[Suggestions] on: "differences that could be made between civs" and "more.."

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

DIFFERENCES THAT CAN BE ADDED BETWEEN CIVS AND STILL KEEP BALANCE:
Primarily focused on phase 1
Athenians: TBD
Macedonians: Now the Macedonians had skirmishers which were lighter then usual so they would be faster but obviously with a penalty in the amount of resources they could carry with them. SO maybe instead of 10 at the beginning they could have a max of 8 or 7.
Spartans:

• Spartan spearmen should be stronger then the usual spearmen in phase 1, he should deal more damage
• The skirmisher in my opinion should have more precision but take more time between shots(in proportions). another
• Elite soldiers and champions would deal double damage or be faster when they are at really low health sort of like a last stand,
• Price of skirmisher: 60 food and 50 wood
• Price of spear: 60 food and 50 wood
• Females have better gathering rate on wood,metal and stone then the other females.

Romans:

• For the Romans i suggest: first of all they had heavy javelins so i would make them deal more damage be slower.and able to carry more resources on them.
• Price of skirmisher: 10 metal 40 food and 50 wood

Mauryans:

• Troops a bit weaker both in damage and in health
• Train a bit faster
• Price: 40 wood and 60 food.

Iberians:

• First of all the starting wall they have is a palisade.
• Less health and less damage but faster and cheaper houses 60 wood
• Gathering rates increase the higher level they are

Ptolomies:

• Make Archers + cost 10 food or train slower

Gauls: TBD
Britons: TBD
Selucades: TBD
Persians: TBD
Carthagians: TBD
Another thing that could be added in order to increase balance is if some civs already started with some techs upgraded for example a good farmer civ could have the first farmer tech already upgraded

Basically thank you niektb
STAMINA
What is stamina?

• Units can not run for a long time without having to rest. Horses have much more stamina, infantryless and elephants have incredible stamina.
• The more damaged the unit is, the less stamina it has.
• Does not affect smaller maps.

​Why?

• Since damaged units will have less stamina it will be easier to highlight them so that they can be sent back to the temples (=> not sure what you mean here...)
• It makes matches on giant maps more interesting. Much slower travael between bases.
• Fits in well with increased PVE (Player vs. Environment)

PVE

What is PVE?

• Player vs. Environment
• Basically PVE already exists in 0 A.D., but I want to take it further because if you want to be a conqueror you need to be a survivor first.

​What do I mean / want?

• I want the PVE to be increased or at least a setting which allows you to increase it.
• Phase 1 (should be) is about surviving vs. Gaia: Lions, wolves, deserters, barbarians, etc.
• This would make walls more useful in my opinionm especially palisades.
• Maybe the bigger the map, the more PVE?

How does stamina and PVE work together?

• Yet again on Giant maps: you cannot just send some females to build a CC near the enemy, they will get killed by animals.
• Sending Soldiers will take much more time since many will be damaged and thus weaker and with less stamina.
• So in big matches expansion will be near your own base, not your enemies'. Proper expansion, harder to maintain bases that are not connected to yours, unless you have walls or cavalry.

Why? (again)

• For giant map matches, politics will become more interesting, the matches itself will be more interesting and take longer.
• Cavalry raids on enemy troops to slow them down.
• Healers will become much more used again.

Quick note on Iberians: men on palisades enabled so that the iberian starting walls are palisades(and maybe give an option to upgrade pallisades to proper walls?)
Some other thoughts:

• Make those battering rams a bit weaker?
• More difference between civs?
• it is obligatory to garrison Siege Weapons to make them move. For example: In a battering ram, the men that are carrying it are less vulnerable to arrows but when soldiers attack the ram, they actually attack the people that carry it rather than the ram itself. Then the enemy get to keep the ram as Spoils of war. Obviously the rams do not take any population when build but take more time and the actual ram can be destroyed.

Edited November 1, 2014 by LordIgorIIIofKiev

[tau]

Hi Igor, i think it could be a good idea to add the text from the vid to your post so that it could be easily quoted in discussion.

[niektb]

Mind if I do so (a bit roughly)?

STAMINA

What is stamina?

• Units can not run for a long time without having to rest. Horses have much more stamina, infantryless and elephants have incredible stamina.
• The more damaged the unit is, the less stamina it has.
• Does not affect smaller maps.

​Why?

• Since damaged units will have less stamina it will be easier to highlight them so that they can be sent back to the temples (=> not sure what you mean here...)
• It makes matches on giant maps more interesting. Much slower travael between bases.
• Fits in well with increased PVE (Player vs. Environment).

PVE

What is PVE?

• Player vs. Environment
• Basically PVE already exists in 0 A.D., but I want to take it further because if you want to be a conqueror you need to be a survivor first.

​What do I mean / want?

• I want the PVE to be increased or at least a setting which allows you to increase it.
• Phase 1 (should be) is about surviving vs. Gaia: Lions, wolves, deserters, barbarians, etc.
• This would make walls more useful in my opinionm especially palisades.
• Maybe the bigger the map, the more PVE?

How does stamina and PVE work together?

• Yet again on Giant maps: you cannot just send some females to build a CC near the enemy, they will get killed by animals.
• Sending Soldiers will take much more time since many will be damaged and thus weaker and with less stamina.
• So in big matches expansion will be near your own base, not your enemies'. Proper expansion, harder to maintain bases that are not connected to yours, unless you have walls or cavalry.

Why? (again)

• For giant map matches, politics will become more interesting, the matches itself will be more interesting and take longer.
• Cavalry raids on enemy troops to slow them down.
• Healers will become much more used again.

Some other thoughts:

• Make those battering rams a bit weaker?
• Men on palisades?
• More difference between civs?
• Not so sure about this one: it is obligatory to garrison Siege Weapons to make them move. For example: In a battering ram, the men that are carrying it are less vulnerable to arrows but when soldiers attack the ram, they actually attack the people that carry it rather than the ram itself. (But I don't know what happens to the ram => this is why I wasn't sure about it!)

Edit: moved it into a spoiler as it is in the TS now.

Edited October 24, 2014 by niektb

[zzippy]

Again a feature thread which will be lost like tears in the rain (scnr ).....

..imho this game urgently needs a working design comitee (it exists, but..), and also someone (moderator) who bundles the community design suggestions/wishes in an official thread. Atm, its spread all over the forums, a real chaos.

[MadaFizzle]

The stamina idea is interesting, i think it would give a lot of new possibilities.

Speaking about horsemen, perhaps we will be able to charge the infantry (literally sweeping units) with the use of stamina, and the charge will not be available until we have recovered the stamina required.

I get really depressed when i see horses that can just "walk"...

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

Mind if I do so (a bit roughly)?

STAMINA

What is stamina?

• Units can not run for a long time without having to rest. Horses have much more stamina, infantryless and elephants have incredible stamina.
• The more damaged the unit is, the less stamina it has.
• Does not affect smaller maps.

​Why?

• Since damaged units will have less stamina it will be easier to highlight them so that they can be sent back to the temples (=> not sure what you mean here...)
• It makes matches on giant maps more interesting. Much slower travael between bases.
• Fits in well with increased PVE (Player vs. Environment).

PVE

What is PVE?

• Player vs. Environment
• Basically PVE already exists in 0 A.D., but I want to take it further because if you want to be a conqueror you need to be a survivor first.

​What do I mean / want?

• I want the PVE to be increased or at least a setting which allows you to increase it.
• Phase 1 (should be) is about surviving vs. Gaia: Lions, wolves, deserters, barbarians, etc.
• This would make walls more useful in my opinionm especially palisades.
• Maybe the bigger the map, the more PVE?

How does stamina and PVE work together?

• Yet again on Giant maps: you cannot just send some females to build a CC near the enemy, they will get killed by animals.
• Sending Soldiers will take much more time since many will be damaged and thus weaker and with less stamina.
• So in big matches expansion will be near your own base, not your enemies'. Proper expansion, harder to maintain bases that are not connected to yours, unless you have walls or cavalry.

Why? (again)

• For giant map matches, politics will become more interesting, the matches itself will be more interesting and take longer.
• Cavalry raids on enemy troops to slow them down.
• Healers will become much more used again.

Some other thoughts:

• Make those battering rams a bit weaker?
• Men on palisades?
• More difference between civs?
• Not so sure about this one: it is obligatory to garrison Siege Weapons to make them move. For example: In a battering ram, the men that are carrying it are less vulnerable to arrows but when soldiers attack the ram, they actually attack the people that carry it rather than the ram itself. (But I don't know what happens to the ram => this is why I wasn't sure about it!)

thank you

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Your hope may lie in mods which can be better than the vanilla game (See: Rome TOTAL WAR and other games with great modding communities).

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

Your hope may lie in mods which can be better than the vanilla game (See: Rome TOTAL WAR and other games with great modding communities).

like mount and blade well since its still in alpha i hope that i can have this in the vanilla

[niektb]

Although they certainly add a new strategic depth I doubt it is a good idea to put stuff that is such complicated into a game like 0 A.D. This especially counts for the PVE part. I personally think there could be some additional depth into economy and decision-taking however.

PVE would make 0 A.D. much more a kind of simulation (like Banished). Of course there could be scenarios that require a different style of playing (as they can technically add additional gameplay using triggers) or mods that could do so.

For stamina I don't think it would be a good idea to separate the gameplay on small maps from large® maps.

To summarize:

I (personally) prefer the 0 A.D. vanilla game to be as 'clean' as possible. No (possibly) overcomplicated gameplay mechanics but more the kind of 'easy to learn but hard to master' style. (But it would be good of course to give mods the ability to add such gameplay of course).

[...]

• More difference between civs?

[...]

You're not the only one that wants this . I believe this is more or less planned for Alpha 18 ((in)formal?)

Edited October 24, 2014 by niektb

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

Although they certainly add a new strategic depth I doubt it is a good idea to put stuff that is such complicated into a game like 0 A.D. This especially counts for the PVE part. I personally think there could be some additional depth into economy and decision-taking however.

PVE would make 0 A.D. much more a kind of simulation (like Banished). Of course there could be scenarios that require a different style of playing (as they can technically add additional gameplay using triggers) or mods that could do so.

For stamina I don't think it would be a good idea to separate the gameplay on small maps from large® maps.

To summarize:

I (personally) prefer the 0 A.D. vanilla game to be as 'clean' as possible. No (possibly) overcomplicated gameplay mechanics but more the kind of 'easy to learn but hard to master' style. (But it would be good of course to give mods the ability to add such gameplay of course).

You're not the only one that wants this . I believe this is more or less planned for Alpha 18 ((in)formal?)

well for the p v e i think it should vary between, actually what map it is, since european maps wont be that dangerous but other might. and when i have some time i will post what changed could be made to civs and still keep them balanced

and obviously there can be a mod which makes 0ad less "clean" not necessarily in the vanilla version,

but randomness was a big decisive part of the growth of an empire

also it would separate the good players from the really good players

oh and the mirco would be amazing

Edited October 24, 2014 by LordIgorIIIofKiev

[DonSkallon]

I defenitely agree on the idea of the battering ram to require soldiers to be driven. Like 4 soldiers. Would make it ALOT easier

for Melee soldiers to take down these battering rams. Right now they seem nearly invincible.

You say you don't know what should happen to the ram after that. Well I do: Spoils of war. You get to keep it.

This concept would make them game alot more strategic and realistic too. Let's say you kill a bunch of enemy

stone miners and you could then send your soldiers to loot the nearby enemy warehouse/storage building:

BAM! 250 Stone resources all yours; Just have to carry it back to your cc or your nearest wearhouse.

I also agree there should be more, what you call, PVE in the game. It could hinder beligerent enemies from attacking early on in

the game and sending legion after legion at you. I like a slow start up, where I can build up my defences, farms, storage-houses

at ease and build up a huge army before starting war. I don't like petty warfare. I like biiiig warfare

Another way of taking warfare a little bit more to the background is to improve the trading system and it's importance.

I think the trading system is a little vague in 0ad and could be bigger and clearer. More like it was in AoE3.

In AoE you had the Homefront with which you could allways trade. Also you had native indian factions with which to trade.

In 0ad I'm not quite sure with whom to trade; The enemy is the only other party present?

I find the trading system very confusing. If the trading system becomes clearer and is given more importance than that might

also help balance out 0ad's tendency to tend too much towards warfare and leave too little time for strategic, economic and cultural/artistic creativity.

Edited October 24, 2014 by DonSkallon

[feneur]

Again a feature thread which will be lost like tears in the rain (scnr ).....

..imho this game urgently needs a working design comitee (it exists, but..), and also someone (moderator) who bundles the community design suggestions/wishes in an official thread. Atm, its spread all over the forums, a real chaos.

We certainly need to get a better grip on the design of the game, but overall we don't need more features for the game, but to decide exactly which ones of the ones we already have decided we should have that we should actually include and then implement those. Otherwise we'll keep adding to the game indefinitely and 0 A.D: will never be done. Features for the game engine in general/Atlas specifically is a bit of a different issue though as that's something that should be useful to more than the base 0 A.D. game.

In 0ad I'm not quite sure with whom to trade; The enemy is the only other party present?

In 0 A.D. you can trade with both your own markets/docks and your ally's. To make it easier to set which goods to trade, just click the "coins" symbol in the top bar (next to the "Menu" button), and set what percentage of each type of goods you want to trade.

[auron2401]

You forgot to say:

Trading with other players grants a bonus in income.

Moreso if you are playing with a carthaginian player.

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

I defenitely agree on the idea of the battering ram to require soldiers to be driven. Like 4 soldiers. Would make it ALOT easier

for Melee soldiers to take down these battering rams. Right now they seem nearly invincible.

You say you don't know what should happen to the ram after that. Well I do: Spoils of war. You get to keep it.

This concept would make them game alot more strategic and realistic too. Let's say you kill a bunch of enemy

stone miners and you could then send your soldiers to loot the nearby enemy warehouse/storage building:

BAM! 250 Stone resources all yours; Just have to carry it back to your cc or your nearest wearhouse.

I also agree there should be more, what you call, PVE in the game. It could hinder beligerent enemies from attacking early on in

the game and sending legion after legion at you. I like a slow start up, where I can build up my defences, farms, storage-houses

at ease and build up a huge army before starting war. I don't like petty warfare. I like biiiig warfare

Another way of taking warfare a little bit more to the background is to improve the trading system and it's importance.

I think the trading system is a little vague in 0ad and could be bigger and clearer. More like it was in AoE3.

In AoE you had the Homefront with which you could allways trade. Also you had native indian factions with which to trade.

In 0ad I'm not quite sure with whom to trade; The enemy is the only other party present?

I find the trading system very confusing. If the trading system becomes clearer and is given more importance than that might

also help balance out 0ad's tendency to tend too much towards warfare and leave too little time for strategic, economic and cultural/artistic creativity.

[tau]

Not arguing pro or against PVE itself (which is not going to be included into the game anyway afaiu), i would like to say that some 'probs' mentioned in this thread can have simpler solutions:

Building a CC with women:

women could be made less effective in construction

Not really useful walls/palisades:

would be nice if they could prevent ranged from shooting through or affect accuracy

Too strong rams:

i've read not once that their ability to attack people is temporary, let's see how balanced they will be after it is taken out?

Early attacks:

the game allows both early and late attack scenarios, that i personally consider a good design; a design forcing to choose one over another would be worse. However there is a 'natural' parameter which decreases effectiveness of early attacks: distance. In other words, if you dislike early attacks, you might want to try bigger maps.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I don't like the battering ram needing soldiers to move. The ram cost more population allready which is a simulation of men inside it to move.

Edited October 27, 2014 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

I don't like the battering ram needing soldiers to move. The ram cost more population allready which is a simulation of men inside it to move.

well i dont think that if they need soldiers to move they will cost any population

[iNcog]

I actually think that siege engines which require soldiers to move and operate is a very cute idea. However, as others have pointed out, you would have to make them so they don't occupy population slots. In a way, they would almost be mobile buildings. It makes siege engines in 0 AD a bit more unique, unlike other games like Age of Empires for example.

There are some good ideas in the OP, however I agree with what niektb said. Simple, yet well-made, game design should be the priority.

Perhaps I should be better off asking in another thread, however I'm going to ask here. What happened to the upgrades to make citizen soldiers into regular soldiers? They only go up in rank when they fight now? That's a big development. Or did that upgrade go to another building?

Edited October 28, 2014 by iNcog

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

I actually think that siege engines which require soldiers to move and operate is a very cute idea. However, as others have pointed out, you would have to make them so they don't occupy population slots. In a way, they would almost be mobile buildings. It makes siege engines in 0 AD a bit more unique, unlike other games like Age of Empires for example.

There are some good ideas in the OP, however I agree with what niektb said. Simple, yet well-made, game design should be the priority.

Perhaps I should be better off asking in another thread, however I'm going to ask here. What happened to the upgrades to make citizen soldiers into regular soldiers? They only go up in rank when they fight now? That's a big development. Or did that upgrade go to another building?

it was desided that it was stupid to be able to upgrade them in barracks which is totally over powered but in revenge it was made easier for them to level up by fighting

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

it was desided that it was stupid to be able to upgrade them in barracks which is totally over powered but in revenge it was made easier for them to level up by fighting

This is not true because citizen men always only required 1 kill to upgrade.

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

This is not true because citizen men always only required 1 kill to upgrade.

u sure about that so you saying he would be in elite withe 3 kills wrong

and i know that they upgrade faster And what you just said is false.

annd one kill of what please be more precise

Edited October 28, 2014 by LordIgorIIIofKiev

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

u sure about that so you saying he would be in elite withe 3 kills wrong

and i know that they upgrade faster And what you just said is false.

annd one kill of what please be more precise

Play Alpha 16. A soldier only needs 1 kill to upgrade to next rank. try a hoplite.

[niektb]

Alpha 16 or 17?

[Theodotus]

This is not true because citizen men always only required 1 kill to upgrade.

In past Alphas though, didn't it take at least half a dozen kill counts in order for a citizen soldier to level up?

[LordIgorIIIofKiev]

In past Alphas though, didn't it take at least half a dozen kill counts in order for a citizen soldier to level up?

yes it did