why celts (gauls + brits) are over-played : list

[Stan`]

5 hours ago, JamesWright said:

And this is big problem with Anglo-Saxons on Millennium AD mod(when playing against ai) the ai just spam produces stables  and no houses cause stables make more pop than house, 8(stable)>5(house) which with brits the barracks are not like that.

Mm that sounds like a bug can you report it on our GitHub ?

[Genava55]

10 hours ago, JamesWright said:

What formations? They dissolve in seconds after seeing enemy units(when not following an order). And that just sucks it happens to me alot.  

I was speaking more on a historical perspective. The complete annihilation of an army only with the help of missile troops was very rare and required a huge numerical superiority over the infantrymen (Battle of Sphacteria, and of Lechaeum). Rock/Scissor/Paper system exists only in the video games and in war games. Missile troops are mainly a support (and a very efficient support).

Edited April 25, 2019 by Genava55

[Lion.Kanzen]

57 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

I was speaking more on a historical perspective. The complete annihilation of an army only with the help of missile troops was very rare and required a huge numerical superiority over the infantrymen (Battle of Sphacteria, and of Lechaeum). Rock/Scissor/Paper system exists only in the video games and in war games. Missile troops are mainly a support (and a very efficient support).

so must be cheap troop with serve trash unit to absorbe or take infantry damage.(?)

[JC (naval supremacist)]

On 4/25/2019 at 2:41 AM, JamesWright said:

And the Athenians have slingers too as do Ptolemies and the Carthaginians, and the Iberians so do you turn them down to or just the celtics?

 

 

Let's say : Brits and Gauls don't need to spare stone for building barracks and temples. So yes, there's a difference as they can go full slinger spam.   And Brits can even start make slingers as early as P1.  

[JC (naval supremacist)]

The main issue with ranged units in RTS in general is that they have unlimited ammo. While in real life an army need supply and logistics.

[JamesWright]

19 hours ago, JC (naval supremacist) said:

 

Let's say : Brits and Gauls don't need to spare stone for building barracks and temples. So yes, there's a difference as they can go full slinger spam.   And Brits can even start make slingers as early as P1.  

well yeah but so does athens and i've seen recently less celts. And if you need that much stone then mine it its not that hard.

 

19 hours ago, JC (naval supremacist) said:

The main issue with ranged units in RTS in general is that they have unlimited ammo. While in real life an army need supply and logistics.

It would be pointless to implement that it would really complicate the game. Plus adding possibly hours of time to every game.

Edited May 18, 2019 by JamesWright

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, JamesWright said:

It would be pointless to implement that it would really complicate the game. Plus adding possibly hours of time to every game.

Right, but he's just saying that ranged units had inherent weaknesesses (like ammo) that they don't in the game, so we have to compensate for this (not necessarily add logistics to the game).

[Sundiata]

I'm pretty sure their "ammo" was refilled on the fly by some poor servant dudes running all over the battlefield as needed. Or they'd retire to their baggage train to refill (and have little drink and rest in between the fighting). Also, if there are archers on both sides, both sides would have people running around collecting the "spent" enemies' arrows lying all over the place.. I suspect the same for sling rocks. "Infinte" ammo is an acceptable RTS abstraction in my opinion.

The main issue isn't even the ranged units themselves... It's that directionality of shields' defense is not taken into account. Firing arrows at a shield wall isn't quite the same as shooting them from the back, or the sides, or shooting at unarmored units. Combined with battalions and working formations, adding directional defense into the game would really add some tactical depth, and make battles feel more like actual battles instead of mosh pits.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

I'm pretty sure their "ammo" was refilled on the fly by some poor servant dudes running all over the battlefield as needed. Or they'd retire to their baggage train to refill (and have little drink and rest in between the fighting). Also, if there are archers on both sides, both sides would have people running around collecting the "spent" enemies' arrows lying all over the place.. I suspect the same for sling rocks.

All supposition.

But we have extant accounts of skirmishing only occurring in the first phase of the battle and then the ranged units retiring once the heavy infantry had engaged. Running around and collecting arrows and refurbishing their comrades is a decent supposition, but we have no real evidence of that and we in fact have evidence that the archers and skirmishers we pretty much useless once the "real clash" had begun. Examples of skirmishes and ranged units mauling heavy infantry (Lechaeum, Sphacteria) seemed to be rare (unless it was some kind of ambush).

 

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

 The main issue isn't even the ranged units themselves... It's that directionality of shields' defense is not taken into account. Firing arrows at a shield wall isn't quite the same as shooting them from the back, or the sides, or shooting at unarmored units. Combined with battalions and working formations, adding directional defense into the game would really add some tactical depth, and make battles feel more like actual battles instead of mosh pits.

Yep. Need battalions.

[JamesWright]

On 5/18/2019 at 1:42 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Right, but he's just saying that ranged units had inherent weaknesesses (like ammo) that they don't in the game, so we have to compensate for this (not necessarily add logistics to the game).

They have weak armour, so I mean drawback is there.

Now I do know that the supposed counter for slingers is skirmishers but the skirmishers are slaughtered  unless you have a 3 to 1 or even 5 to 1 odds or some siege weapons supporting your men. But if the slingers have support such as basically  any other unit then your screwed.

[thankforpie]

On 4/12/2019 at 11:39 AM, JC (naval supremacist) said:

 

Pop growth :

- 5 pop house  / 75 wood  (less stairs effect in pop growing)

-  20% building time

- pop room gain by building some other structures than houses

- no metal based human units (metal takes longer to gather than wood)

- no stone buildings (except towers and castle)  (stone takes longer to gather than wood)  --> easy to spam barracks  (with their + pop room)

- rotative farm too boost food production (and thus, possible to lower the number of food workers )

 

When you know that pop growth is an exponential phenomena, those cumulated advantages gives to celts an insane advantage. 

 

and for units :

- Cav Hero for best dancing (Vecingetorix is the best hero  of the game)

- Sword cav for best siege destroying and quick raids

-  Slingers,  best basic unit since  .. very very long time.    With basic micro and some healers, slingers can get all <<<  and quickly the player dont need even need siege as those massed slingers can destroy absolutely everything or can easily retreat in formation with few dumping.

- Brits have a dog which can reduce ennemy pop in early game and already give a substainable advantage.

 

I hope that in next version of 0ad i will see team games with 1 or 2 gauls/brits  .. and not 6-7 as we often do now.

 

 

show em magellan

[StopKillingMe]

As someone that thinks 0AD is ready to start playing, and spending time figuring out how to approach the game and get ready for ladder play, I now see what do to...practice a fast age 2, get three barracks in age 2, spam slingers, find enemy woodline, attack...

Correct?

 

[Boudica]

There isn't even a need to rush into the town phase. Other than that, yeah.

[Proud_Ignorant_Woman]

Because we can.

[thankforpie]

23 hours ago, Proud_Ignorant_Woman said:

Because we can.

lmao whats your alt