What is the Team's Vision of the Game Design?

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I was wondering about the official team statement about the game design.  In general, it is fair to say that no one is entirely content with the current design of the game.  Everyone obviously has their own idea of how it could be done; for some it is just the addition of a feature or civilisation, yet for others, myself included, they would like to see a more coherent game design present, streamlining the game and making the general vision of the game more original as opposed to the current scope, which seems to be Age of Empires + [placename].  I’m not really trying to give answers for what that should be; I have offered my view already in a number of ways, and others, having ideas which are oftentimes better thought out than my own have made their own proposals.  In general though, I have heard no official team response from the ‘reformers.’  Obviously it is difficult to get a consensus on how to change the game, and I am not asking for anything entirely final.  Rather, I just want to know what some of the 0 A.D. team members currently think about the issues and their thoughts on the current team’s stance; don’t feel like you have to be codifying some canon statement of the official opinion; I would just like a measure of transparency.  To clarify, I have a number of points that tend toward most every discussion:

Battalions/combat system: What are the thoughts regarding this feature?  Obviously it decreases the possibility of totally microing everything, but the way it could make a much more organic combat system function is alluring.  

Citizen Soldiers: Some love them; some don’t; others prefer a middle-ground stance.  This remains a pretty central part of the original vision of 0 A.D., but is it worth keeping in its current state or in any way at all?  Also, is there currently much of an intention to add slaves, who in many cases were the basis of manual labour?

Phases: While it makes it possible to easily distinguish the early from mid from late-game, some would find that it is an outdated formula that doesn’t align well with the current design of 0 A.D.  Are there plans to make phases more decisive or not exist at all?

Clarity of Roles of Resources: Food, wood, stone, and metal, the sacred combination of resources.  Is there any intention to potentially make the resources have more specialised purposes to make the game more intuitive or rather attempt to work for a more realistic ideal for how prices function?

Ambush Mechanics: As is, there are plans for this to be depicted in some limited way, but how exactly?  Is line-of-sight going to be further reduced to allow for players to put more emphasis on having their cavalry screen the area?  Is line-of-sight going to become more dynamic like in moba games or Company of Heroes 2 so that obstructions can be places to hide behind?  

Civilisation Design: Currently there is a general sameness to the way civilisations play despite definite differences in aesthetics.  What plans exist for fleshing out the early, mid, and late-game strategies available to each?  Is anyone currently working on doing that?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

My honest guess is that they will rely on mods to carry the gameplay forward. In an open source project like this, if you get someone on the core team with a strong vision for the game there will be a half-dozen others to tell him/her why it shouldn't be that way. That's why, IMHO, there has been no major gameplay change in years once the "base" gameplay features were put into place [ the work @elexis has done making cool and interesting scenario-based random maps notwithstanding; his stuff works within the framework of the existing core gameplay though ]. So, the best course of action would be for the core team to just make all the things you mention possible and let mods run with them. The core game doesn't have to have all that stuff, but if the engine can handle the kinds of features asked for by the major modders like the Council of Modders guys or suggested in the more fleshed out gameplay proposals [see

] then you have the basis for some cool stuff down the road.

[Lion.Kanzen]

We need gameplay leader, for me the best is @wowgetoffyourcellphone using some of DE philosophy and testing in Council of Modders mods.

I don't  want be a clone of aoe... even Empires Apart was worried about that. slave system can useful to differentiate factions.

 

Edited May 6, 2018 by Lion.Kanzen

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

We need gameplay leader, for me the best is @wowgetoffyourcellphone using some of DE philosophy and testing in Council of Modders mods.

  

No, thank you. lol The fighting and sniping would be unbearable. Plus, a lot of the other modders already disagree with some of the main changes made in DE.  Best to just have separate mods doing their own thing, and taking good ideas from each other when desired. While core game tries to make cool things possible.

 

8 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I don't  want be a ale clone... even Empires Apart was worried about that. slave system can useful to differentiate factions.

 

I think there should be various types of economic systems.

A. AOE-style: Villagers build and gather, while Soldiers do nothing but fight.

B. 0 A.D.-style: Citizen-soldiers and Females, exactly as the core game is now.

C. Slave-based/DE style: You have Citizens, Slaves, and Soldiers.

D. Any combo of above, perhaps have dedicated Citizen units, but also Citizen-Soldiers.

 

Each culture can have any of the above, based on what makes sense historically. For instance, for Imperial Romans and Early Byzantines, you'd probably use an AOE-style system because the soldiers were all professionals, but add Slaves as a cheap gatherer. Spartans would use some hybrid system, with Female Citizens being your "Citizen" unit and Helots being the "Slave" unit, with your trash soldiers also being builders and Spartiate units being your dedicated fighters. Celtic civs could use some kind of peasantry system that takes ideas from all of the above. Iberians could use the classic 0 A.D. citizen-soldier paradigm.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Add nomadic to this system. and semi nomadic (immigrants).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

36 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Add nomadic to this system. and semi nomadic (immigrants).

Yeah, a nomadic system too. So, then you have these 4 styles of play to choose from, and one style can be used for each civ. Some are obvious choices, others you have to make compromises to fit a game environment. 

1. AOE style
   1. Villagers/Soldiers
   2. Civs with "professional" armies
2. Empires Ascendant style
   1. Citizen-Soldiers/Female Citizens
3. Delenda Est style
   1. Slaves/Citizens/Soldiers
      1. Slaves only gather, trained at the dropsites after building a Market
      2. Citizens suck at gathering, but are good builders which can build civic and economic buildings
      3. Soldiers can't gather, but can build military buildings
4. Nomadic style
   1. "Egalitarian" : Use the Empires Ascendant style, but Female Citizens are also Citizen-Soldiers too
   2. Slaves bought at the Market
   3. Ranching/Corral bonuses and Looting bonuses
   4. Dropsites are Ox Carts
   5. Cheap, weak, packable buildings
   6. No territory effects

Any of the above can be tweaked, streamlined, made more complicated, or hybridized based on the civ. So, Imperial Romans might use AOE-style, but add Slaves as cheap gatherers, a hybrid style. Or they could use the Delenda Est method, where the soldiers can also build. Spartans can use the Empires Ascendant style, but add Helot Slaves. Iberians could be strict Empires Ascendant style. Scythians and Xiongnu would have the Nomadic style, but maybe the CC of one does cast a territory effect for some kind of bonus, while the other's does not. Lots of possibilities here.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Yeah, a nomadic system too. So, then you have these 4 styles of play to choose from, and one style can be used for each civ. Some are obvious choices, others you have to make compromises to fit a game environment. 

1. AOE style
   1. Villagers/Soldiers
   2. Civs with "professional" armies
2. Empires Ascendant style
   1. Citizen-Soldiers/Female Citizens
3. Delenda Est style
   1. Slaves/Citizens/Soldiers
      1. Slaves only gather, trained at the dropsites after building a Market
      2. Citizens suck at gathering, but are good builders which can build civic and economic buildings
      3. Soldiers can't gather, but can build military buildings
4. Nomadic style
   1. "Egalitarian" : Use the Empires Ascendant style, but Female Citizens are also Citizen-Soldiers too
   2. Slaves bought at the Market
   3. Ranching/Corral bonuses and Looting bonuses
   4. Dropsites are Ox Carts
   5. Cheap, weak, packable buildings
   6. No territory effects

Any of the above can be tweaked, streamlined, made more complicated, or hybridized based on the civ. So, Imperial Romans might use AOE-style, but add Slaves as cheap gatherers, a hybrid style. Or they could use the Delenda Est method, where the soldiers can also build. Spartans can use the Empires Ascendant style, but add Helot Slaves. Iberians could be strict Empires Ascendant style. Scythians and Xiongnu would have the Nomadic style, but maybe the CC of one does cast a territory effect for some kind of bonus, while the other's does not. Lots of possibilities here.

 

Nomadic weak defenses but high garrison protection (wagon forts) antsy cavalry, basic siege and high capturing rate, weak units.

Semi heroes Warlords, capturing militaring units with Lasso attack (Xiongnu, Huns Avars).

 

The Seminomadic must be Goths, Sarmatians, others those are escaping from Nomadic wars.

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

 

 

I think we should add the Citizen soldiers after the second phase.

Because of the giant snowball effect.

Every time I see how the economy grows in this game, I get more and more of the idea.

Edited October 8 by Lion.Kanzen