Zeta1127 Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 Separate Archery Range and Stables will help fix some of DarcReaver's lack of strategy and progression problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 On 20/10/2017 at 7:04 PM, Zeta1127 said: Separate Archery Range and Stables will help fix some of DarcReaver's lack of strategy and progression problems. Expand Not at all but is the starting. Combat still lack of fun. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted October 20, 2017 Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 On 20/10/2017 at 8:37 AM, LordGood said: iirc all civs have at least one unit in each category to warrant all 3 buildings, to not need to build one would throw off balance without another check. If a spartan player wants to build a stable and range just for cavalry skirms power to him lol Expand Honestly, I'd probably put the Spartan Helot skirm and Perioikoi skirm cav both in the Archery Range and skip the Stables for Sparta. The barracks would be skipped too, in favor of the Syssition. Unless you want to go something like this, and skip the "Royal Stoa" instead, which never made sense as a buildable structure to begin with: Syssition: Phase 1 Perioikoi Hoplite Phase 2 Skiritai Commando Phase 3 Spartiate Champion Spartan Heroes Archery Range: Phase 1 Helot Skirmisher Phase 2 Thureophoros Heavy Skirmisher Cavalry Stables Phase 1 Perioikoi Light Cavalry Phase 2 Greek Allied Cavalry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordGood Posted October 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2017 I would defer cavalry stables to phase 2, but I don't want different civs to have different paths to the same units. That's what makes balancing hell. The effectiveness and availability of different options once all the prerequisites are met are what are going to set these civs apart. In that spirit, it may be wise to add champion buildings. I never liked how certain civs got he ability to train champions from their barracks. Should that champion building stay the fortress? maybe. who knows. this could also indirectly buff mercenaries if we decide not to have them follow these prereqs, have a civ spend a lot more money for the full experienced sleeve of troop types I would like for stables and archery ranges to be prerequisites for ranged and cavalry champions respectively though. Requiring both a stable and range for ranged cavalry should put a good dent in the current camel-cavalry archer rush epidemic we have here now. This opens up a lot of options, I will do my best to capitalize on them as I move along, but I'm going to do so from a level playing field. That means making sure everyone has everything. phase 2 champions seemed a bit messy to me, I think the stoa and town champions were added to counteract the earlier prevailing naked fanatic rushes, but i dont know 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteTreePaladin Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 On 20/10/2017 at 6:05 PM, av93 said: Well, most civs in aoe3 (if not all) have separate buildings into barracks, stable and foundry. Expand Ah, that's true. The barracks and archery range was what was combined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 On 21/10/2017 at 1:27 AM, WhiteTreePaladin said: Ah, that's true. The barracks and archery range was what was combined. Expand The archery range was declined by range-melee combat of gun power, units like musketeer is probe of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wowgetoffyourcellphone Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 On 20/10/2017 at 11:21 PM, LordGood said: I would defer cavalry stables to phase 2 Expand Right, I forgot. So, for Spartans: Syssition: Phase 1 Perioikoi Hoplite Phase 2 Skiritai Commando Phase 3 Spartiate Champion Spartan Heroes Archery Range: Phase 1 Helot Skirmisher Phase 2 Thureophoros Heavy Skirmisher Cavalry Stables Phase 2 Perioikoi Light Cavalry Greek Allied Cavalry I guess my real point is that some civs won't need all of the military buildings On 20/10/2017 at 11:21 PM, LordGood said: phase 2 champions seemed a bit messy to me, I think the stoa and town champions were added to counteract the earlier prevailing naked fanatic rushes, but i dont know Expand Yes, I hate this. As you say, it's a mess. There were other ways to nerfing the NF rush. Better to use a Stoa much like how DE uses stoas. If you want to add extra champs and extraneous units like Thracian Black Cloaks, et al., then you can now add them to the stables, barracks, ranges respectively, either as Phase 3 options or unlock them with a special tech. On 20/10/2017 at 11:21 PM, LordGood said: I never liked how certain civs got he ability to train champions from their barracks. Expand In DE, I instead made this a special ability for 1 civ after 'Upgrading' individual barracks to Royal Barracks, see: Macedonians. Removed it from all others. On 20/10/2017 at 11:21 PM, LordGood said: I would like for stables and archery ranges to be prerequisites for ranged and cavalry champions respectively though. Requiring both a stable and range for ranged cavalry should put a good dent in the current camel-cavalry archer rush epidemic we have here now. Expand This sounds interesting. I imagine an auto-research tech that looks for each of the required buildings. The ranged cavalry are then unlocked by that tech. That would be the way to do it without adding any new code. The other way would be player.xml. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatherbushido Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 On 20/10/2017 at 11:21 PM, LordGood said: I would defer cavalry stables to phase 2, but I don't want different civs to have different paths to the same units. That's what makes balancing hell. The effectiveness and availability of different options once all the prerequisites are met are what are going to set these civs apart. In that spirit, it may be wise to add champion buildings. I never liked how certain civs got he ability to train champions from their barracks. Should that champion building stay the fortress? maybe. who knows. this could also indirectly buff mercenaries if we decide not to have them follow these prereqs, have a civ spend a lot more money for the full experienced sleeve of troop types I would like for stables and archery ranges to be prerequisites for ranged and cavalry champions respectively though. Requiring both a stable and range for ranged cavalry should put a good dent in the current camel-cavalry archer rush epidemic we have here now. Expand From an abstract point of view, Infantry factory Lvl 1, Vehicle factory Lvl1 Infantry factory Lvl2, Vehicle factory Lvl2 is a good schema. edit: (by lvl1: I mean standard units, by lvl2: I mean super units, in a non 0ad related way) Stables and barracks fits well. But as you point out the range doesn't fit very well (for ranged cavalry). I don't know where you would train those ones. Btw Range is for archers or all ranged units? edit: I didn't see wow n-5 post Advanced buildings for champion units. Quote This opens up a lot of options. Expand Yes! Quote I will do my best to capitalize on them as I move along, but I'm going to do so from a level playing field. That means making sure everyone has everything. Expand I (We) trust you! anyway alpha (while it's consistent with the global thing and maintainable). Quote phase 2 champions seemed a bit messy to me, Expand Agree. (The Stoa thing is inaccurate and messy :/) Quote I think the stoa and town champions were added to counteract the earlier prevailing naked fanatic rushes, but i dont know Expand They wasn't added for that. (It was the converse in fact) r18024 for stoa thing r18055 for fanatics 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 All ranged the.... thing is even cavalry? AoE doesnt this AoM done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatherbushido Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 The Range could be think as a dummy building? (which doesn't produce units but is a prereq building and a tech building like the blacksmith)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordGood Posted October 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 I was thinking it would serve as both a prereq building for ranged cavalry and towers, an archer tech building, and a training building for foot archers (slingers and javelinists too) That would warrant building multiple so it is visually apparent to scouts what units a town is geared to respond with if attacked. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatherbushido Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 That sounds a good option (among many possible choices, so people will always say that you can do in another way :p) edit: what do you mean for towers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 Why archery range produces 2-3 rank units and barrack only level 1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 Can be nice upgrade buildings those produces units. Not all civilizations are same. Romans don't need this. Persians and Greeks does Carthage and Successors have more needs. Seleucids have a bigger rooster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imarok Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 On 21/10/2017 at 6:44 AM, LordGood said: I was thinking it would serve as both a prereq building for ranged cavalry and towers, an archer tech building, and a training building for foot archers (slingers and javelinists too) That would warrant building multiple so it is visually apparent to scouts what units a town is geared to respond with if attacked. Expand That sounds like a good idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimo Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 Be aware that some (if not most) of these changes would require changes in the ai (like a prereq for cav or towers, or removing ranged or cav units from barracks), and i would not want 0ad to neglect SP games. So as long as there are not more people working on the ai, that won't work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 Can be save for later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordGood Posted October 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 These templates are dormant for the time being, we can coordinate that later. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimo Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 On 21/10/2017 at 9:14 AM, LordGood said: These templates are dormant for the time being, we can coordinate that later. Expand Sure, they are fine (and the new models are really great ). That was just a warning as i see some people getting exited, with sentences like "That would be the way to do it without adding any new code". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundiata Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 I think it's been pointed out an uncomfortable amount of times that there are some core issues with 0AD... As a one man army, LordGood is going a long way mediating this, including elemental aspects of a fun game of this type: building variety and logical options/choices tied to those buildings like techs and units. Lack of building diversity takes away the fun in a game longer than 20min. Adding as much as 3 new (functional) building types per civ is awesome! coders should try to keep up with this man, because he clearly has vision, and his work leaves a very noticeable impression on the game.. For example, I saw Nescio and Leper working on a way to be able to display more building slots in the GUI over here, which already solves one potential problem. I know the AI is a different beast altogether, but LordGood's and Stanislas69's progress in the modelling department merits the attention from coders. This can be a nice communal project. Has anybody asked @Alexandermb wether he's interested in contributing models for this project? Three people working on it at the same time is sure to speed up the process considerably. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nescio Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 Which units are trainable at which structures can be decided at a later stage. Creating new art for structures is far more important (and you're doing a great job); even if not all buildings end up being used in the main game, it doesn't hurt to create more visual actors than strictly necessary (they could be useful in campaigns, mods, or future changes). Ideally I'd like to see the following structure visual actors for all factions: economic dock military shipyard siege workshop barracks archery range cavalry stables chariot stables camel stables elephant stables dog kennels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grugnas Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 barracks may upgrade into a specialized building in order to train champions instead of citizen soldiers for a fair amount of metal and stone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundiata Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) On 21/10/2017 at 11:30 AM, Nescio said: economic dock military shipyard siege workshop barracks archery range cavalry stables chariot stables camel stables elephant stables dog kennels Expand Isn't that a little overkill? Siege workshop, archery range, cavalry stables for all civ's: definitely yes! But chariots and stables seems like a logical marriage. Camels and stables? Close enough for me. How many different camel-units is a single civ going to train anyway? Elephant stables, perhaps yes. Dog kennels: meh, a tech/upgrade called "kennels" at the barracks should do, I think. I like differentiating fishing hut, trading dock, and military shipyard, but then again, I'd also like to see a dedicated economic structure (civ-specific economic speciality) for every civ, as a pre-requisite for trade between markets, or allies. But that's a very tall wish-list, and only very few people actually modelling and coding in the possibilities... My excitement will jump through the roof if/when the stables and archery ranges are implemented for all civs... Perhaps the other stuff can come only after that. Reveal hidden contents I think it would be nice for subsequent building-models to focus on the historically iconic structures/monuments/historic special buildings of each civ. I don't see why unique buildings should be limited to 1 or 2. They're the perfect way to diversify the civs, and create unique abilities/playing styles for each. I also don't see a problem in one civ having only 2 special buildings, and another 4 for example. There's plenty of ways to balance these things. So a civ like the Romans can have all it's iconic structures including the Colosseum, and make them feel more bombastic, like real Romans. Gauls, Britons and Iberians for example would have only 2 special buildings because they're weren't really the greatest monument builders. This would add some nice contrast between the Mediterranean civs and the "barbarian" civs. By the way, i know the Colosseum was only completed in 80AD, but 0AD's timeframe is chosen so utterly randomly, without any regard to what was actually happening around the world in that time, it is something that shouldn't be dogmatically adhered to, in my opinion. Romans without the Colosseum, or Imperial overtones in late-game, is a bitter cookie for Rome-lovers coming to 0AD... I'd argue to expand 0AD's base-timeframe beginning from around The Bronze Age Collapse (1200-600BCE) and advent of the Iron Age, all the way through to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and the onset of the dark ages. There'd be so much more possibilities for a single game! (Neo-)Assyrians, (Neo-)Babylonians, Germanics and Dacians for example.... Edited October 21, 2017 by Sundiata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nescio Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 On 21/10/2017 at 11:30 AM, Nescio said: Ideally Expand is what I wrote directly above that list On 21/10/2017 at 11:55 AM, Sundiata said: Isn't that a little overkill? Siege workshop, archery range, cavalry stables for all civ's: definitely yes! Expand Different people have different opinions (personally I don't want an archery range, for example). I'm not saying all of those listed have to be buildable in “0 A.D. Empires Ascendant”, however, creating and including them (unused) in the main distribution would certainly be helpful for modders. In Ancient warfare infantry, cavalry, chariotry, elephantry, camelry, and artillery were all separate branches, organized independently and operated differently, therefore it would make sense to have separate structures for each of them (I already did this in my 0abc mod, hence the need to display more than 24 icons in the gui). On 21/10/2017 at 11:55 AM, Sundiata said: Camels and stables? Close enough for me. How many different camel-units is a single civ going to train anyway? Expand At least two camel units (archer and spearman), potentially more (supply, cataphract, etc.) Likewise, if someone would want to extend 0 A.D. into the Archaic period (c. 800-500 BC), e.g. the Assyrians would have at least four chariot units (light/heavy melee/ranged). Furthermore, the Britons already have a dog kennel and the Carthaginians a distinction between commercial dock and naval shipyard; why only they? Again, I'm not saying 0 A.D. should use all those buildings; however, at least having the art would be great. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatherbushido Posted October 21, 2017 Report Share Posted October 21, 2017 That's the point where we need some noise filter to get message. (and I add more noise with the current message ;-)) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.