good middle point would be default ressources - > as it is now (With improvements)

Deathmatch ressources, less macro more micro ?

If you mean adding extra micro based things just for deathmatch, I believe that would end up confusing. Having such features available for mods would be very welcome though.

[Stan`]

Well not so much in AOM you add special things in deathmatches. Everything was researched, and the age transition immediate. That would be the difference from deathmatch ressources to very high ressources.

[Prodigal Son]

Well not so much in AOM you add special things in deathmatches. Everything was researched, and the age transition immediate. That would be the difference from deathmatch ressources to very high ressources.

You add basic options in AOM deathmatch, not different combat mechanics:)

[Stan`]

You add basic options in AOM deathmatch, not different combat mechanics:)

True. Then I fall back into nice for mods

[Zeta1127]

And AoE and AoM never bothered to make formations useful, so 0 A.D. is really only superficially similar to AoE and AoM. I see no reason why formations and some weapon toggles can't be an effective system in 0 A.D., once formations and the pathfinder are working the way they are supposed to be.

[Prodigal Son]

True. Then I fall back into nice for mods

Agreed:)

And AoE and AoM never bothered to make formations useful, so 0 A.D. is really only superficially similar to AoE and AoM. I see no reason why formations and some weapon toggles can't be an effective system in 0 A.D., once formations and the pathfinder are working the way they are supposed to be.

All I'm saying is it's a game with similarly important economy and basebuilding to AOE (and tougher than AOM) so adding formations + running/charging + stamina + directional bonuses + toggle/active combat abilities + dismounting + w/e similar extra people might be thinking, is a micro overkill. All that would be ok in a game with very basic macro. Some of them could be added, I'm not against something specific cause I hate it, but since some of those are planned, I don't think more would make it a better game just by quantity.

I don't believe AOE/AOM never bothered, the developers just knew their games' direction and what would fit in.

[Prodigal Son]

I've thought of something more in regards to cavalry. Since there's no stable for most civs (and if my idea of moving cav to tier2 is rejected) how about making the corral a requirement for training cavalry units. It's a way to delay early game cavalry spam and at the same time more realistic (needing to breed horses and early era focused on foot units).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I've thought of something more in regards to cavalry. Since there's no stable for most civs (and if my idea of moving cav to tier2 is rejected) how about making the corral a requirement for training cavalry units. It's a way to delay early game cavalry spam and at the same time more realistic (needing to breed horses and early era focused on foot units).

Here is my suggestion. Perhaps you will hear me out.

Have civil center train womans and spearman only (swordman for Roma). That way to get the other types, including cavalry, the player must build a barracks.

[Prodigal Son]

Here is my suggestion. Perhaps you will hear me out.

Have civil center train womans and spearman only (swordman for Roma). That way to get the other types, including cavalry, the player must build a barracks.

That could work as well. I've also suggested something similar already, with archers added to the CC only for Persians and Mauryans when (as they should) get weaker spearmen.

[tau]

making the corral a requirement for training cavalry units

I'm afraid that a corral built will, on the contrary, encourage cav spamming (unless Plumo's suggestion will be implemented).

Anyway, are you sure that the early cav problem still exists? I anticipate that with the next version players just won't train so many cav after they discover that cav has become effectively countered with ranged inf.

[Prodigal Son]

I'm afraid that a corral built will, on the contrary, encourage cav spamming (unless Plumo's suggestion will be implemented).

Anyway, are you sure that the early cav problem still exists? I anticipate that with the next version players just won't train so many cav after they discover that cav has become effectively countered with ranged inf.

Why would a corral built encourage cavalry spam? It requires extra resources and build time, it would fit for a cavalry strategy with the ability to train sheep and the cav tech it has, but delay it. Cavalry gather rates could be reduced (or the mechanic change in some other way) if that's what you mean, I agree they're extremely fast on it, currently I find scouting a bad alternative until any starting chicken/sheep etc are harvested.

Playing almost exclusively SVN the past couple of weeks, I still find ranged cav to be the best all around unit (and not seriously disadvantaged vs ranged inf - just from playing experience, I can't currently recall their armor stats/types). However my point for delaying early cavalry availability (either with need for corral, removing them from the CC or making them tier 2) is quite different, it's not about nerfing them (that can be done in other ways anyway). It's about having fast units later on, not from the very start, as almost all RTS do, leaving any early rushes to slower units. That's also more historical as well, cavalry warfare was later to develop and get an important role and for most civs it was even (or almost) non-existent until the mid/late classical age.

[Stan`]

About the corrals I was thinking of upgrafing animals textures (pigs,goats,etc) Would having a choice betweens those animals have a gameplay influence ? also now that we have the visible garrisoning system to have a food income would be nice ? For the corrals a design decision is pending though.

[Prodigal Son]

Isn't it decided that corral animals will serve both as a direct resource (slaughter) or a tickle income (garrisoned in the corral)?

No clue if training animals other than sheep is intended for the corral. Could do, but I don't believe it would enhance gameplay in some way. Unless some animals get better for being gathered from and some provide a better tickle, but I believe that's a bit too much.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[auron2401]

Here is my suggestion. Perhaps you will hear me out.

Have civil center train womans and spearman only (swordman for Roma). That way to get the other types, including cavalry, the player must build a barracks.

...you stole that off me.

I do however, Concur.

Alternately, i wouldn't Begrudge giving melee cav to EVERYONE, from civ centers.

...or just making cav production require age2.

Edited October 10, 2014 by auron2401

[tau]

Why would a corral built encourage cavalry spam? It requires extra resources and build time, it would fit for a cavalry strategy with the ability to train sheep and the cav tech it has, but delay it. Cavalry gather rates could be reduced (or the mechanic change in some other way) if that's what you mean, I agree they're extremely fast on it, currently I find scouting a bad alternative until any starting chicken/sheep etc are harvested.

Yes this is what i meant, but it wasn't obvious for me initially that you suggest a tech to be a prerequisite for cav, not a corral itself. Its cost/research time can make the difference.

[Prodigal Son]

Yes this is what i meant, but it wasn't obvious for me initially that you suggest a tech to be a prerequisite for cav, not a corral itself. Its cost/research time can make the difference.

Well I wasn't actually suggesting that:p. You got wrong (or I phrased it wrong) that I wrote about doing it with a corral tech, what I ment was that the corral already has a cavalry-related tech. I can see that it could also work with an unlocking tech though.

What I ment was that using the corral as a requirement for cavalry will delay it's training, not encourage it. Especially if coupled with a slight nerf on their food gathering rate, which seems needed. At the same time since the corral produces sheep they can slaughter and has a cav tech, it would fit for a cav-related strategy.

It would make sense as a "stable" providing horses for the majority of civs which don't have one, and since many herding societies were quite strong on cavalry as well, the sheep + cav combo doesn't estrange me.

[Prodigal Son]

Currently the biggest issue imo is the combat roles for some units:

• Elephants are too weak for their cost and only semi-useful vs structures (very weak vs troops).
• Melee infantry isn't that useful in it's supposed main role, doing the core combat... as ranged units do that. Which is very unrealistic for the ancient era. Instead, with the reduction on building hack armor, melee infantry now do the same percentage of damage vs buildings with siege weapons on average, and that added to mass-ability and mobility makes them the game's effective siege weapons, with a secondary meat-shield role in ranged unit wars. I'd suggest an increase of around 25% to structure hack armor.
• Ranged units are still a little op, especially ranged cav (not to A16 levels though). Imo they all need to do less dps than melee, be even more weaker in defense (compared to melee), be cheaper and get balanced along those lines. They were almost exclusively support units, but in the current state of the game almost all players focus on them. Furthermore they need far more differentiation from each other, but I've wrote on this before and seems it's a bit early for such changes.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Prodigal Son

[Destin Faroda]

All I'm saying is it's a game with similarly important economy and basebuilding to AOE (and tougher than AOM) so adding formations + running/charging + stamina + directional bonuses + toggle/active combat abilities + dismounting + w/e similar extra people might be thinking, is a micro overkill.

That sounds a bit like Cossacks which was a good game for its time. Cossacks II had one of the best and most realistic combat systems. I wish more developers would use it as inspirations. The old rock-paper-scissor mechanic is so boring and arcadish. Besides, it creates problems like in all unmodded Total War games (balancing issues, spams etc.).

I'd suggest an increase of around 25% to structure hack armor.

Infantry shouldn't even be able to hurt buildings. Well, they could throw torches, but that shouldn't be as effective as a good catapult. Archers could shoot fire arrows.

[serveurix]

 

• Elephants are too weak for their cost and only semi-useful vs structures (very weak vs troops).

 

This is especially true when you compare them to rams. Currently rams are very good in melee combat : they can use their high resistance and attack against living units as efficiently as they do against buildings.

It isn't supposed to be like that. Rams are supposed to be very weak against living units but good against buildings and mechanical units, cavalry is supposed to be good against living units and mechanical units but weak against buildings, and elephants are supposed to be somewhere in the middle : very good against living units and mechanical ones, good against buildings (but not as good in this task as the rams), their only weaknesses being their low walking speed and their vulnerability to pierce damage.

If you can't solve the ram situation with normal statistics, I think it would be relevant to make an exception and give them hard maluses/bonuses.

[av93]

Rams are tanks against spearman

[tau]

elephants are supposed to be somewhere in the middle : very good against living units and mechanical ones, good against buildings (but not as good in this task as the rams), their only weaknesses being their low walking speed and their vulnerability to pierce damage.

The thing about elephants seems to be a bit more complicated: their vulnerability to pierce damage makes them not really good against garrisoned buildings. This especially affects Mauryans who have no siege engine. In phase3 you as Mauryans have few chances, if at all, against an equal opponent playing a cata civ.

[serveurix]

The thing about elephants seems to be a bit more complicated: their vulnerability to pierce damage makes them not really good against garrisoned buildings. This especially affects Mauryans who have no siege engine. In phase3 you as Mauryans have few chances, if at all, against an equal opponent playing a cata civ.

Right. Elephants should be designed to be used *en masse*. It would be relevant to use one or two rams surrounded by soldiers to protect them/open a way for them until they reach the buildings, but such a tactic wouldn't be efficient with elephants. If you're using elephants you should make a lot of them : as they are vulnerable to arrows, one or two wouldn't be enough to take down a castle, and as they are good enough in combat they wouldn't need to be surrounded by bodyguards. Not mentioning the fact that they are cheaper (both in cost and pop, iirc) than rams, so you are encouraged to recruit packs of them.

[Prodigal Son]

That sounds a bit like Cossacks which was a good game for its time. Cossacks II had one of the best and most realistic combat systems. I wish more developers would use it as inspirations. The old rock-paper-scissor mechanic is so boring and arcadish. Besides, it creates problems like in all unmodded Total War games (balancing issues, spams etc.).

Infantry shouldn't even be able to hurt buildings. Well, they could throw torches, but that shouldn't be as effective as a good catapult. Archers could shoot fire arrows.

I haven't played cossacks (but I've heard/read good comments on them), I've played a little bit of "Alexander", by the same developers though. Combat didn't seem more realistic or complex than total war and at the same time managing formations (especially adding new trained troops to them) + economy was a bit of an issue. I don't really like torches (in AOE III and Rome 2) for some reason they make the game feel stranger than hitting structures with weapons for me. I still can't get why:p.

   

This is especially true when you compare them to rams. Currently rams are very good in melee combat : they can use their high resistance and attack against living units as efficiently as they do against buildings.

It isn't supposed to be like that. Rams are supposed to be very weak against living units but good against buildings and mechanical units, cavalry is supposed to be good against living units and mechanical units but weak against buildings, and elephants are supposed to be somewhere in the middle : very good against living units and mechanical ones, good against buildings (but not as good in this task as the rams), their only weaknesses being their low walking speed and their vulnerability to pierce damage.

If you can't solve the ram situation with normal statistics, I think it would be relevant to make an exception and give them hard maluses/bonuses.

Rams are tanks against spearman

I still believe rams should get unable to attack troops and balanced in other ways (like increased hp or slightly reduced pathing size)

The thing about elephants seems to be a bit more complicated: their vulnerability to pierce damage makes them not really good against garrisoned buildings. This especially affects Mauryans who have no siege engine. In phase3 you as Mauryans have few chances, if at all, against an equal opponent playing a cata civ.

Right. Elephants should be designed to be used *en masse*. It would be relevant to use one or two rams surrounded by soldiers to protect them/open a way for them until they reach the buildings, but such a tactic wouldn't be efficient with elephants. If you're using elephants you should make a lot of them : as they are vulnerable to arrows, one or two wouldn't be enough to take down a castle, and as they are good enough in combat they wouldn't need to be surrounded by bodyguards. Not mentioning the fact that they are cheaper (both in cost and pop, iirc) than rams, so you are encouraged to recruit packs of them.

I'd like elephants to be an expensive all-around superunit. They had uses in siege warfare, such as tearing down gates, but that shouldn't be their focus, nor they should have much lower pierce than hack armor. About them being slow, they should be faster than (most?) infantry. As a weakness they could run amok going gaia + aggressive when reaching some low hp percentage, making them nice targets for focused fire and a potential threat to their owner's lines. Currently they are probably the most underpowered unit considering their high cost, low massability/late availability and relatively weak combat performance.

[serveurix]

 

About them being slow, they should be faster than (most?) infantry.

 

I would intuitively say that elephants should be slower than infantry when walking, but would compete with cavalry when charging. But this is just intuition, we would need some testing to be sure (and the implementation of charging of course ).

As for the "damage frenzy" property, this is planned too.