Release Candidate 2 - Alpha 24: Xšayāršā

[Silier]

why should be gameplay of 0ad similar to gameplay of some other game?

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

41 minutes ago, wraitii said:

I do agree with the scouting and gameplay argument. However, the fact that civil centre can train military also kind of defeats the purpose of scouting - to an extent, the game is quite flexible anyways. If we want to change that, we kinda have to change the whole game.

I would personally like to move away from that approach of the Civic Centre training everything.  A simple infantryman would be okay, but having an approach such as making Civic Centre military units be worse or take longer to train would both be good ways to change the structure into less of a military production centre.  

That all said, there are other intuitive ways of making the game have better build orders for the said scouting point.  Cavalry units could only be trained after a corral has been placed; ranged units could be trained only after a bowyer has been built; mercenaries could be trained only after a market has been constructed.

[Nescio]

This discussion is going rather off-topic, perhaps someone should move it elsewhere.

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

like standalone towers.

They're a necessary evil, without them the AI performs simply too poorly. I'd love to see free-standing tower disabled, but that's something for the distant future. Right now the AI can't even build walls.

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

And the distinction between archers at least, and melee infantry, I would argue is quite relevant. As far as I understand, they were usually recruited from different sections of the population (often even different places)

Yes and no. It really depends what and where you're looking at. An example from the The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare:

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

like the famous peltasts.

 Be careful with terms such as ‘peltast’ or ‘thyreophoros’, they can have quite different meanings.

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

Basically, in my opinion ignoring the archery ranges is a missed opportunity, from an RTS perspective.

 In Age of Mythology only Greeks had archery ranges and Cossacks and Rise of Nations didn't have ranges at all, to name just three (great) real-time strategy games.

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

I hope they make it into Alpha 25. The models are beautiful and unique, and I think they would look great in-game,

Aesthetics is not a convincing argument for gameplay balancing. And they're already in game (just not buildable by default) and can be used by maps.

I dislike the idea of making ranges buildable, am unconvinced it would make 0 A.D. a better game, and won't be writing a patch for it; of course, others may.

Something I would like to see is docks being split into economic docks and military shipyards. That would require a lot of new art, though, so I doubt it'll happen for A25. Separate chariot stables would be nice too.

4 hours ago, Sundiata said:

and would be welcomed by a significant majority of the playerbase.  

Such claims are impossible to verify and therefore essentially meaningless. (No offence.)

4 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

 0 AD is meant to represent the old rock-paper-scissors formula.  

Is it?

3 hours ago, Angen said:

why should be gameplay of 0ad similar to gameplay of some other game?

Exactly!

While we may look at other games for inspiration, we should do what makes sense for 0 A.D.

2 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I would personally like to move away from that approach of the Civic Centre training everything.

Yes, me too. I've actually proposed a patch to remove cavalry from centres years ago ( https://code.wildfiregames.com/D896 ), but the communis opinio was against.

Another idea I like is postponing the barracks to the town phase and making it train advanced instead of basic infantry.

[Sundiata]

Just now, wraitii said:

unless we actually go for an AoE2 clone - but I don't think that's necessarily entirely desirable, since AoE2 is alive and very much kicking.

I don't think archery ranges would make 0AD an AoE2 clone, but that's just my opinion.

 

Just now, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I would personally like to move away from that approach of the Civic Centre training everything.  A simple infantryman would be okay, but having an approach such as making Civic Centre military units be worse or take longer to train would both be good ways to change the structure into less of a military production centre.  

I agree with this strongly. Even just being able to recruit laborers and a weak cav-scout/hunting unit would be more than enough for me from the CC. 

 

Just now, Nescio said:

They're a necessary evil, without them the AI performs simply too poorly. I'd love to see free-standing tower disabled, but that's something for the distant future. Right now the AI can't even build walls.

Sure. In the end, I think we both sometimes dream of a game that makes virtually no compromises on historical accuracy, but since 0AD is a Classical RTS game, we have to make do with certain RTS conventions and such. And we just need to figure out when and where these compromises to historical accuracy are made, which is where many disagreements come from, I think. 

 

Just now, Nescio said:

Yes and no. It really depends what and where you're looking at. An example from the The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare:

Sure, this is a good example, but I was also thinking about the level of prestige (and cost) associated with being a hoplite, for example, vis-à-vis an archer or a dedicated slinger or javelineer. These dedicated ranged units would, in many cases be recruited from not the top layer of the social strata. And probably marched and held drills separately from the melee units. I think. 

 

Just now, Nescio said:

Be careful with terms such as ‘peltast’ or ‘thyreophoros’, they can have quite different meanings.

Noted.

 

Just now, Nescio said:

In Age of Mythology only Greeks had archery ranges and Cossacks and Rise of Nations didn't have ranges at all, to name just three (great) real-time strategy games.

And if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too? A silly joke... My humor is a hit and miss... 

 

Just now, Nescio said:

Aesthetics is not a convincing argument for gameplay balancing.

Fair enough...

 

Just now, Nescio said:

Something I would like to see is docks being split into economic docks and military shipyards.

Oooh, we agree!  I would also like this very much... 

 

Just now, Nescio said:

Such claims are impossible to verify and therefore essentially meaningless. (No offence.)

Not at all actually. We could have a poll, here on the forums and even social media, although a poll result isn't always the best measure for deciding on gameplay features. just saying that we could in fact, quite easily find out roughly what percentage would be in favor (and I'm sure it will be high). I shared one of the archery ranges on the social media accounts and there were no negative responses to the archery range at all. And it was actually quite a popular post. People will be wondering what happened to the archery ranges... 

[Dakara]

5 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Je pense que le meilleur argument pour expliquer pourquoi les champs de tir à l'arc et les écuries devraient exister, quelle que soit la précision, serait dû à dire si nous le ferons. En ce moment, quand je regarde des joueurs AD de haut niveau, je vois peu de repérage avant l'agression. Bien qu'il y ait sans aucun doute d'autres raisons derrière cela, telles que la génération de cartes, cela montre le fait qu'il est généralement difficile de prédire l'ordre de construction en fonction des structures en place. Age of Empires 2 et Starcraft 2 sont tous deux des jeux où l'idée de travailler contre des compositions d'unités spécifiques est essentielle au succès, et 0 AD est théoriquement la même. Avoir des structures spécialisées pour cela signifie que les joueurs qui recherchent ces informations sont récompensés. Que le système de tir à l'arc des casernes stables soit historique ou non est un peu sans importance pour nos objectifs. 0 AD est censé représenter l'ancienne formule des ciseaux à papier-pierre.  

I hate the system of Build order, if u don't do it on AOE2 u loose, no fun with stables and archery buiding. Only beautiful. 

give to possibility to fight in phase 1 is really good, build barack give opportunity to have 2 queues production. But why not nerf slighly the training time of CC for the military units. 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Dakara

[Nescio]

48 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Sure. In the end, I think we both sometimes dream of a game that makes virtually no compromises on historical accuracy,

Such a simulator would be impossible to play and not fun at all.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

we have to make do with certain RTS conventions and such.

Conventions are not set in stone. Moreover, they depend on what you're used to. People who've never played Age of Empires will point to different things than people who've only played that game.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

And if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too? A silly joke... My humor is a hit and miss... 

That's exactly my point: other games shouldn't dictate what 0 A.D. does.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

7 hours ago, Sundiata said:

and would be welcomed by a significant majority of the playerbase.  

Such claims are impossible to verify and therefore essentially meaningless. (No offence.)

  Not at all actually. We could have a poll, here on the forums and even social media, although a poll result isn't always the best measure for deciding on gameplay features. just saying that we could in fact, quite easily find out roughly what percentage would be in favor (and I'm sure it will be high). I shared one of the archery ranges on the social media accounts and there were no negative responses to the archery range at all. And it was actually quite a popular post. People will be wondering what happened to the archery ranges... 

What I meant is that the number of people who give feedback via the forums or other channels is really tiny compared to the number of people who've installed the game. Invoking the “silent majority” is always questionable.

(As for polls, the way you phrase the question can determine the outcome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA )

[nifa]

Thanks for the answers and sorry for triggering

Anyway, since we are off-topic now:

8 hours ago, Sundiata said:

like standalone towers.

actually, correct me if I'm wrong, many fortifications (at least in Europe) started with only moats, earth walls or palisades, which later were replaced by stone walls. And in cases of palisades, the towers were not build directly in the palisades, but behind it. So technically I think (kind-of) standalone towers might still be historically accurate at least in some cases. But behind stone walls it looks odd, that's true

Regarding the ranges, I understand both sides, I think it's ok for now. Emphasizing scouting sounds good. If there is one perfect building order applicable for all occasions then something is wrong. That would make it boring.

That basically all buildings are abstractions is kinda true. I doubt that cultures without a professional army even had barracks. I think the less developed cultures didn't have a clear distinction between living, working and military. Germanics (and celtic?) tribes e.g. had byre-dwelling longhouses where people and animals lived together, so that would be corral + house, and I think there are many more examples like these

[Nescio]

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Sure, this is a good example, but I was also thinking about the level of prestige (and cost) associated with being a hoplite, for example, vis-à-vis an archer or a dedicated slinger or javelineer. These dedicated ranged units would, in many cases be recruited from not the top layer of the social strata. And probably marched and held drills separately from the melee units. I think. 

 Where to start?

Standing armies were rare and standardized, mass-produced equipment was the exception rather than the rule. People were expected to bring their own arms. Citizens were typically not paid either, so people needed to be wealthy enough to be able to afford being away from land and family for weeks or months. The poor were therefore not expected to fight (and had limited political influence as a consequence). Nor were foreigners, freedmen, slaves. Cavalry was supplied by the rich, because horses were only useful for warfare and quite expensive to keep, so a lot of land is needed.

While it's true archers, javelineers, and slingers may have the same function on the battlefield (psiloi, light infantry), they hailed from very different backgrounds. Archery is a skill that takes years to hone, hence something for the leisure class of families wealthy enough to have others work their land. Moreover, composite bows were delicate objects requiring great skill to make and great care to keep in good shape, they weren't cheap. Slinging requires even longer to master than archery, however, slings were basically strips of cloth or leather and picking up stones is free too, hence why they had very low social status; slingers typically came from poor, rural areas where boys herded the flocks (not necessarily their own) and used slings to keep the animals together, chase away wolves, and generally kill the time. Javelins, spears, swords, daggers, and (in ancient China and mediaeval Europe) handheld crossbows required little to no skill in comparison and could be used by basically anyone.

Child mortality was very high in the premodern world, therefore people had many children in order to have a son survive into adulthood to continue the bloodline and take care of his parents in their old age. If multiple sons survived into adulthood and would all start a family of their own and divide their parents' property amongst them, then all would live in poverty; therefore it was not unusual for extra sons to try their luck abroad. Mercenaries were professional soldiers, unlike citizen soldiers, which were basically untrained militia. Even the Spartans were only superior in comparison: their famous agōgē programme included singing, dancing, chasing hares into traps and clubbing them to death, but not any really that much weapon training; it was more about fostering social cohesion and an esprit de corps (not entirely unlike the British public schools (i.e. private boarding schools)).

As for marching and drilling, this too was more of an exception than a rule. Macedon indeed drilled its troops and practiced forced marches, which allowed their armies to move more quickly than their enemies expected, a not unimportant aspect, facilitating their military successes. Rome, too, had troops more disciplined than others, as well as much more flexible formations on the battlefield and chainmail. Most importantly, though, (and unlike Greek city-states) was the gradual extension of citizenship, which meant Rome had a much larger pool to draw troops from, allowing them to absorb losses and raise new armies.

Anyway, the discussion is definitely going off-topic right now .

[nifa]

Something different I noticed (sorry ): Rams are able to attack ships, is that how it should be?

[Genava55]

9 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

At the moment, when I watch high level 0 AD players, I see little scouting before aggression.

8 hours ago, wraitii said:

I do agree with the scouting and gameplay argument. However, the fact that civil centre can train military also kind of defeats the purpose of scouting - to an extent, the game is quite flexible anyways. If we want to change that, we kinda have to change the whole game.

It reminds me of my infamous poll

 

[Carltonus]

19 hours ago, Nescio said:

20 hours ago, Carltonus said:

Aren’t the hoplomachi and murmillones already in, or will be in the actual release?

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Aren’t the arena and the two gladiators for the republican Romans already “committed”? Or are they only found in certain maps/scenarios?

[Stan`]

They are yes.

[Nescio]

11 hours ago, nifa said:

Something different I noticed (sorry ): Rams are able to attack ships, is that how it should be?

It's intentional, yes, see https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2782 for the relevant discussion. I was actually in favour of preventing rams from attacking any unit, limiting them to structures only, but that was deemed too large a change; what was done is restricting attacks vs organic units, while still allowing rams to attack ships and siege engines.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

9 hours ago, Nescio said:

but that was deemed too large a change

lmao