Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, leper said:

Let me be the first to say TL;DR.

I did notice a part about directionality, do note that the simulation has no concept of unit rotation (or rather rotation speed, so a huge ship can and will rotate instantly).

About provinces instead of territories I suspect this will be just as bad as it was in EE2 (not that that game didn't have any other weak points).

This is sort of bad news, as it looks weird. But when I played it seemed to me like Phalanx pikemen could not turn around when they were engaged in combat, so is this a workaround or something?

Gameplay wise I think having infantry units turning instantly isn't that much of a problem (apart from phalanxes). If a unit is fighting another unit in front of it while being attacked from behind, it doesn't matter that much as it's going to suffer flanking damage from one side or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As promised the concept. 6.100 words of pure gameplay related stuff. Note: As this thread digs REALLY deep in the gameplay development, please read the document carefully and try to comprehend wh

Part II: Solution Concept taking Atheneans as example civilization: Excerpt from design doc: “Developers do not seem to be content to further the traditional RTS in the same vein as Age

I like the building dependency concept, especially requiring more than one type of parent, like corral + farmstead = market. Just have to make sure the tree makes sense, but the concept is good.

Posted Images

I'm pretty sure that's just because that unit reacted to being attacked or something, because the simulation has no concept of direction and/or rotation for units (I say direction because there's no easy way to know what you're pointing towards currently). I don't think that's actually a huge issue, since it could probably reasonably be added, but then you need to change the combat system entirely. Which also is in the realm of possibility, in itself.

 

Ships are a different matter…

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, leper said:

Units only switch targets if tasked to do so, or the current target dies. Adding direction/rotation to the simulation is most likely a lot harder than wraitii assumes.

 

33 minutes ago, wraitii said:

I'm pretty sure that's just because that unit reacted to being attacked or something, because the simulation has no concept of direction and/or rotation for units (I say direction because there's no easy way to know what you're pointing towards currently). I don't think that's actually a huge issue, since it could probably reasonably be added, but then you need to change the combat system entirely. Which also is in the realm of possibility, in itself.

 

Ships are a different matter…

Well, let's put it that way: this is not the most essential feature. It's more important to get all other stuff in line first. Something like flanking bonuses can be implemented at a later stage if it's a rather complicated matter. I actually thought that a routine to determine unit's facing angles would exist because of the formations. When I did abilities or attacks in warcraft III that relied on backstab damage I simply used functions to compare the facing angles between attacking and attacked unit to determine if the attacking unit is behind the attacker (usually facing angle between current angle + 90° or -90°, so you end up at the left or right side of the attacked unit) and then apply a damage value to the target. Of course, if the target switched it looking direction directly in the moment the trigger fires the attack would not cause backstab damage. But this is rarely the case so it was sufficient in 99% of all cases. Since that function was integrated in Jass it was an easy task to do.

Edited by DarcReaver
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll do the silly nit-pickings so hopefully others won't have to. My real comment will be posted later.

Introduction, paragraph 6, 1st sentence:

Quote

"It's just that my personal belief...."

Not a Grammar Nazi as my I committed more spelling/grammar mistakes, but this one has to go.

 

Phase I Structures:

Palisades

Sentry Tower (Mini Defense Tower)

Outpost (Renamed from Watchtower)

These things are assumed later on in your analysis anyway, but let's just keep the documentation complete.

 

Phase 2 Structures:

Naos (Temple) - Kind of vague so might as well say "Healing Temple" or something

 

Phase 3 Structures:

Prytareion (Council Chamber) - I personally don't see the Economy aspect of this structure

 

Phase 1 Units:

Women (Again for the sake of completion)

 

Phase 2 Units:

Peltates Thrax (Ranged Javelin Units) - Also in the analysis, but not on this part.

 

Part II

"...removal or repetitive...." --> removal of repetitive

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now for my comments:

Part I, Summary of Current Game Mechanic Issues, Buildings - Bullet Point #2 (Forced Construction of Buildings):

I don't exactly know what you mean by "Build everything" because you can build 5 houses (not everything) and that's enough to tech to Phase 2. Build 4 Defense Towers and you're good to go for Phase 3.

But I do agree that apart from access to new structures and technology, there is no significant advantage between a player who just teched up to Town Phase and a player who's still in the Village Phase (The Barracks Syndrome). Access to more basic unit types does not mean access better units. Athens just happen to be an exception since there is this kind of rough progression:

Phase I – Citizen Soldiers (Barracks)
Phase II – Champion Units (Royal Stoa)
Phase III – Siege Weapons (Fortress)

Tackling a little bit on "Tech Units > Mass Production" comment - The balance there is in the Economy. The upgrades are quite expensive. Your choice to use your resources to either Upgrade or Mass Produce is there. But since your suggestion is intertwined with “There should be a progression of cost rather than an Insta-Expensive then back to Cheap Upgrades”, I can understand your point. And that's where I agree.

 

Part II, General Early Game Changes:

4. Citizen Soldiers – I was like “YES! YES! YES!”. You don’t know how relieved I am that you went from “Get rid of it!” to “Re-work it”. Don’t care how you will implement it, but at least it’s staying. My small disagreement is on the “Permanent Upgrade” thing, even if I favor the first option.

7. Starting Units Reworked – I still like the horseman do the scouting job. Maybe as a starting unit, but not trainable on the Civic Center. At least that will:
(a) Prevent the Rush Problem you’re referring to
(b) Forces the player to take care of his scout.

I personally don’t favor splitting the Metal Resource (Silver and Gold) as I think it adds unnecessary complexity, but I can’t really have a strong comment against or for a concept until I see it implemented.

The comment about Unit-direction is great if Formations aren’t broken. I believe that’s where this concept shines. Syntagma Formations shouldn’t be as strong for defense against flank attacks. Well, let’s just say that in every game where Formation is implemented, Total War is the standard stereotype. And it doesn't make sense that my defensive capability is not affected when someone is shooing arrows on my back... especially in formations.

Building Dependency Lay-out:

Didn’t read this part, but the image speaks for itself. I like the concept because I love the Diablo II skill tree system. Walls + Defense Tower = Fortress… just a little suggestion for this one, as it seems to complete the logical progression for me.

I’ll take it by faith to the rest of the developers concerning the rest of the article.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may agree on the fact that buildings required for phasing up should be reviewed because I may vary my strategy sacrifying what i believe is more worth to, population included. Probably giving a population cap increasing per phasing would make a phase planning more researches wise and  maybe even realistic. F.e.  a village per definition couldn't have more than X villagers or it may be classified as town, city and so on.

Increasing HP as overall bonus when phasing up is a penalty for those who plan a strategy relied on the initial units,  f.e.  if a player focus on phasing up it should be for having access to a more variety of units, or for researching valuable technologies, but if a player phase up just for an hp bonus, in most of cases that player will still be in advantage because even cavalry (in any unlocked phase) will have even more advantages  (infact as darcreaver said, skirmisher cavalry can lure spear infantry and this is a big advantage in the first stages of the game) revealing already the result of the game. I think that this phase rush may be one of the main reasons of this women spam, while an eventual hp bonus for citizen soldiers may be for example researched as tech aviable in house just like happens with "the loom" tech.

I like the idea of a feature like "call to arms" applied to men that should lose their carrying resource as penalty for be ready to fight resulting as a tradeoff between attacker and defender because an infantry raid will not pay back expecially if the map is too big, but probably the looter should just gain more resources by killing the units. Plus, the attacker units must recover and idling near a temple isn't economy wise and healers are useful only out of battles due their low healing range and vulnerability.

Probably units fight duration is fine and i can't really imagine a battallion retreating orfomation change without showing their weak spot to the enemy. Looks more a penalty than a bonus.

It is true that the Civic Center has 4 units to choose, but since 1 woman is for food, 1 melee and 1 ranged unit, 1 cavalry for food gathering.

Repairing buildings could cost resources.

Probably the sieges should be enfatized even more, f.e. Athenians actually can "exhaust" enemies because of their champion archers and their slowly damaging catapults but that siege is too hard to defend because enemy units can easly pass through the first line and destroy the catapult, considering that archers are supposed to stay on back of the catapult for not taking damage and they are an obstacle for the catapult retreat.

I like the idea of capturable ships and it could be seen more in depth.

Edited by Grugnas
Link to post
Share on other sites

@DarcReaver - may I congratulate you on a good dissertation. May you defend it well! :P

On to my comments/ suggestions:

Quote

 

General earlygame changes:

 

1.         Remove all units from the Town center except for women and citizens.

 

I agree, but like @sphyrth, I’d like to retain one basic horseman as scout during the start of the game.

Quote

House pop cap is increased; fewer houses to provide more population.

Totally agree. House walls are a basic staple of my single player games against the AI – having less of use of them would definitely be a welcome change. 

 

Quote

I’d strongly suggest of battalions with multiple units in a single entity.

Yes, something similar to Rise of Nation’s infantry units. You’ve made a good observation in that it would feel you are striving to become an Emperor instead of a glorified village chief.

 

Quote

3.       Slow down everything. Women speed, soldier speed, cavalry speed.

I can’t emphasize how I totally like this. The default game should be a slow game, with the higher/ more experienced players to be choosing a faster game if they want to. The reason why I personally don’t play multiplayer is that I suck at fast games. There were a bunch of times wherein I get owned by the AI since I am too slow. A slow game would be both strategic and tactical; strategic because you can plan how you want to attack the enemy, and tactical since, together with your other proposal of higher unit HPs, this will mean a better use of units you’ve trained and spent resources of.

 

Quote

4.       Citizens – they do no longer start with their weapons, instead they only work as male collectors. They collect food, wood, metal and stone faster than women, and they can hunt with spears or bows.

I support this, with a minor suggestion: let the women become efficient in gathering berries, since from time immemorial, it has always been the role of women (and children) to gather them.

There is a reason for the emphasis.

@Palaxin mentioned the calculation related to population. What I like with the Stronghold series is it’s realistic take on population and how aesthetically pleasing is it to see “peasants” grow. I know I may be daydreaming but may I put forward something similar to the way citizens are trained in Stronghold:

Based on the formula Palaxin mentioned, a number of children may be produced as “free” citizens. They can’t be trained – they spawn freely after a certain time, outside the constraints of the population cap. In time, they “grow” to become either men or women (random pick), and only when there is a free population cap. What is their function? They can help the economy by helping women gather berries (since they are free, they are limited to gathering berries and maybe coaxing GAIA units – those units you call herdable, back to the player’s control). In turn, they CAN be killed/ captured (similar to a herdable sheep in Age of Empires) by the enemy. This will present another dynamic in enemy raiding – these children will be a free citizen that can grow to become citizens/ slaves.

 

Quote

Call to Arms.

Many things have been said about the citizen soldier concept of 0 AD. Personally, I like it. But you and several others make valid points against the current way it is implemented. My suggestion is to take the approach of Rise of Nation to it – like its citizen militas, there is a button that will “transform” citizens to soldiers, and back. I disagree on it being timed, and being permanent. That button will make it the player’s choice to have his citizens be an economic unit or a military one. You said “choices, choices, and more choices”, so what better way there is but to let the player decide, right?

 

Still on this, I also like how RON made a very good use of the selection rectangle, wherein if you select a bunch of mixed citizens and military units, you only select the military units. That way, dragging the selection within a group will not disrupt your economy. Incidentally, having citizen soldiers be either economic or military unit prevents buffoons like me of ordering citizen soldiers to collect resources when the intention is to have these units go on that area to guard them, not collect resources from them.

  

Quote

5.       Women can only collect food, and the efficiency aura is removed from them

I’m with you all the way with this.

Quote

6.       Neutral gaia herdables on the map

Again, I agree. With the added proposition by @Lion.Kanzen (in a separate post) of having neutral, capturable mines all over the map.


 

Quote


 

Resource layout:

 

-        Food is used for training gatherers, melee infantry and cavalry. Military techs and combat enhancing techs require food.

 

Only proposal is for the technologies to be paired with either wood, metal or stone. Point being technologies should be planned and not be simply click-bait. For added realism, may I also suggest that food be a requirement for every human unit, paired with either wood, metal or stone. Machines should not require food.

 

Quote

-        Wood/lumber is used for construction of non-military buildings and required for economic upgrades. Training ranged units requires wood. Wood is also needed to progress city phases.

Don’t forget ships too.

 

Quote

 

-        Concept proposal : Metal is split up into two resources.

 

Here, I disagree. Food and wood being general, let metal be general too. Instead of splitting to get another resource, may I propose “Tech Points/ Knowledge” as an alternative? Please hear me.

Empire Earth 2 and in general, Rise of Nations, made good use of this. EEII allowed universities to gather them, while in RON, libraries did this. In 0 AD, may I suggest tech points be used in, but not limited to, the following instances:

1.       Discovery of a new line of technology (not upgrades of existing ones, but a totally different technology)

2.       Phasing up

3.       Recruit of champions/ high tier units (particularly siege engines)

 

Quote

Alternatively, Metal is a combined military production and teching resource.

This is an agreeable concept. My suggestion is to pair all units that in real life, require metal to be built. Let it be that all buildings require stone (except the wooden ones of course), and paired with wood when applicable.

 

Quote

 

General concept:

 

Units have normalized speed, the better armoured a unit is the slower it moves.

 

This feature is clearly evident in games like Empire Earth II. There is a base speed, and, depending on where the unit is (units travelling in roads are faster), or the seasons (units in winter have slower speeds), the unit’s speed changes.


 

Quote


Units have an additional stat, “endurance”, which affects speed and combat performance

 

This I think will really make battles realistic. There are just so many levels “endurance” can improve the game, of which most you've already covered.

 

Quote

Units are made more durable.

I agree. Spamming units would be a conscious choice, not a given fact.

 

On Unit armor/ defenses as well as accuracy of attacks and ranging attack values, I totally agree. Really excited and hoping for you/ the community to pull this off.

Quote

In general: the more powerful a unit is the more popcap it uses.

Totally digging this.

 

Quote

    “Fastest click wins - In many RTS games, it isn't the player with the most intelligence or the best strategy that wins, it's the player who A] knows the proper order of actions and B] carries them out the fastest.

This is why in a sense, I’m not a hardcore fan of Starcraft.

   

Quote

scout towers can be constructed by military units and create a city border, which allows forward bases and forward gathering.

May I also suggest to have a temporary building that will create a city border, a building without any use and timed HP? Let’s call it a camp. This I’m viewing more as a gameplay option wherein you want to build some barracks outside your borders, while incidentally being very useful for map-makers (instead of using the town centers to give an AI army its buildings, a camp can be a very good alternative).

 

All of these, my two cents' worth.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, sphyrth said:
Spoiler

 

Now for my comments:

Part I, Summary of Current Game Mechanic Issues, Buildings - Bullet Point #2 (Forced Construction of Buildings):

I don't exactly know what you mean by "Build everything" because you can build 5 houses (not everything) and that's enough to tech to Phase 2. Build 4 Defense Towers and you're good to go for Phase 3.

But I do agree that apart from access to new structures and technology, there is no significant advantage between a player who just teched up to Town Phase and a player who's still in the Village Phase (The Barracks Syndrome). Access to more basic unit types does not mean access better units. Athens just happen to be an exception since there is this kind of rough progression:

Phase I – Citizen Soldiers (Barracks)
Phase II – Champion Units (Royal Stoa)
Phase III – Siege Weapons (Fortress)

Tackling a little bit on "Tech Units > Mass Production" comment - The balance there is in the Economy. The upgrades are quite expensive. Your choice to use your resources to either Upgrade or Mass Produce is there. But since your suggestion is intertwined with “There should be a progression of cost rather than an Insta-Expensive then back to Cheap Upgrades”, I can understand your point. And that's where I agree.

 

Part II, General Early Game Changes:

4. Citizen Soldiers – I was like “YES! YES! YES!”. You don’t know how relieved I am that you went from “Get rid of it!” to “Re-work it”. Don’t care how you will implement it, but at least it’s staying. My small disagreement is on the “Permanent Upgrade” thing, even if I favor the first option.

7. Starting Units Reworked – I still like the horseman do the scouting job. Maybe as a starting unit, but not trainable on the Civic Center. At least that will:
(a) Prevent the Rush Problem you’re referring to
(b) Forces the player to take care of his scout.

I personally don’t favor splitting the Metal Resource (Silver and Gold) as I think it adds unnecessary complexity, but I can’t really have a strong comment against or for a concept until I see it implemented.

The comment about Unit-direction is great if Formations aren’t broken. I believe that’s where this concept shines. Syntagma Formations shouldn’t be as strong for defense against flank attacks. Well, let’s just say that in every game where Formation is implemented, Total War is the standard stereotype. And it doesn't make sense that my defensive capability is not affected when someone is shooing arrows on my back... especially in formations.

Building Dependency Lay-out:

Didn’t read this part, but the image speaks for itself. I like the concept because I love the Diablo II skill tree system. Walls + Defense Tower = Fortress… just a little suggestion for this one, as it seems to complete the logical progression for me.

I’ll take it by faith to the rest of the developers concerning the rest of the article.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Grugnas said:

I may agree on the fact that buildings required for phasing up should be reviewed because I may vary my strategy sacrifying what i believe is more worth to, population included. Probably giving a population cap increasing per phasing would make a phase planning more researches wise and  maybe even realistic. F.e.  a village per definition couldn't have more than X villagers or it may be classified as town, city and so on.

Increasing HP as overall bonus when phasing up is a penalty for those who plan a strategy relied on the initial units,  f.e.  if a player focus on phasing up it should be for having access to a more variety of units, or for researching valuable technologies, but if a player phase up just for an hp bonus, in most of cases that player will still be in advantage because even cavalry (in any unlocked phase) will have even more advantages  (infact as darcreaver said, skirmisher cavalry can lure spear infantry and this is a big advantage in the first stages of the game) revealing already the result of the game. I think that this phase rush may be one of the main reasons of this women spam, while an eventual hp bonus for citizen soldiers may be for example researched as tech aviable in house just like happens with "the loom" tech.

I like the idea of a feature like "call to arms" applied to men that should lose their carrying resource as penalty for be ready to fight resulting as a tradeoff between attacker and defender because an infantry raid will not pay back expecially if the map is too big, but probably the looter should just gain more resources by killing the units. Plus, the attacker units must recover and idling near a temple isn't economy wise and healers are useful only out of battles due their low healing range and vulnerability.

Probably units fight duration is fine and i can't really imagine a battallion retreating orfomation change without showing their weak spot to the enemy. Looks more a penalty than a bonus.

It is true that the Civic Center has 4 units to choose, but since 1 woman is for food, 1 melee and 1 ranged unit, 1 cavalry for food gathering.

Repairing buildings could cost resources.

Probably the sieges should be enfatized even more, f.e. Athenians actually can "exhaust" enemies because of their champion archers and their slowly damaging catapults but that siege is too hard to defend because enemy units can easly pass through the first line and destroy the catapult, considering that archers are supposed to stay on back of the catapult for not taking damage and they are an obstacle for the catapult retreat.

I like the idea of capturable ships and it could be seen more in depth.

The question is "what point does a"aging  up" serve? In AoE you get access to a new timeframe of history. From Feudal Ages to Knights and castles to Gunpowder and Renaissance.
In 0 ad there is no such Age Advance. Only a city phase increases. So, the Civ City Upgrades should resemble that instead of having an "age mechanic"

Suggestion:

- each City phase allows bigger buildings (look my concept) -> buildings give access to new, better units, better technologies etc.
- advanced Cities are larger ->City phase increases Population cap (not in concept but would make sense)

About healers: the point is to make healers and heroes more important by making the temple available in Phase I so they can be used to heal wounded units.healing range and rate is a stats issue rather than design. Just make it useful and it's fine.

Units fight duration is not fine, if it would be fine it would not show up in my concept.
I don't understand this:
"It is true that the Civic Center has 4 units to choose, but since 1 woman is for food, 1 melee and 1 ranged unit, 1 cavalry for food gathering.". yes and none but women and citizens hould be available.

Progression : weakest unit (earlygame) -> strongest unit (lategame)

Shieldwolf I'll reply directly in the post as the formatting doesnt work else. My Answers will be in Purple.

5 hours ago, shieldwolf23 said:

@DarcReaver - may I congratulate you on a good dissertation. May you defend it well! :P

On to my comments/ suggestions:

 

 

I agree, but like @sphyrth, I’d like to retain one basic horseman as scout during the start of the game.

>The issue isnt with horses by themselves. There should be civs starting with horse scouts, but Athenians are a defensive civ. Defensive means : weak in offense, strong in >defense early on. Having the option to scout with a fast unit in 0 ad is pretty much the opposite. Also Prodromos are currently ranged cavalry, which makes harassing iwth >them too easy. It's just unnecessary to have a horse scout. Instead use a citizen for this task.

Totally agree. House walls are a basic staple of my single player games against the AI – having less of use of them would definitely be a welcome change. 

 

Yes, something similar to Rise of Nation’s infantry units. You’ve made a good observation in that it would feel you are striving to become an Emperor instead of a glorified village chief.

> Exactly this is what I mean.

 

 

I can’t emphasize how I totally like this. The default game should be a slow game, with the higher/ more experienced players to be choosing a faster game if they want to. The reason why I personally don’t play multiplayer is that I suck at fast games. There were a bunch of times wherein I get owned by the AI since I am too slow. A slow game would be both strategic and tactical; strategic because you can plan how you want to attack the enemy, and tactical since, together with your other proposal of higher unit HPs, this will mean a better use of units you’ve trained and spent resources of.

 

 

 

I support this, with a minor suggestion: let the women become efficient in gathering berries, since from time immemorial, it has always been the role of women (and children) to gather them.

>The reason why this could be problematic is that there are maps with low amounts of berries, so on those maps women would be quite a bite worse than on other maps. >this would make balancing process harder.

There is a reason for the emphasis.

>Yes, the reason is : Age of Empires has female and male villagers, and someone on 0AD thought it would be cool to divide female and male villagers from each other. >That's the reason why they're split up in 0AD.

@Palaxin mentioned the calculation related to population. What I like with the Stronghold series is it’s realistic take on population and how aesthetically pleasing is it to see “peasants” grow. I know I may be daydreaming but may I put forward something similar to the way citizens are trained in Stronghold:

 

Based on the formula Palaxin mentioned, a number of children may be produced as “free” citizens. They can’t be trained – they spawn freely after a certain time, outside the constraints of the population cap. In time, they “grow” to become either men or women (random pick), and only when there is a free population cap. What is their function? They can help the economy by helping women gather berries (since they are free, they are limited to gathering berries and maybe coaxing GAIA units – those units you call herdable, back to the player’s control). In turn, they CAN be killed/ captured (similar to a herdable sheep in Age of Empires) by the enemy. This will present another dynamic in enemy raiding – these children will be a free citizen that can grow to become citizens/ slaves.

>Mechanics like these only partly fit into RTS games, for Stronghold it's a map control element. More map = more food/beer = more happy people = more gold from taxes = >bigger army/better castle. If a player is contained in his castle for a long time the happiness decreases = less people = less chances to defend the castle. 0 ad has a different approach to economy management and unit construction, so I doubt a similar system would work well.
>Not sure about the "free villagers", afterall this would remove player control on using pop cap. From company of heroes call in system I know that this mechanic isn't >always the best, even if its fee. Just trust me on this matter.

 

Many things have been said about the citizen soldier concept of 0 AD. Personally, I like it. But you and several others make valid points against the current way it is implemented. My suggestion is to take the approach of Rise of Nation to it – like its citizen militas, there is a button that will “transform” citizens to soldiers, and back. I disagree on it being timed, and being permanent. That button will make it the player’s choice to have his citizens be an economic unit or a military one. You said “choices, choices, and more choices”, so what better way there is but to let the player decide, right?

Not sure, then it's pretty much the same as it is now. Either right click a field, or right click an enemy.

 

Still on this, I also like how RON made a very good use of the selection rectangle, wherein if you select a bunch of mixed citizens and military units, you only select the military units. That way, dragging the selection within a group will not disrupt your economy. Incidentally, having citizen soldiers be either economic or military unit prevents buffoons like me of ordering citizen soldiers to collect resources when the intention is to have these units go on that area to guard them, not collect resources from them.

 

  

 

 

 

I’m with you all the way with this.

 

 

 

Again, I agree. With the added proposition by @Lion.Kanzen (in a separate post) of having neutral, capturable mines all over the map.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only proposal is for the technologies to be paired with either wood, metal or stone. Point being technologies should be planned and not be simply click-bait. For added realism, may I also suggest that food be a requirement for every human unit, paired with either wood, metal or stone. Machines should not require food.

 

 

 

 

 

Don’t forget ships too.

 

 

 

 

Here, I disagree. Food and wood being general, let metal be general too. Instead of splitting to get another resource, may I propose “Tech Points/ Knowledge” as an alternative? Please hear me.

>Tech points sounds like the "favor" resource from AoM, which means that it will be most likely a limited, but safe resource since it would most likely be aquired passively with a building like a "library" or "university" or whatever. Just like food and wood. The concept of having split silver and iron means that players have to capture parts of the map to be able to field powerful units instead of staying in their base, and those resources deplete over time.

Edit to clarify the reasoning in resources:

Food is a basic resource, and be needed to progress economy and military techs (mixed economic and military resource)
Wood is used as building resource and doubles as a teching resource (so mostly economic resource)
Stone is used as building resource and is used for city related upgrades (walls, fortresses, city phases). mainly economic resource
Iron is used as a purely military resource (lowers dependency on wood/food collection)
Silver is is a teching/advanced military resource (which sort of uses a similar pattern of Gold in Stronghold Crusader or Gold in AoE/AoM)

Empire Earth 2 and in general, Rise of Nations, made good use of this. EEII allowed universities to gather them, while in RON, libraries did this. In 0 AD, may I suggest tech points be used in, but not limited to, the following instances:

 

1.       Discovery of a new line of technology (not upgrades of existing ones, but a totally different technology)

 

2.       Phasing up

 

3.       Recruit of champions/ high tier units (particularly siege engines)

 

 

 

 

 

This is an agreeable concept. My suggestion is to pair all units that in real life, require metal to be built. Let it be that all buildings require stone (except the wooden ones of course), and paired with wood when applicable.

>No. Units need to be paired in buildings to fit a certain strategy and the units in the buildings should complement each other. That's why I proposed to put in Pikes and >Cavalry together in Gymnasion and Toxotes, heavy skirmishers and heavy swordsmen in the Stoa.This way you either have a strong mainline force with harassment >option (pikes and cavalry) or you have the optiion to field three hardcounter units that can support each other well. both setups can be support with early low tier units >from the barracks, and thus create more variable army compositions. Putting all units that require metal to be built contradict this system. Every unit combo needs a variety of different resources to make the gathering process more dynamic. No longer "50 people on food 30 on wood and 20 on stone/metal). This is also the reason why I propose the Iron/Silver split. You need to readjust your gatherers when switching over the strategy from massing soldiers to teching.

 

 

 

 

This feature is clearly evident in games like Empire Earth II. There is a base speed, and, depending on where the unit is (units travelling in roads are faster), or the seasons (units in winter have slower speeds), the unit’s speed changes.

Yes, but from my experience artificailly slowing down units is not a fun concept for players, it's more annoying. CoH 2 had a "blizzard" weather system which caused winter storms that made units immobile and have no vision while it lasted. The feature was removed due dto massive complaints from the community. Nobody liked it.
Movement mechanics should be variable, but it shouldn't go too far.

 

 

 

 

 

This I think will really make battles realistic. There are just so many levels “endurance” can improve the game, of which most you've already covered.

 

 

 

I agree. Spamming units would be a conscious choice, not a given fact.

 

 

On Unit armor/ defenses as well as accuracy of attacks and ranging attack values, I totally agree. Really excited and hoping for you/ the community to pull this off.

 

Totally digging this.

 

 

 

 

 

This is why in a sense, I’m not a hardcore fan of Starcraft.

>Thx for approval

   

 

 

 

May I also suggest to have a temporary building that will create a city border, a building without any use and timed HP? Let’s call it a camp. This I’m viewing more as a gameplay option wherein you want to build some barracks outside your borders, while incidentally being very useful for map-makers (instead of using the town centers to give an AI army its buildings, a camp can be a very good alternative).

> I actully wanted to use the scout tower for that. Although I think it would be more interesting to have neutral Cities on the map that can be taken control of to gain map control instead. Certain buildings should be buildable everywhere so there's no need to expand city borders.

 

 

All of these, my two cents' worth.

 

 

Edited by DarcReaver
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2017 at 8:22 PM, Palaxin said:
  • About women: not sure if this is what you proposed, but essentially women should have slower gathering rates for all resources and are cheaper (real life: lighter and eat less) and train a bit faster (real life: reach maturity earlier) compared to men. Furthermore I agree with @wraitii to link women with population and further suggest to link them with population growth. For example they could define a soft cap of max pop (hard cap would be houses) and/or define training speed. E.g. there could be a train time multiplier TTM that is calculated from the total number of women #w and the total number of men #m by TTM = #men/#women for #men > #women and TTM = #women/#men for #women > #men. I think it is important to use a continuous distribution of the TTM in order to avoid annoying micro.

I think this adds uneeded complexity and houses with higher pop is good enough for addressing repetitive interactions. If women should have a bigger role, I think it should be in a different way.

I like the proposal. Even there are some things that I was initially against (splitting iron resource) but you made some good points about the reason behind adding it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the building dependency concept, especially requiring more than one type of parent, like corral + farmstead = market. Just have to make sure the tree makes sense, but the concept is good.

 

Allow me to introduce the technology dependency web. In this case, for the blacksmith:

 

KAv4Awr.png

 

In the above example, since the player has build 2 blacksmiths, he can have up to 2 techs researching at one time.

 

 

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.. guys. I've been following 0AD since last alpha. I am a rts fan and have played almost all rts out there. I’m not a developer but would still like to contribute in some way.

I would like to make some suggestions regarding ‘Game design changes’. (Inspired from posts on this thread and rest of the forums. And Delenda mod)

 

Resources-

Food- Train units. some techs, uprgades. Main resource.

Wood- Buildings and defenses, some units and techs. Aging up to phase 2.

Iron- Train Units. Blacksmith techs. aging up to phase 3.

Gold- advanced Techs(including phase 3 blacksmith techs). Aging up to phase 2 and 3.. Heroes and small amount for champions.

Stone- removed. has a lot of overlap with wood. and not much other use once gold is used for techs. easier with 4 resources.

Food is always gathered. males switched form wood to iron and reverse. depending on military composition. Gold elite late game resource. rare so essential for victory.

Experience- Hidden resource. Similar to glory or faith implementation. Can be gained only through combat(building auras and hero auras play a role). In special conditions can be bought in barracks for other resources(see upgrading below).

 

CC produces only economic units- Male citizen and female citizens. Batch production not possible until a tech in phase 2(which allows 5).

Female Citizen- cost 50 food. gathers- food-0.8, wood-0.6, gold(or silver)-0.3, iron-0.3

Male Citizen- cost 70 food. gathers- food-0.6, wood-0.6, gold-0.6, iron-0.6

Efficiency aura(10%) will be retained{another unique aspect of 0ad}. So effectively males gather wood faster than females because of aura. But pure females can be made in early game to collect both food and wood.- boomy strategy, while a more balanced male to female ratio would be a turtle strategy.

males can take up arms at barracks(or fortress). cost 20wood/20iron(swordsman - iron) per soldier. through a tech/button- which calls upto 10  nearby males citizens and converts(2sec delay- citizen garrisons in and then soldier comes out) them to citizen soldier{lvl1}(bow/spear/sword depending on what you selected).

Citizen soldiers dont show up in idle villager(optional?). but can be put to work(Y hotkey- send back to previous work, functions as is now). Gathering reduced- by 33% with each upgrade.

{lvl1} Citizen Soldier- food,wood,gold,iron- all 0.4. Carrying capacity reduced by 5.

{lvl2} Elite Soldier- food,wood,gold,iron- all 0.2. builds 50% slower. Carrying capacity reduced by 10.

{lvl3} Champion Soldier- Cant gather.. cant build

 

new feature- Economic overview- this is essential to plan your macro. Even more important if some of your fighters double as gatherers. Total number of gatherers can be shown in brackets next to each resource at the top. Hovering on it can give detail distribution.

Eg Female-1, Male- 10, Soldier- 6, Cav- 1 etc.

 

Barracks/Stables can be used to produce Citizen soldiers directly, as they are in current game. Cost a sum of the above- 70f + 20w or 70f + 20iron.

Batch production possible. fixed at 5. batches of 10 unlocked by a tech in 3rd phase.

Citizen cavalry can hunt for food. Gathering rate-5. Carrying capacity-+20 than other citizens.

 

Booming possible through fertility tech(enable to produce female citizen only- at double the train time of CC) in house. House gives 10 pop each.

House limit-> phase1- 4, phase 2- 8, phase 3- 20. Phase 2 has a tech which increases the pop cap to-15 per house. CC gives 20 pop.{eg. 3 cc and 16 upgraded House to reach 300 limit}

So phase 1 has 60 pop limit. Phase2- 140(+20per additional cc), Phase 3- Max.

Those factions which have larger houses- can be like-

House limit-> Phase1- 2, phase 2- 4, phase 3- 10. 20 pop per house. 30 after tech. Fertility tech enables female citizen production- but at faster rate- equal to CC train time.

Mauryan houses- give 11 pop each. 17 after tech.

 

Economic benefits-

Phase1- Basic food and wood gathering upgrades

Phase2- Advanced wood and food gathering upgrades. Basic iron gathering upgrades.

Phase3- Advanced iron gathering upgrades, farm upgrades. Gold gathering upgrades.

 

Soldier lvl up- based on combat xp. or assisted. Soldiers garrisoned in barracks can upgraded by a tech/button. lvl2 upgrade requires phase 2 and 10 iron(even for archers and spearman. indicates better armor) per soldier. lvl3 upgrade requires phase 3 and 10 gold per soldier. 30 sec(or more?) required to upgrade. barracks cant train soldiers meanwhile. in phase 3 soldiers directly upgraded to lvl3 from 1 for 10iron+10gold. Experience caps to lvl up can be raised above what they are now.

Stat scaling.(an example)

lvl1 + 15% (+1 armor)= lvl2

lvl2 + 15%(from base stat)(+1 armor)= lvl3.

 

All faction's have only ability to train lvl1 citizen soldiers directly. (except sparta- skritai commando-lvl2)

and additionally 2(TWO only) unique champion units are available to each faction. (exception- mauryan have 4)

these champion units have identical stats(and same cost) to champion units obtained through lvling up. and similarly dont gather resources. but they are different in that  they can be trained directly(faster).

the unique champions also enjoy further benefit that they might have specific upgrades targeted for them that an enemy faction wouldn’t have. Eg Mauryan champion poison maiden. Will be superior to any archer unit lvld upto champion archer by an enemy faction which cant directly access them.(even though they will have same base stats), because mauryan archers will get lot of archery upgrades (+ poison arrow +fire arrow) while the other faction archers wont.

the unique champion units also can get upgraded, but through combat xp only. they get 10% boost(from champion stats) and become lvl 2 (max).

1 champion unit gets unlocked in phase 2(bonus because assisted lvl up to champion is available only in phase 3). another in phase 3.

Siege get unlocked in Phase 3.

 

Military upgrades-

Shouldnt give stat benefit more than 20% after maxing all upgrades. Armor upgrades- +1 per phase. Cost based on gameplay impact.

Upgrades for champions will affect both the unique champions and the ones gained through xp. 

 

Thus all factions are able to fight each other. Even if they dont have direct access to a swordsman champion. and citizen soldiers are not made redundant in late game. Once you max out on pop, you dont have to delete units to make space for champions, but can upgrade them instead.

this mechanic would ofcourse require a build limit for Barracks and Fortress. eg- 4 and 2. but can be decided after testing. A forward barracks needs to built near your forward gold mine to arm your male citizens if needed.

 

Combat changes-

3 damage types- mele, ranged and siege.

ranged units 50 % base accuracy at maxm range. decreases against enemy with higher tier(lvl) or faster enemy(cav). Increases against enemy of lower tier.(lvl2 agianst lvl 1. or against villlager or animal)

base accuracy increases to 100% upto minimum distance (say 4 or 6). after which it decrease again to 50% due to getting meled.

armour scores for each type- mele, range and siege(only for buildings)- 0-15 where 0 takes 100% damage and 15 takes 0% damage.

(?) Units get affected by only mele or ranged damage. while siege damage only affects buildings(units immune). Siege weapons and ships can have additional mele or ranged component to their siege damage to affect units also.

eg Flaming arrows should give additional 5 siege damage and 2 ranged damage to archers. which is equivalent to 5 damage to buildings(0 siege armour, 14 ranged, 11 mele) and 2 additional ranged damage against units.

New- "To war" (Alt-Q) flag near idle citizen button on mini map. clicking on it and then on map- selects all military units in whole map and ‘attack moves’ to the point you selected. this inlcudes lvl1 and lvl2 citizen soldiers who might be gathering.

Auto banners- For better control and micro of important units. Beneath Hero banner and above control group banners is a space for 4 Banners. Which form by themselves. this include the Champion soldiers(one type in 1 banner). If somehow you have more than 4 types of Champion soldiers on map. then 4 with most numbers get their own banners.

Hard counters until game mechanics which allow soft counters can be developed (Trample, charge, special ability, formation bonus to defence, archer accuracy depending on speed of enemy, less accurate archers at close range- imp to balance chariots and cav/elephant archers)

 

CC area-

Soldiers earn xp 30% faster in own area. Nearby statues or edict pillar boost xp gain by further 50%(total 80).

only resource dropsites and farms(traditionally farmlands were always spread out farther from a fortified city) can be placed outside the area, but beware they get converted if enemy takes control of the neutral area. Walling becomes difficult- so a change can be done- that from the last wall pillar on the edge of controlled area, 5-10 further segments can be made in the neutral area.

I like the farmlands giving bonus to farms feature(should be +50% max, not more) as it is in delenda mod. But civic space penalty is too much, and kills turtling.

phase 2- CC can be built. used to advance economy in new area.

Phase 3- Fortress can be built in neutral area similar to cc. Used for military expansion.

 

Looting- to balance the defenders advantage obtained from xp boost and the citizen soldier gathering concept. The loot per kill of male and female citizen can be raised a bit. Not gained from any other unit(except if they are carrying resources). Raiding/hitting male or female citizens should give double(+100%) the normal xp(per hit). So attackers have more advantage in terms of experience gain. Hunting animals with cav shouldnt give any xp(or 25% only).

 

Optional-

Another interesting mechanic which could be placed-

For factions which have same unit type of citizen soldier, and unique champion. They can be linked. In a continuous string.

Hoplite citizen soldier, get converted into the unique champion hoplite available to the faction at lvl 3. And now they scale on their champion stats(+ have ability to gain another champion lvl2). So these factions have ability to train both lvl 1 and lvl3 of that unit.

For mauryan which have female champions. Could have an option to use female citizens. 5(or 10 depending on the batch production size unlocked in barracks) at that time. Upgrade them to maiden warriors at a cost of "X-50food". Where X is the cost to produce directly. It should take same amount of train time, done only at the building which can produce that champion, and idles the building. (Female round up? :P)

 

Mercenary camps- neutral locations on map. Another locations of conflict other than gold mine. Could need an outpost built on them and garrisoned with one soldier. Doesn’t give any territory bonus. Can supplement unit compositions of factions (could be historically accurate or not). Important since they give an additional military production building. (while total limit of barracks and other similar gymnasiums etc could be put to be 4). Also mercenary cost no food(more metal, and little gold), less pop(?or more), and train faster.

Optional- Neutral mercenaries present guarding the camp(and nearby gold mine) need to be defeated to be able to build outpost there. Prevent cheesy mercenary rush in phase 1. Possibly give a creeping like feel smilar to Warcraft.

 

Age up requirements- I am not sure. Needs to be tested to see how the above changes pan out. But for starters- it can be reduced to 3 buildings instead of 5.

 

While I’ve been very specific about some details. My intention was to just paint a picture- as what I imagine best way to make the game interesting while keeping its unique citizen soldier concept. It is a collection of different ideas and gamleplay mechanics. Those which appeal to developers can be adopted, even if not the whole picture. The above changes intend to make the macro more transparent, and combat less chaotic. So as to retain citizen soldier concept without compromising on game experience.

Economy growth is controlled by disabling batch production from CC(till phase 2). Citizen soldiers still gather but at reduced rates, so don’t drastically affect your economy if you chose to make them defend or attack. Can give option in game settings to include or exclude Citizen soldiers from Idle villagers hotkey and game button. They could have their own separate idle hotkey.

Many more design changes can be made later after testing, to ensure that rush, boom, and turtle are all viable and counter each other(this is necessary to develop strategic depth, fun game experience and better competitive experience).  I feel finalizing a game design is of the utmost priority, so that needless work is not put programming features and developing art for stuff which gets removed later. Conversely, such created work prove to be hindrance later to game development/improvement. Eg Right now damages can be reduced by re-texturing stone to gold. And adding shine.

_______________________________

 

Hero units- seperate suggestion

trainable from CC starting from phase 1.

weaker initially. gains stats with age ups. becomes more expensive to recruit in successive age(if killed). eg need more metal in phase 2. need additional 50 gold in phase 3.

Role- the choice of Hero unit (out of 3). can work as mini factions. or bonuses. 

Cav hero can be useful to factions that dont get any cav scout at game start.

Any hero abilities can be made to be locked initially. eg hoplite hero can make hoplites cheaper in phase 1. get a bonus aura of defence or speed in phase 2. And get a special ability in phase 3.

heroes can be used either to aid in rush or defence. or for their economic bonuses.

Train time- 1-5 sec. shouldn't hamper eco by idling the CC. but a cooldown of 1 min. to prevent hero spam.

Example of mini factions- like in my previous post about mauryans

Chandragupta-  enables training chanakya(good administrator{arthshastra}, can have bonus similar to xerxes, gathering bonus and building rate bonus under his vision and scales with age- 10%, 20%, 30%. Loses this bonus if chandragupta dies) in phase 1, enables chariot archers in phase 2 and gives 20% attack bonus to chariots. Possible 1 special ability/research by chanakya in phase 3.

chand ashoka- gives a bonus aura to damage and xp gain to all units(10%, 20%, 30%). Some special ability unlocks in phase 2. Enable Elephant archer(revamped-see my previous post) in phase 3. (if don’t want to repeat ashoka then use Bindusara- known only for conquest)

devanapriya ashoka- enable building ashok stambha(gathering bonus 10%, 15%, 20% and xp boost 25%, 50%, 50%. Build limit-?10). in phase 1. Enables cheaper temple, priests and 25% less costing researches in phase 2(also special techs which enable unit conversion and unit conversion upgrades). Enable Elephant archer in phase 3.

Both Ashoka could have same model(Chanda ashok can have minor changes to look more fierce). Though one wont have a bonus damage aura.

This is an example of how heroes can be used to create mini factions/ variations in game. Which could be historically accurate to make the mini factions similar to what was present during that heroes rule. Also it gives an rpg feel, which is always a plus if balanced properly. You can experience the founding of Mauryan dynasty starting with young Chandragupta in phase 1 and see as his guide chanakya helps him build an empire(phase 4?- I love delenda mod @wowgetoffyourcellphone)

 

Any comments or criticism would be appreciated.

Edited by drsingh
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to say that I like the design document.  It's a definite step forwards with a much more coherent vision than what is currently in place.  There is one point I would make.  The Stoa.  It was a commercial hub.  All said, is it bad that there are specialists trained there?  No, but they shouldn't be usual to give off the impression that this is a training centre.  Rather, they could have unique characteristics like a nearly instantaneous training time but paired with either a high cost or a hard cap to the number of units of them you could field.  To make it seem less militaristic, it could have some of the higher tier economic upgrades available at it, making its construction signal either a harder, more invested military push or a strategy towards an economic boom.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I would just like to say that I like the design document.  It's a definite step forwards with a much more coherent vision than what is currently in place.  There is one point I would make.  The Stoa.  It was a commercial hub.  All said, is it bad that there are specialists trained there?  No, but they shouldn't be usual to give off the impression that this is a training centre.  Rather, they could have unique characteristics like a nearly instantaneous training time but paired with either a high cost or a hard cap to the number of units of them you could field.  To make it seem less militaristic, it could have some of the higher tier economic upgrades available at it, making its construction signal either a harder, more invested military push or a strategy towards an economic boom.  

Can have stoa be special start structure for Greek civs. The stoa is what gives them their hellenic architecture bonus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DarcReaver, your observations have been brought forth before. The military system is under attack often, also for renowned games like Total War there are still unrealistic issues (check the internet for critics).

I like the direction the document promotes.
It is just that it is a very complicated endeavour. I have literally spent weeks working on increased realism. 0 B.C.'s capability system allows entities to have Goals, Plans and follow a civilization's state of knowledge (no phases, it is continuous).
Such untertakings are possible but they are tedious and easily fall behind:
* SVN compatibility
* getting things to work (UnitAI et alia, complicated)
* getting style right and catch up and maintain compatibility with new functionality upstream
* being tested well enough

So indeed the community - we - must do more to convince a farther spectrum of developers that more realism should be one of the more dominant goals to get steer the general development towards fixing the issues piece meal.


> One thing I disagree about is the dynamic line of sight taking too much performance. Warcraft III, released back in 2002, 15 years ago, already had this mechanic that buildings, cliffs and trees limited the sight range of units. This is more a matter of efficient coding than a real obstacle. Of course you need someone who can code this efficiently. But there we're back to the kickstarter option.

Such sophisticated functionality is already employed conceptually, entities have a vision range as have ranged entities individual reach. Also auras have individual range.
Dynamic Level of sight in terms of height, weather conditions et alia also are possible. Its powers may not be fully unleashed (at last performance is a limiting factor I'm afraid as we are bound to 1 thread for good reasons and many entities are desirable for realistic tactics to become possible).

Actually 0A.D.|0B.C. is very powerful. Thus raising a kickstarter for art works looks way more important to me (considering that animations play a huge role in conveying a realistic smooth battle tactics atmosphere).
Coders know logic, maths well enough to make a living in other oceans. Also open, free of charge coding is common among world citizen coders or rookies that are keen to get attribution.
Open art stands in contrast with this. The ego of an artist is very fragile due to the very artistic nature. Thus very few are strong enough to engage in open source projects.


> the role of women
Women as population provider approaches real world facts, which makes sense.
Women as morale boost also makes sense for the same reason which is why the morale boost makes sense. See guys working when a beautiful woman is close after they realize she's taking notice of them. And everyone thinks it's him. haha

Even more, a nice balace of #men, #women is required for a population to work. There are civilizations where women are seen as costly (provide gift to marriage, ...). e.g. China has a lack of women (Germany also has had roughly half amount of women than men according to BayernPortal since many decades).
A balance is not only important to avoid quarrels among men (which may have been more common in barbarian times than nowadays).
Also too many women or men in a homogenous group might get distracted, chat too much, leading to injuries and reducing efficiency. A man operates a machine more carefully when a female is close than with a about female joking male companion. (own experience, I have seen more than one people lose their eyelight almost entirely only due to that)

The real world is dangerous. Not only in battle. But also for battle morale, knowing or at least believing females waiting for one at home increases morale and endurance (in addition to what you said about endurance).


wraiti wrote:
> -forbidding farms inside territories (or possibly dividing their efficiency considerable)
Vote for the latter. If we achieve it the realistic way, i.e. that the ways towards fields, food storage (which has often been outside in the wilderness) and animal handling are longer, then this divides their efficiency.
Now that there is free space available inside the territory|city core and not everything full of buildings, this complicates things. A solution could be to introduce a "claim" system similar to how property can be purchased nowadays (the city could have claims to all territory, such that farms have long ways to go if their farm building is constructed inside it.
Increasing the role of fertile lands - not only for crops, but also for animals, may also help. The grassland could decrease in fertility once it is within city territory or depending on unit traffic | proximity (maybe an aura on buildings nearby).

>-Actually using the concept of provinces from the original design, where the map was divided in provinces and you could conquer those in a largely predetermined way to acquire their resources. This feels limiting, but now that I think of it it's actually probably a much better way to handle this. That being said, it kind of implies larger maps, as do a lot of other things.

Artificial regions will lead to issues no matter whether in the concept of provinces or territory. Provinces could nevertheless be a natural realistic addition when military dominance zones or "control" - as the Institute for the study of war calls these regions - can be strengthened.

This could be achieved as side effect of the slowing down of gameplay and thus increased emphasis on strategic movements, e.g. close this high pass over the Caradhras with a mobile unit (that gets exhausted up there quickly and recovers virtually not at all, thus must be rotated at times) and the main valley entrance with a military force dug in. Et voila, the region is secured, becoming province of the empire. Now our tax collectors can visit the inhabitants following reconnaissance.

> To prevent players from simply sending out their first soldiers to expand everywhere, [...]

Again, it may be wise to counter this like it is countered in the real world: supply. You cannot build a base with resources from the city center when you are far away unless you have a train of supply and of course adequate protection for your convoy. Early on this is very difficult to achieve. And as civic centers are not allowed to be built close to each other, there is (and should be no way to increase your city core to spam the whole territory). Building close to the territory border could still increase territory but very subtly, only some meters, e.g. for a house just enough to place another house, not more.
These small outbursts into the wilderness away from the busy city core will make the overall appearance of the territory more visually pleasing.


> BFME also used neutral creatures like trolls, spiders, Orcs or Wargs to protect settlement points.
As you said, in the case of historical accuracy, the neutral creatures could be represented by native inhabitants who may not be happy when a civilization settles in their old, beloved traditional lands.
The choice is to either convince them in some economic|diplomatic way or to keep them under control militarily (costly!). Otherwise they will lay fire to your construction site or kidnap your workers or will send animal herds to create chaos and stop construction or what not. Looks perfect for triggers or HybridAI.


> To prevent maps to be overburdened with neutral units everywhere, I think the provinces should be connected to map size.

I agree with the prevention of too many native units (not neutral or at least only neutral till your units enter their region - at latest when construction starts!).

In terms of provinces in general natural geography should - again - be the guideline as this is exactly what the historical community is interested in. We may also want to pitch the ancient civs on artificial or generic random maps but generally we want to see if we can manage to defend this or that realistic territory with all its advantages and disadvantages. Once in the role of the Romans, once the Persians, once the Greeks, and so on.

Having all "provinces"|regions balanced could become boring quickly. This is what your proposals also promote, i.e. more flexible paths of development and strategy. I.e. when we have the nasty spot which is overly exposed or has few resources, then we must make the best of it and adapt our strategy. This is how life works. Adaption.

From your critics can be derived, that currently there is no adaption, instead there is a clicking rush and respamming of units that directly find death after some minutes of seeing the day of life instead of smart tactics and overall strategy.



Grugnas wrote:
> but that siege is too hard to defend because enemy units can easly pass through the first line and destroy the catapult

True, the penetration of the front lines is one of the more frequently criticized military issues.



Shieldwolf with DarcReaver wrote:
> > I’d strongly suggest of battalions with multiple units in a single entity.
> Yes, something similar to Rise of Nation’s infantry units. You’ve made a good observation in that it would feel you are striving to become an Emperor instead of a glorified village chief.

In my opinion this is lost developer effort, because formations are battaillons - just more flexible, so be happy. And rather let's work on how these battaillons could be controlled more efficiently|exclusively et alia. (Maybe a hotkey for selection formations only - and also an option to lock formation members, i.e. to not dissolve and do not resupply?)

It is known that I agree with shieldwolf that children have to be added. Maybe together with women as population providers.


Both leper and wraitii are right, it is possible but it also is pretty difficult to get a directional combat system work and function beautifully.


Shieldwolf said:
> I disagree on it being timed, and being permanent. That button will make it the player’s choice to have his citizens be an economic unit or a military one.
And - to add DarcReaver's suggestion - have it either lose all resources that it bore or have it bring them somewhere or hide them - depending on personality|global directives (e.g. player decret "Save on resources! We have little.").

In 0 B.C.E. due to capability system (complex beast and not working yet!) it is possible, in 0 A.D. not so much as resources are just numbers and can not be transfered to another entity (unless as loot which might somehow be possible to transfer it as loot to e.g. a badger burrow entity).


> depending on where the unit is (units travelling in roads are faster), or the seasons (units in winter have slower speeds), the unit’s speed changes.
Epic!


Attack value randomization could turn out very difficult to balance. (Ranged accuracy already is influenced by spread. Maybe melee will get more interesting with the penetration <-> armor system + then inflict the damage, as also has been brought up often before but not found its way yet.)


DarcReaver wrote:
> From Feudal Ages to Knights and castles to Gunpowder and Renaissance.
In 0 ad there is no such Age Advance.

And exactly this is why the units currently die way too early. It no more realistic to spawn random new units out of nowhere than to have some grow up quickly.

> "free villagers", afterall this would remove player control on using pop cap. From company of heroes call in system I know that this mechanic isn't >always the best, even if its free
hmm.. in my opinion children should be actors only, maybe props to a women, reducing its efficiency but after a certain amount of time (long! because of city phases, not ages), this then should increase the popcap and the female be at normal efficiency again. This way females have a purpose. It's very nice to have them in the simulation (it's so much more realistic).

What about a compromise? Make units endure longer (harder to kill, wounded instead -- only randomly transfer them to nirvana, the others immobile on the ground - another strategic resource) and yet include children (because a city is not build within one generation generally and even if, then its flourish point is some generations later - without condition of general validity).


DarcReaver about shieldwolf's civilian<->soldier button proposal:
> Not sure, then it's pretty much the same as it is now. Either right click a field, or right click an enemy.
True. Which is why I think the real issue is timing. The time from citizen to soldier is way to short. If transformation time (in both directions) was longer, then scouting was more important.


In that sense. Great ideas and as so often we'll be stopped by the complexity and the fact that it is a lot lot work to get any of these proposals developed in a way that pleases most of our people involved.


> Yes, but from my experience artificailly slowing down units is not a fun concept for players, it's more annoying. CoH 2 had a "blizzard" weather system which caused winter storms that made units immobile and have no vision while it lasted. The feature was removed due dto massive complaints from the community. Nobody liked it.
If that is artificial, then even the speed of the units as they are now are artificial. Actually everything is artificial as we are coding a simulation which is an approximation at best.
When Napoleon (disputed) or the Nazis (fact) got stuck in the snow before reaching Moscow, leaders also were in rage as were the soldiers, e.g. when Nazi officers burnt newly arrived coats to avoid quarrels among the soldiers.
It is this kind of events like blizzards or vulcano eruption which is fun for a history interested community as long as it is used very sparsely and not necessarily leads to immediate annihilation|immobility. (Note this is my personal opinion.)


> base accuracy increases to 100% upto minimum distance (say 4 or 6). after which it decrease again to 50% due to getting meled.

An approximation of this already exists if I remember the code correctly. (Especially if units are wounded and not die so often, this could be a useful addition to have the archer at least take one last enemy unit out wounded before being wounded by melee himself.)


The combined elite-military, economic|architectural purpose of the Stoa according to Thorfinn the Shallow Minded, J.Avramenko sounds sensible.


  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Including children units is too much, guys. When things like this come shooting out, I think it's time to step back and reevaluate. I don't like "provinces" as talked about here. I'd prefer something more dynamic as it is now, but I grow tired of talking about this stuff ad nauseum. Just play DE to see what I would do with territory and expansion. To make a long story short, I'd prefer to see the player building cities, rather than grabbing huge sections of land. In reality, empires had no real "borders" like we have today. The "border" was a mountain range or a river or a valley, and even then enemy armies easily penetrate and live off the land for weeks or months. That's why I refocused "territory" to be more about city boundaries than empire boundaries. Empires are the control of cities, IMHO, and their surrounding lands. You only "own" the land that you can defend. And the world at this time was something like 2% as populous as it is now. Large swathes of land were uninhabited or untapped, certainly undeveloped, and "control" from the capitol was nominal at best, hence strong core/weak countryside concept in DE. But, as long  as the game remains moddable and I can have my way in my mod, then do what you want with hard "provinces." ;)

As usual, lots of reinventing the wheel here, for example about farms. Already good farming concepts available on the forum and in Trac last time I look. Check those out.

 

Directionality: If it can make things simpler, perhaps directionality can be on a per battalion basis, rather than per soldier. Just throwing that out there.

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this about directionality. 

Single units shouldn't have any direction or flanks. It can easily turn sideways if needed. But a close formation of pikes for example is locked together and units are oriented in a certain direction.

 

About realism. Its nice to have and is kind of the theme of this game. But there should be a line drawn at some point (which seperates an interactive educational software from a game). Including children would certainly be over that line.

 

About the age progression. Other games have. Its different for 0ad because it has settlement progression.

At same point in history at 250bc eg

There were different scale of settlements. 

A small village of farmers with no military capacity.

A larger village with a military building capable to arm the militia and produce Basic infantry. And access to outposts and palisade walls.

A town which has more population of varied occupation. Having access to stables to build mounted units. And sentry towers and better walls. The population is big enough to have their own religious building in their town. And has started to trade with other towns.

A city which houses maxm population. And home to elite warriors and fortified structures. Has specialised citizens like philosophers (& blacksmith?).

 

Due to the concept of the game and timeline. It shouldn't be similar to age progression of other games. But design should include population restriction, building access restriction. And techs should be designed accordingly, instead of mimicking AoE2.(eg no need of two tier techs in blacksmith).

This should also extend to resources.

Food and wood only needed in a village.

Stone needed to advance to town and needed from then on for improved structures.

Metal(which plays role of both iron and coin)- needed in small amounts in a village or town. But gets more role in a city. And also used along with stone to advance to city.

 

Following this concept it is essential to make some changes-

CC changes in appearance with progression. (wooden structure in phase 1?)

CC should have role as an economic centre only. Barracks should be present in a village which commands military. 

Currently cc can be used to produce military and barracks be used to produce economic units. And most civ don't have seperate stables for mounted units. This is design flaw. Which doesn't follow the game concept and degrades gameplay strategy.

Hence the male citizen concept in my previous post. Which can take up arms in a barracks. But are vulnerable if present out in open. And trained soldiers with their pride and heavy gear. Should receive a penalty(enough to prevent their use as first choice for economic purposes) to gathering and carrying capacity outside of war.

 

To simplify the implementation -

Make either mele or a ranged male citizen from CC. Which has 70f+20w cost. But no training. Only a Basic wood weapon and no armor. So effective for hunting but not for fighting a trained soldier.

Barracks should train - lvl 1 citizen soldiers. Which have better armor, weapon. And worse at gathering. 

Optional to upgrade your male citizens to citizen soldiers- Either through combat experience, or through minor wood or metal cost in upto 10 batches requiring 30 sec time. (giving the feel of villagers getting trained to prepare for battle)

A reverse conversion back to common citizens shouldn't be possible. Because of their combat experience, pride and habit of wearing armor. It is not a new concept. The game already does this with citizen soldiers who lvl upto advanced or elite not being able to go back to fast gathering mode. So this mechanic will fit well into the general game theme.

Subsequently it would make sense to have a few soldiers bunched up with male and female citizens gathering a distant mine. To protect them and be useful in gathering a bit at the same time.

 

The Basic difference from current system is- 

CC can train only lvl 0 citizen soldiers. Which have the maxm gathering capacity.

Barracks train only lvl 1 citizen soldier. Which is poor at gathering. 

Fortress can train only lvl 3 soldiers which can't gather.

Option to train existing soldiers to gain lvls at barracks. Should require some resource and time. To make it 2nd option to lvling up with experience.

This training at barracks is limited by the current phase. Upto lvl 1 in phase 1. Upto lvl3 in phase 3.

 

I feel that with lvling up mechanic. Citizen soldiers concept can be retained without any problems to gameplay.

Thoughts?

 

Edit- Also this assisted lvling up/ upgrade mechanic if developed- can be used in multiple ways.

Elephant and Horse round-up -> In description it says 5 gathered elephants will decrease cost by 25%. This makes the factions who have it very op on certain maps. while lesser cost reduction would be weaker than using elephants for food. (balance issues)

Solution can be- upgrading each herded elephant in the stable, at a cost reduction to elephant soldier.

eg using 1 herded elephant to one time train a 250f + 250metal costing unit for - 50 food + 250 metal. maybe with additional -5%train time as an overall bonus. the benefit here is not just 200 food (as compared with 500? food gathered by an enemy from 1 elephant), but also gathering time is saved. So its a short lived spike. which could give players option for a timing attack.

Edited by drsingh
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a general sidenote: I'll rework parts of the sheet to apply a couple of updates that might suit the concept and/or are more unique and interesting. Many points that have been brought up in this thread by various members seem to be interesting and could be worked in. I'll see what I can do and will update this thread.

 

2 hours ago, niektb said:

@shieldwolf23: children units are more suited for a city building game, not for a combat-driven game like 0 A.D. :)

Couldn't agree more. RTS = war fighting with economy management, not the other way around. That's city building games.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@J.Avramenko: This is exactly why I support your and wraitii's idea to transfer the "territory" to a city core. 0A.D. is about city phases, not about territories. A city core fits it nicely and as I already said the civic center distance constraint already supports this idea.
Thus it is not too difficult to convert the "territory" into a city core by reducing the territory gain of every expansive building drasticlly (just a few meters for more visually pleasing city borders as I said above)!

Combine this with longer enduring units (wounded and only randomly killed) and the slow down + exhaustion and the gameplay gets a lot deeper, actually its Roadmap|design docs as mentioned by DarcReaver are already very good.

Edited by Radagast.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading through your proposal a bit but I could find anything about the (rather poor) trading system. Any (somewhat) experienced lobby player can tell you that, towards the end of the game, traders form long conga lines between markets and trading completely replaces 'traditional' gathering

Do you by chance have some ideas for a better trading system too?

@wraitii wrote up some ideas in the past, that could maybe serve as inspiration :) 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


×
×
  • Create New...