Jump to content

Gameplay features A24


Lion.Kanzen
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

Because Reasons ? :)

Mauryas and Kushites were deemed good enough to be included, so yes, out of curiosity, what is wrong with the Han?

9 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Well, thanks for the compliment :) 

Gojoseon will be difficult... Really difficult I think. Later Korea would offer a lot more reference material to work with, but as far as historical accuracy goes, I think Gojoseon can only be represented as a (really interesting) mini-civ. Japan is more interesting, but the Yayoi don't have horses or strong navy :( 

If the timeframe were to be extended to the sack of Rome (410 AD), for example, we could include references from early Kofun period for the Japanese (horses and ships), and post-Gojoseon (Han Chinese influence) for the Koreans, as well as depict more of the Han. 

For the main distribution, Scythians and Thracians are probably the most important left-out civs for now. Inclusion of Han and Xiongnu would be sublime... Although we need to get the Yuezhi to link the Eurasian steppe together. Yuezhi are as simple as turning the Xiongnu into white people, with some Tocharian flavour. By the way, Xiongnu can serve as a raw template for Scythians as well. And minicivs :) 

Personally I'd favour broadly a c. 800 B.C. to 200 A.D. timeframe for part I (Eurasian Iron Age) and a c. 284 (start Diocletian reforms) to 800 (Charlemagne crowned emperor) for part II (Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages). But that's a different discussion :)

However, Scythians and Parthians (they peaked before 100 B.C.) are certainly necessary to fill the gaps in 0 A.D.'s current timeframe. Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians, Pontus, Armenians, and Numidians would be nice too, although they were largely regional (but more important than Britons or Iberians).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@stanislas69 I really think those buildings are right on the money! So you need more architecture references for the Thracians huh? I'll see what I can come up with...

If you believe it or not, I'm still neck deep in Kushite research :P I'm doing the final fact checking/sourcing and systematically updating/rewriting the first post on the Kushite introduction thread so that all reference material used in the development can be seen in one (long) read. I'll give everybody involved in the development a ping when it's done.. Then I can finally move on to other civs :) 

@Nescio I forgot about the Parthians :o Yes, those guys... Maybe some civs need a 4th "Imperial" phase, like Romans, and Persians evolving in to Parthians? 

Dacians, yes :) Illyria, Armenia, Pontus, Numidia and Garamantes, Sabaeans, Nabataeans, Germans for mini-civ/campaigns?

 

Edited by Sundiata
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sundiata said:

@stanislas69 I really think those buildings are right on the money! So you need more architecture references for the Thracians huh? I'll see what I can come up with...

If you believe it or not, I'm still neck deep in Kushite research :P I'm doing the final fact checking/sourcing and systematically updating/rewriting the first post on the Kushite introduction thread so that all reference material used in the development can be seen in one (long) read. I'll give everybody involved in the development a ping when it's done.. Then I can finally move on to other civs :) 

Sounds good !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

@Nescio I forgot about the Parthians :o Yes, those guys... Maybe some civs need a 4th "Imperial" phase, like Romans, and Persians evolving in to Parthians?

Dacians, yes :) Illyria, Armenia, Pontus, Numidia and Garamantes for mini-civ/campaigns?

Quite frankly, I never understood "mini-civs".

Anyway, additional civilizations would always be nice, but let's return to what this discussion is about, new features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Quite frankly, I never understood "mini-civs".

To me mini civs are main civs wannabes. The only thing that could be a mini civ is a civ that's only made of small villages with little to no technologies and thus can't compete against let's say rome. But even then you could just make them a harder civ to play, with let's say a Zerg rush type attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nescio said:

A23 has not been released yet and we're already discussing A24?....

Why not? They did peak in the 200-1 B.C. timeframe, interacted with other Eurasian empires (Parthians, Romans), and were possibly the most important states to exist at the time.

because the feature freeze. at this point,  they rarely add gameplay features, they are polish them since A17. no real new planned feature since that.

 

i have theory we know sure if our history accuracy is working on them. we need a review by an expert in these cultures,Xiongnu needs more gameplay features similar to the mongols in Empires Apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sundiata said:

@stanislas69

@NescioI forgot about the Parthians :o Yes, those guys... Maybe some civs need a 4th "Imperial" phase, like Romans, and Persians evolving in to Parthians? 

 

 

nope exactly.

Parthians shouldn't  be Persians, they  are cousins.

Romans republicans should be evolve  by reforms technologies but imperial are different similar but not same thing same with Late Romans.  but that concept to evolve around around 700 years is more Age of Empires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No more instant giving resources, not really realistic. It’s either delay it or manually. 

Wien you research diaspora and the ally units drop off resources to an ally dropsites it should belong to the ally where you drop off the resources. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Servo said:

No more instant giving resources, not really realistic. It’s either delay it or manually. 

Wien you research diaspora and the ally units drop off resources to an ally dropsites it should belong to the ally where you drop off the resources. 

Abstraction vs simulation. give resources instantly is that thing you do instead create a carts and send the gif to the friends by diplomacy.

14 hours ago, Alexandermb said:

Allow players to sell/buy civic centers with all that have inside the territory with allies.

Donate units can be nice too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trade tariffs

Sometimes the stronger markets (playing 2vs2) will always win out but it shows a key factor in planning.  If you were able to set something akin to what is going on today you can slowly squeeze out allies, some good strategic gameplay.  I don't know what you would adjust outside of markets/docks, but just an idea for a more economic game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Servo said:

No more instant giving resources, not really realistic. It’s either delay it or manually. 

 

I once had the idea that you would train a "Tribute Wagon" which basically looks like a beefed up trade cart, you'd send it toward your ally and then their units could "gather" it like a treasure. This seemed a little much micro to me once I thought more critically about it. However, I don't think there's anything to prevent such a thing from being possible in a mod, even with current code.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2018 at 8:47 PM, Alexandermb said:

Depends on the effort, the ideas are on the table. Using formation component could work by making the batallion a formation entity and making the selection function of the game when you double click 1 class of unit works for the formation, but instead of selecting 1 unit in a formation you select the whole group by just 1 click, the auras of DE wow's made for close enough soldiers works too, and for the banner as said in the injured animations topic i could make a guy holding a banner as a formation animation. 

i dont know if someone here played imperivm I-III, but i always loved how they implemented the army in that game. basically, is a hero unit, that can be asigned x units, and you control all those units with that hero. it allow to micromanage every unit however you want, and at the same time, you have a unit like batallions from others games

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Gheryon said:

i dont know if someone here played imperivm I-III

Also known outside Italy and Spain as Celtic Kings: Rage of War, Nemesis of the Roman Empire and Imperium III: Great Battles of Rome, respectively.

Edited by av93
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, stanislas69 said:

That sounds really nice. Would be could to have some campaign missions where you control a little squad of hoplites and have to get them somewhere alive.

A very similiar trigger map was created a few years back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tribute wagon, more phases, that's all very inspiring :)

Tribute right now is fast and direct, simple mouse-click (or touch on touchscreen). Tribute wagon is slow, can be lost by capture and takes some time for one way, but instead could multiply tribute. Since it would be a special unit, the number of wagons should be limited. To keep a minimum way distance, it should be bound to cc too. The special detail on tribute wagon could be, that tribute increase is influenced by phase gap of the civilizations.

On 7.4.2018 at 6:00 PM, stanislas69 said:

To me mini civs are main civs wannabes. The only thing that could be a mini civ is a civ that's only made of small villages with little to no technologies and thus can't compete against let's say rome. But even then you could just make them a harder civ to play, with let's say a Zerg rush type attack.

Mini civ could be a civ, which can't evolve to next phase. Let's say as a new gamemode with more restricted phase advance, where you need 2 cc's to reach next phase, until more cc's are able to advance on next phase and reach their better elite abilities.

Examples: 6 players

- everytime two cc's can advance to next phase (I > II, II > III)

step 1: two phase I cc's reach phase II, unlocks advance to phase II for one more cc, but no fourth cc can advance to phase II

step 2: one phase II cc reach phase III, unlocks advance to phase II for one more phase I cc (allows fourth phase II cc - after fourth phase II cc, one fifth cc can advance too)

step 3: two phase II cc's reach phase III, unlocks phase III for one more phase II cc (max 3 phase III)

summary: 3 phase III cc, 2 phase II cc, 1 phase I cc, more players would mean more low phase cc

probably step 4: phase IV.. ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toi me tribute should work like this. Pick two cc one of yours one of your Ally. (or docks) Click on a button to send tribute that will only appear on the multiple selection. Set the resources you want to send and press ok. An invulnérable capturable cart will appear and try to Garrison in the friendly cc. If it does tribute arrives and cart is destroyed. If it's captured by an enemy beforehand he'll have to Garrison it in its own cc to get the tribute.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could not set it as invulnerable and loot the corresponding percentage of the resources, but I guess that'd be a bit trickier to do. Not that the above is easy.

It needs -> https://github.com/0ADMods/convert_attack
And that needs to be fixed

It also needs a button that can be enabled on multi-player selection,
Then it needs something that can check if the thing is garrisonned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...