why alpha 24 is not nice ?

[Genava55]

59 minutes ago, Nescio said:

This is something I really want to see removed too. (It's hardcoded somewhere in the map scripts.) Iberians certainly didn't build better walls or more frequently than anyone else historically. Sure, civilizations are rather similar to each other and should become more differentiated, however, differentiation for the sake of differentiation and at the expense of realism, no thanks. Let them start with a monument instead, that should already give them a defensive advantage (and also help the AI).

Isn't it something from Ken Wood (the guy not the alpha)? I believe he was really fond of the Iberians. 

[Stan`]

@feneur know maybe. My understanding is that it was done to show their defensive  and otarcist  nature. I believe it's somewhere on the design document

See also
https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/ArtDesignDocument#CultureHistoryandRealism

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Iberians#CIVBONUSES
http://docs.wildfiregames.com/design/

 

1 hour ago, Nescio said:

This is something I really want to see removed too. (It's hardcoded somewhere in the map scripts.) Iberians certainly didn't build better walls or more frequently than anyone else historically. Sure, civilizations are rather similar to each other and should become more differentiated, however, differentiation for the sake of differentiation and at the expense of realism, no thanks. Let them start with a monument instead, that should already give them a defensive advantage (and also help the AI).

Actually it's on every single skirmish map. It's a skirmish entity. For Random maps you're right, it's part of the code.

 

[av93]

Iberian Walls is to OP for a bonus start. Maybe extra HP to CC, extra arrows or extra garrison capacity

[Sundiata]

38 minutes ago, Nescio said:

This is something I really want to see removed too. (It's hardcoded somewhere in the map scripts.)

Just now, Stan` said:

Actually it's on every single skirmish map. It's a skirmish entity. For Random maps you're right, it's part of the code.

Well, interestingly, on the skirmish maps Iberians don't start out with walls (anymore? That's new right?)... It's only on the random maps now. 

 

39 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Iberians certainly didn't build better walls or more frequently than anyone else historically. Sure, civilizations are rather similar to each other and should become more differentiated, however, differentiation for the sake of differentiation and at the expense of realism, no thanks.

I couldn't agree more. 

[gui456wSERTDYF]

I have just played a match in A24 and destroyed many towers using mobile towers. Aren't arrows way too strong in this game?

[Stan`]

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Well, interestingly, on the skirmish maps Iberians don't start out with walls (anymore? That's new right?)... It's only on the random maps now. 

 

6 hours ago, Nescio said:

Since it's handled manually it's highly possible it hasn't been done on all maps. What was the map?

[hyperion]

2 hours ago, Sundiata said:

But why focus on these random things like walls for the Iberians (why do they get walls, of all people?). Free houses for Ptolemies (why should they get free houses, of all people). Why should only Macedonians have arsenals? I'm personally in favor of differentiation through unique tech trees.

Walls, free houses, etc are major differences in civs while unique techs are at best minor differences. I'm also in the camp of major differences are preferable over minor ones. As for justification, what else other than it's more fun is needed. The argument of realism/make sense is crappy in my book as the game is to far from realism to begin with due to it's very nature. Vision range, building a city where only a couple hundred meters of surroundings are known, shooting through obstacles and many more come to mind. We even have sci-fi elements like teleportation, so really anything can be done as long as it's fun to play.

[Sundiata]

Just now, Stan` said:

Since it's handled manually it's highly possible it hasn't been done on all maps. What was the map?

None of the skirmish maps actually have Iberian starting walls... Not that I'm complaining 

 

Just now, hyperion said:

I'm also in the camp of major differences are preferable over minor ones.

Sure, I'm not opposed to that,

but:

Just now, hyperion said:

As for justification, what else other than it's more fun is needed. The argument of realism/make sense is crappy in my book as the game is to far from realism to begin with due to it's very nature. Vision range, building a city where only a couple hundred meters of surroundings are known, shooting through obstacles and many more come to mind. We even have sci-fi elements like teleportation, so really anything can be done as long as it's fun to play.

That's really not what 0 A.D. is about. We all know that classical RTS format doesn't lend itself well to simulator level realism nor to historical accuracy, but the point is, we try, and to a degree succeed, in bringing something that is at least rooted in history. That's kind of the whole point of this game. A fun RTS with more than just a historical veneer... There's abstraction, and then there's fantasy. Abstractions are unavoidable. But we try hard to avoid fantasy (we have mods for that). 

 

@gui456wSERTDYF:

Quote

I have just played a match in A24 and destroyed many towers using mobile towers. Aren't arrows way too strong in this game?

And I believe in another thread someone was complaining that the towers are OP... It just shows that the meta hasn't been established yet, as others have pointed out. Maybe arrows are OP, I can't tell, but I doubt it will become clear before a few weeks from now. 

[hyperion]

24 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

That's really not what 0 A.D. is about. We all know that classical RTS format doesn't lend itself well to simulator level realism nor to historical accuracy, but the point is, we try, and to a degree succeed, in bringing something that is at least rooted in history. That's kind of the whole point of this game. A fun RTS with more than just a historical veneer... There's abstraction, and then there's fantasy. Abstractions are unavoidable. But we try hard to avoid fantasy (we have mods for that). 

So lets take the changes to fortress then. They weren't just garrisoned when the enemy was already at the walls. So they obviously provided living space, as such dropping pop bonus is historically wrong. They were places were soldiers trained by virtue of being garrisoned long term as such removing unit production is wrong. Having a forge / workshop within the walls was probably common as such removing sieges and tech research seems historically wrong.

The argument of historically accurate I see used when doing one thing and when doing the opposite alike. Game mechanics really should be about game mechanics only.

Well, I appreciate this historically accurate when it comes to unit/structure visual design, naming, voice acting and in future for campaign background.

[Grapjas]

1 hour ago, hyperion said:

Walls, free houses, etc are major differences in civs while unique techs are at best minor differences. I'm also in the camp of major differences are preferable over minor ones. As for justification, what else other than it's more fun is needed. The argument of realism/make sense is crappy in my book as the game is to far from realism to begin with due to it's very nature. Vision range, building a city where only a couple hundred meters of surroundings are known, shooting through obstacles and many more come to mind. We even have sci-fi elements like teleportation, so really anything can be done as long as it's fun to play.

 

49 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

There's abstraction, and then there's fantasy. Abstractions are unavoidable. But we try hard to avoid fantasy (we have mods for that). 

Still advocating to remove priest heals because it's pure unneeded fantasy in the way this game does it  .
Even IF you want to refer to biblical times these miracles have happened, they never ever happened during war or active combat but always outside of it.

But this probably won't get any traction because many comp players use this mechanic. Just put 10+ priests inside box formation on flee formation and watch the literal magic happen (also very much a form of dancing btw).

Out of combat healing (AKA resting) i can get behind. I think this could be way more creative. Like, make players be able to build a relatively weak camp of tents they can build inside neutral territory where units can "rest" / heal up but has 0 defense on its own in addition to temple and barracks / CC healing that's already present. 

[Stan`]

9 hours ago, Sundiata said:

None of the skirmish maps actually have Iberian starting walls... Not that I'm complaining 

Corinthian Ismuth4 does afaik. I like that bonus though

 

8 hours ago, Grapjas said:

Still advocating to remove priest heals because it's pure unneeded fantasy in the way this game does it  .
Even IF you want to refer to biblical times these miracles have happened, they never ever happened during war or active combat but always outside of it.

What if you consider them surgeons and healers. Sure it wasn't 1940 medicine but they did exist. They didnt wave hands but it's a good abstraction IMHO adding healing camps might be too much mircro.

 

[Nescio]

16 hours ago, Stan` said:

Actually it's on every single skirmish map. It's a skirmish entity. For Random maps you're right, it's part of the code.

Skirmish maps are xml files, removing the starting walls there is simple and straightforward. For random maps it's more complicated, since you actually need to understand the code.

10 hours ago, Sundiata said:

None of the skirmish maps actually have Iberian starting walls... Not that I'm complaining 

Thank you for pointing this out, that's indeed not how it should be. Iberian starting walls are present in a number of skirmish maps:

Spoiler

[b@p50 skirmishes]$ grep -c 'iber_wall' *.xml
acropolis_bay_2p.xml:0
alpine_mountains_3p.xml:82
alpine_valleys_2p.xml:0
atlas_valleys_8p.xml:220
bactria_2p.xml:0
barcania_3p.xml:0
belgian_bog_2p.xml:52
butana_steppe_2p.xml:50
caspian_sea_2pv2p.xml:95
corinthian_isthmus_2p.xml:56
corinthian_isthmus_4p.xml:112
corsica_and_sardinia_4p.xml:0
cycladic_archipelago_2p.xml:0
cycladic_archipelago_3p.xml:0
death_canyon_2p.xml:74
deccan_plateau_2p.xml:52
dueling_cliffs_3pv3p.xml:0
egypt_3pv3p.xml:0
farmland_2p.xml:0
forest_battle_4p.xml:0
gallic_fields_3p.xml:0
gambia_river_3p.xml:31
golden_island_2p.xml:0
golden_oasis_2p.xml:54
greek_acropolis_2p.xml:82
greek_acropolis_4p.xml:0
greek_acropolis_night_2p.xml:82
libyan_oases_4p.xml:120
libyan_oasis_2p.xml:0
lorraine_plain_2p.xml:52
median_oasis_2p.xml:0
median_oasis_4p.xml:0
mediterranean_cove_2p.xml:0
neareastern_badlands_2p.xml:52
neareastern_badlands_4p.xml:102
nile_river_4p.xml:122
northern_island_2p.xml:0
obedska_bog_4p.xml:77
obedska_bog_night_4p.xml:77
oceanside_2p.xml:0
persian_highlands_4p.xml:112
punjab_2p.xml:60
saharan_oases_4p.xml:97
sahel_4p.xml:104
sahyadri_buttes_5.xml:25
savanna_river.xml:0
sicilia_2p.xml:0
sicilia_nomad.xml:0
skirmish_demo.xml:17
sporades_islands_2p.xml:0
syria_2p.xml:64
team_oasis_2pv2p.xml:108
temperate_roadway_2p.xml:0
thessalian_plains_4p.xml:0
tuscan_acropolis_4p.xml:56
two_seas_6p.xml:162
vesuvius_6p.xml:138
via_augusta_4p.xml:0
watering_holes_4p.xml:0
zagros_mountains_2p.xml:48

 

While they were placed on these maps in A23, this no longer happens in A24. The reason is a typo in the `iber.json` file. I've written a patch to fix that: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3616

That said, the fact they're present on only about half of the skirmish maps and on only five scenarios seems rather arbitrary to me. Removing Iberian starting walls altogether would be more consistent.

[Nescio]

10 hours ago, Grapjas said:

Still advocating to remove priest heals because it's pure unneeded fantasy in the way this game does it  .
Even IF you want to refer to biblical times these miracles have happened, they never ever happened during war or active combat but always outside of it.

But this probably won't get any traction because many comp players use this mechanic. Just put 10+ priests inside box formation on flee formation and watch the literal magic happen (also very much a form of dancing btw).

Out of combat healing (AKA resting) i can get behind. I think this could be way more creative. Like, make players be able to build a relatively weak camp of tents they can build inside neutral territory where units can "rest" / heal up but has 0 defense on its own in addition to temple and barracks / CC healing that's already present. 

Or keep healers but remove their range, requiring them to be adjacent to units they heal. Infantry can't repair structures at a distance either, nor can workers gather resources they're not adjacent to.

[Stan`]

@vladislavbelov is working on updating the statistics for resolutions http://zaynar.co.uk/0ad-pub/resolutions.html (very old 2014)
 

[Genava55]

11 hours ago, Grapjas said:

But this probably won't get any traction because many comp players use this mechanic. Just put 10+ priests inside box formation on flee formation and watch the literal magic happen (also very much a form of dancing btw).

At least it doesn't convert an enemy by shooting wololo at his face.

11 hours ago, Grapjas said:

Out of combat healing (AKA resting) i can get behind. I think this could be way more creative. Like, make players be able to build a relatively weak camp of tents they can build inside neutral territory where units can "rest" / heal up but has 0 defense on its own in addition to temple and barracks / CC healing that's already present. 

I like the idea but to work it should be built really fast and I see how it could be abused by some players. By spamming it to block some units

[Grapjas]

16 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

I like the idea but to work it should be built really fast and I see how it could be abused by some players. By spamming it to block some units

I agree. It could be balanced by being only able to make 1 set of like 5 tents which could hold like 20 soldiers inside total. They should be easily destroyed by siege (one shot even) and also by melee units.

3 hours ago, Stan` said:

What if you consider them surgeons and healers. Sure it wasn't 1940 medicine but they did exist. They didnt wave hands but it's a good abstraction IMHO adding healing camps might be too much mircro.

Then call them surgeons or healers
I don't necessarily see how it's much micro to build a set of tents and put soldiers inside of it, but that probably differs from player to player.

[fatherbushido]

13 hours ago, hyperion said:

Walls, free houses, etc are major differences in civs while unique techs are at best minor differences. I'm also in the camp of major differences are preferable over minor ones. As for justification, what else other than it's more fun is needed. The argument of realism/make sense is crappy in my book as the game is to far from realism to begin with due to it's very nature. Vision range, building a city where only a couple hundred meters of surroundings are known, shooting through obstacles and many more come to mind. We even have sci-fi elements like teleportation, so really anything can be done as long as it's fun to play.

 

11 hours ago, hyperion said:

So lets take the changes to fortress then. They weren't just garrisoned when the enemy was already at the walls. So they obviously provided living space, as such dropping pop bonus is historically wrong. They were places were soldiers trained by virtue of being garrisoned long term as such removing unit production is wrong. Having a forge / workshop within the walls was probably common as such removing sieges and tech research seems historically wrong.

 

11 hours ago, hyperion said:

The argument of historically accurate I see used when doing one thing and when doing the opposite alike. Game mechanics really should be about game mechanics only.

 

11 hours ago, hyperion said:

Well, I appreciate this historically accurate when it comes to unit/structure visual design, naming, voice acting and in future for campaign background.

Sorry for quoting, but I would like to thank you for pointing that again, I especially like your last paragraph.

Historical accuracy, realism are sometimes invoked in a strange manner for the development of that classical RTS game, yes classical RTS game.

Anticipating the throw of rotten fruits, I would precise I don't advocate for a competitive multiplayer game like nor for healer healing at 70 game meters range, I also miss some detailed and accurate history in unit and structure descriptions.

Quote

Accurate History - All our content is validated by our History Department to ensure that it is true to source wherever possible (unless it negatively affects gameplay).

Quote

Real World Map Realism - Random Maps based upon geographical regions where the civilisations of the ancient world lived and 'died'. These will be generated with biome specific-to-location features that replicate (as best we have researched) the look and feel of the world as it existed 2,000 years ago. This provides for further player immersion into the game.

source: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/0AD_The_Vision#Why

 

Quote

Realism is always an interesting topic of discussion. Realism, while important does take a back seat to a more important player – Gameplay. Gameplay trumps Realism when the two topics disagree. Realism might dictate that a phalanx formation included over 500 soldiers, but gameplay only allows so many units on the screen at one time – not to mention the serious pathfinding and control issues so many units in the game would cause. Therefore gameplay dictates that we limit the formation to 20 or so units. Numerous examples such as this may be found in the game design discussions. We are creating a game after all, not a simulation.

source: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/ArtDesignDocument#Historyanditsusageinthegameareparamount.WhenindoubtaskaWFGhistorian.

 

Quote

Historical accuracy is important, but gameplay takes precedence if good gameplay and historical accuracy can't be combined.

source: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameplayDesignPrinciples#DesignPrinciples

[Nescio]

2 minutes ago, Grapjas said:

Then call them surgeons or healers

Aren't they?

[Grapjas]

11 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Aren't they?

Not on all civs no, Kushites says priest, persians magus (magician?), maury priest etc.

EDIT: i'm not exactly advocating to remove priests from the game, but just suggesting a rework that doesnt involve fantasy. Priests generally boosted morale of people.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Grapjas

[Sundiata]

Just now, Stan` said:

Corinthian Ismuth4 does afaik. I like that bonus though

Nope, literally none of the skirmish maps have starting walls for the Iberians. (I just checked every single skirmish map). But as I said, I that's how it should be imo.

 

Just now, Nescio said:

Skirmish maps are xml files, removing the starting walls there is simple and straightforward. For random maps it's more complicated, since you actually need to understand the code.

I see...

 

Just now, Nescio said:

That said, the fact they're present on only about half of the skirmish maps and on only five scenarios seems rather arbitrary to me.

*None of the skirmish maps.

 

Just now, Nescio said:

Removing Iberian starting walls altogether would be more consistent.

I agree.

 

7 hours ago, hyperion said:

So lets take the changes to fortress then. They weren't just garrisoned when the enemy was already at the walls. So they obviously provided living space, as such dropping pop bonus is historically wrong. They were places were soldiers trained by virtue of being garrisoned long term as such removing unit production is wrong. Having a forge / workshop within the walls was probably common as such removing sieges and tech research seems historically wrong.

Fortresses weren't usually recruitment places and siege equipment was usually made on the site of a siege, or prefabricated at some dedicated workshops or camps in some instances if I'm not mistaken. These things might not be totally out of place for the Romans, but don't really apply to anyone else to my knowledge. 

 

7 hours ago, hyperion said:

The argument of historically accurate I see used when doing one thing and when doing the opposite alike. Game mechanics really should be about game mechanics only.

It is not one or the other. 0 A.D. is a historical RTS game so we focus on game mechanics rooted in history where possible. 

 

7 hours ago, Grapjas said:

Still advocating to remove priest heals because it's pure unneeded fantasy in the way this game does it  .

Think of it as a placebo effect (a very strong and real psychological effect). Even today, some people still go to faith healers and claim they were cured of whatever. They can even make the cripples walk! Charlatans aside, clergy were often medical care givers, whether it was tending to the sick, or performing "miracles", people back then did believe in their power, and they did provide some care for the sick, so therefore it's a fair abstraction imo. Priests did often accompany armies... 

 

7 hours ago, Grapjas said:

Out of combat healing (AKA resting) i can get behind. I think this could be way more creative.

But that's already possible with a temple tech, which allows idle soldiers to heal slowly.

[Stan`]

3 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

*None of the skirmish maps.

 

*Half it was just broken by the many refactorings  https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3616 So they are here but you don't see them.

4 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

I agree.

I don't (About their removal not the fact that it would be more consistent)

 

 

 

[Sundiata]

Just now, Stan` said:

*Half it was just broken by the many refactorings  https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3616 So they are here but you don't see them.

Wait... So they're invisible walls??

 

Just now, Stan` said:

I don't

Ok, but I still don't understand the rational behind it?

To me, personally, they always felt restrictive and totally mess up your town planning. Shouldn't it at least be the players choice, to choose whether they start with starting walls or not? For me, it was always a reason not to play as the Iberians. I know you can just delete them, but that always felt like such an ugly, inelegant solution, and it always felt weird to have to delete perfectly intact walls even though I didn't want them. Outside of scenario maps, where you already have a starting scenario set up (possibly justifying starting walls and other pre-built things), shouldn't all agency for building be left with the player? For me, stone walls were always the cherry on the cake in the late game, and not a cheap gimmick at the start of every single game you play with the Iberians. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

7 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Ok, but I still don't understand the rational behind it?

I believe the Iberians were to be the quintessential defensive civ. Hiding behind their walled settlements sending out raiding parties and wearing down their opponents that way. Along with ambushing/guerrilla warfare, the Iberians would be rather unique in this way. But as development progressed this kind of thinking fell by the wayside, culminating now in what we have in A24.

Part of the problem too as you pointed out is that the wall builder js creates ugly inelegant curtains of walls. If you check them out in DE's skirmish maps they look nicer. And another thing that makes them OP is that they come with free gates. In DE they do not.

Edited March 1, 2021 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Sundiata]

Iberians were particularly associated with quality horses and even had an important dedicated horse sanctuary, so maybe let them start with a stable? That would be a good example of a significant civ-specific bonus rooted in history.

 

 

[Genava55]

10 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

Ok, but I still don't understand the rational behind it?

Probably a reference to the Bronze Age culture "El Argar", suspected to be the ancestor of the Iron Age Iberian culture.