===[COMMITTED]=== Spartan Structures

[Zeta1127]

Separate Archery Range and Stables will help fix some of DarcReaver's lack of strategy and progression problems.

[Lion.Kanzen]

42 minutes ago, Zeta1127 said:

Separate Archery Range and Stables will help fix some of DarcReaver's lack of strategy and progression problems.

Not at all but is the starting. Combat still lack of fun.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

13 hours ago, 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

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

[LordGood]

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

[WhiteTreePaladin]

7 hours ago, av93 said:

Well, most civs in aoe3 (if not all) have separate buildings into barracks, stable and foundry.

Ah, that's true. The barracks and archery range was what was combined.

[Lion.Kanzen]

45 minutes ago, WhiteTreePaladin said:

Ah, that's true. The barracks and archery range was what was combined.

The archery range was declined by range-melee combat of gun power, units like musketeer is probe of this.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, LordGood said:

I would defer cavalry stables to phase 2

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

 

2 hours ago, 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

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. 

 

2 hours ago, LordGood said:

I never liked how certain civs got he ability to train champions from their barracks.

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.

 

2 hours ago, 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.

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.

[fatherbushido]

7 hours ago, 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.
 

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.

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.

 

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,

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

They wasn't added for that. (It was the converse in fact)

r18024 for stoa thing

r18055 for fanatics

[Lion.Kanzen]

All ranged the.... thing is even cavalry? AoE  doesnt  this AoM done.

 

[fatherbushido]

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)?

[LordGood]

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.

[fatherbushido]

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?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Why archery range produces 2-3 rank units and barrack only level 1?

[Lion.Kanzen]

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.

[Imarok]

2 hours ago, 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.

That sounds like a good idea 

[mimo]

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.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Can be save for later.

[LordGood]

These templates are dormant for the time being, we can coordinate that later.

[mimo]

2 minutes ago, LordGood said:

These templates are dormant for the time being, we can coordinate that later.

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".

[Sundiata]

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.

[Nescio]

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

[Grugnas]

barracks may upgrade into a specialized building in order to train champions instead of citizen soldiers for a fair amount of metal and stone.

[Sundiata]

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

• economic dock
• military shipyard
• siege workshop
• barracks
• archery range
• cavalry stables
• chariot stables
• camel stables
• elephant stables
• dog kennels

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.

Spoiler

 

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

[Nescio]

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

Ideally

is what I wrote directly above that list

37 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Isn't that a little overkill? Siege workshop, archery range, cavalry stables for all civ's: definitely yes!

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).

37 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Camels and stables? Close enough for me. How many different camel-units is a single civ going to train anyway?

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.

[fatherbushido]

That's the point where we need some noise filter to get message.

(and I add more noise with the current message ;-))