Two-Gendered Citizens Mod (Please Test!)

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

21 minutes ago, AIEND said:

I could have given this higher efficiency to infantry and women as well.
The essence of the problem is that the cavalry is designed to be "fast and efficient meat collectors" because it takes too much time to drive the prey or go back and forth from the prey to the resource recovery point.
Why won't AoE3 have this design? Because AoE3's resource recycling point is the civilian itself, wherever it kills its prey, it can be recycled on the spot.

AoE3 went for simplicity, with no drop sites whatsoever. I think they did this to make the game easier for new players to learn and play on the casual level. 

You mentioned there is a problem, what is the problem?

[Gurken Khan]

3 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

AoE3 went for simplicity, with no drop sites whatsoever. I think they did this to make the game easier for new players to learn and play on the casual level. 

btw Did AoE3 have any impact at all? I'm barely aware it exists, because there's AoE4 and bc it's the new shtuff there's talk about it. But if I'm not mistaken 2 is still much more a thing than 3.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

btw Did AoE3 have any impact at all? I'm barely aware it exists, because there's AoE4 and bc it's the new shtuff there's talk about it. But if I'm not mistaken 2 is still much more a thing than 3.

More DLC, more fanboys...more community. More revisions.

[AIEND]

1 分钟前，BreakfastBurrito_007 说：

AoE3 很简单，没有任何放置点。 我认为他们这样做是为了让新玩家更容易学习和玩休闲级别的游戏。 

你说有问题，问题是什么？

The question is why the cavalry has the positioning of meat gatherers.
Essentially, prey is not much different from a berry bush, because even if you kill all the prey, their carcasses won't rot. The difference is just that most of the prey is far away from the CC, you don't want to spend time driving them, if you can set up a resource recycling point near the prey (like there are working elephants in India), then the gatherers don't need to run fast , and actually does not need a collection efficiency as high as 5, because the purpose of this high efficiency is to make up for the time-consuming and cavalry cost of long-distance round trips.

[AIEND]

6分钟前，古尔肯汗说：

顺便说一句，AoE3 有任何影响吗？ 我几乎不知道它的存在，因为有 AoE4 并且 bc 是新的东西，人们在谈论它。 但如果我没记错的话，2 仍然比 3 更重要。

AoE3 came up with a lot of new ideas and game mechanics, and like Age of Mythology, Age of Mythology is the game that really gets overlooked, even though I love it.

[Grapjas]

7 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

btw Did AoE3 have any impact at all? I'm barely aware it exists, because there's AoE4 and bc it's the new shtuff there's talk about it. But if I'm not mistaken 2 is still much more a thing than 3.

I personally much prefer AOE3 over 2, mainly because 2 is really chaotic and the isometric view is horrible imo. The combat feels much nicer in 3 aswell. But yes, it was a small ripple compared to AOE2.

[AIEND]

刚才，格拉普亚斯说：

我个人更喜欢 AOE3 而不是 2，主要是因为 2 真的很混乱，而且等距视图在 imo 中很可怕。 3的战斗感觉也好得多。 但是，是的，与 AOE2 相比，这只是一个小小的涟漪。

I also prefer AoE3, which has a lot of interesting mods despite its imperfections.
Also I think Microsoft is really lazy, they have time to make more DLC for AoE2, but they don't have time to give each nation's soldiers a look that is more in line with the historical display, this is partly because AoE2 is not a 3D game, making A moving soldier model is more troublesome than making a building model, but this does not exist in AoE3, you just need to import a 3D model.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

53 minutes ago, AIEND said:

because the purpose of this high efficiency is to make up for the time-consuming and cavalry cost of long-distance round trips.

that is one purpose of cavalry meat gather rate. But the main one is that cavalry can not gather other resources so in order for the citizen-soldier concept to apply to cavalry, they needed to be good at the only economic thing they can do. Since cavalry have such a high food cost, and can gather hunt at a high rate it enables cavalry to be trained early on. Cavalry also make corrals worthwhile to make for food eco.

I am glad that the economy side of 0ad has so many ways to improve rather than the simplicity of simply assigning villagers to tasks that do not need to be managed. There is strategy, and there is also skill. 

AoE2, and 0ad have not only strategy but also skill. This means it is just as important what you do as how well you do it. Later AoE games (Microsoft) lean more toward strategy, with more civ differentiation and less opportunities for skill (ranged units are 100% accurate)

Strategy: I will gather lots of food to make women, and transition to metal for mercenaries.

Skill: hunt gathering optimization with cavalry.

Edited April 22, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[AIEND]

39 分钟前，BreakfastBurrito_007 说：

那是骑兵集肉率的目的之一。 但主要是骑兵无法聚集其他资源，因此为了将公民士兵的概念应用于骑兵，他们需要擅长他们唯一能做的经济事情。 由于骑兵的食物成本如此之高，并且可以以很高的速度集结狩猎，因此可以尽早训练骑兵。 骑兵也使畜栏值得为食物生态而制造。

我很高兴 0ad 的经济方面有很多改进的方法，而不是简单地将村民分配给不需要管理的任务。 有策略，也有技巧。 

AoE2和0ad不仅有策略，还有技巧。 这意味着 什么 你做得 如何 。 后来的 AoE 游戏（微软）更倾向于策略，有更多的文明差异化和更少的技能机会（远程单位是 100% 准确的）

策略：我会收集大量食物来制作女性，并为雇佣兵过渡到金属。

技能：骑兵狩猎采集优化。

But actually if you can build granary in neutral area, you don't need cavalry to have meat gathering function.
In my opinion, because civilians are inconvenient to hunt -> need cavalry as fast meat gatherers -> cavalry needs to be trained in P1 -> need to consider the strength of cavalry in P1.
It's not a strategy, it's just creating more problems that wouldn't have arisen in order to solve some small problems, making the whole mechanism more complex and difficult to balance.

[AIEND]

On the surface, it seems that 0AD merges civilians and soldiers to make the mechanism more concise, but in fact it shapes three different laborers - women, infantry and cavalry, making the mechanism more complex.

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 minutes ago, AIEND said:

women

Both sexes should be workers not more women(only). Laborers.

 

CS (citizen Soldier) must have little role as economic , help to worker to work but only a little.

cavalry should be same.

 

[AIEND]

1 分钟前，Lion.Kanzen 说：

男女都应该是工人，而不是更多的女性（仅限）。 劳工。

 

CS（citizen Soldier）在经济上的作用应该很小，对工人工作的帮助也很小。

骑兵应该是一样的。

 

As a result of the game's separation of women from male commoners, it limited the kinds of work women could do, and they were not as good as men in logging wood or mining metals and stones. Even higher farming efficiency than men's is just an unrealistic "compensation". Otherwise, if women lag behind men in overall labor efficiency, who will train women laborers?
But in reality, women can often cooperate with men and complete a lot of work efficiently. So I hate this division, because the result of division is that women are marginalized, and many players will delete women in the later stage and replace them with citizen soldiers.

[AIEND]

10 分钟前，Lion.Kanzen 说：

男女都应该是工人，而不是更多的女性（仅限）。 劳工。

 

CS（citizen Soldier）在经济上的作用应该很小，对工人工作的帮助也很小。

骑兵应该是一样的。

 

We need civilians of both genders who can do all the work.
In addition to fighting, the main job of the infantry should be logging and building buildings (especially barracks).
And the cavalry should stay in the stables to gain experience rather than hunting.

[Lion.Kanzen]

15 minutes ago, AIEND said:

As a result of the game's separation of women from male commoners, it limited the kinds of work women could do, and they were not as good as men in logging wood or mining metals and stones. Even higher farming efficiency than men's is just an unrealistic "compensation". Otherwise, if women lag behind men in overall labor efficiency, who will train women laborers?
But in reality, women can often cooperate with men and complete a lot of work efficiently. So I hate this division, because the result of division is that women are marginalized, and many players will delete women in the later stage and replace them with citizen soldiers.

it would be nice if the soldiers were only good in the first stage (basic rank).

In the last one I could no longer collect more than food , wood and build.

 

So slaves replaces in some faction laboral force.

[AIEND]

5 分钟前，Lion.Kanzen 说：

如果士兵只在第一阶段（基本等级）表现出色，那就太好了。

在最后一个中，我只能收集食物、木材和建筑。

 

所以奴隶代替了一些派系的劳动力。

if we limit the kinds of jobs CS can do, we don't even need to make CS labor efficiency negatively correlated with combat experience.

In my opinion, the main producers of resources should be civilians, and slaves can highlight metal and stone mining capabilities.
CS is actually to complete the work that the civilians and slaves who collect resources can't find time to do, such as building buildings, especially building new CCs in an unsafe environment in the wild.

[Lion.Kanzen]

it is always useful to read the original idea.

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/0AD_The_Vision

[Lion.Kanzen]

31 minutes ago, AIEND said:

CS is actually to complete the work that the civilians and slaves who collect resources can't find time to do, such as building buildings, especially building new CCs in an unsafe environment in the wild

 in times of peace it is fine, being a civilian a citizen and in times of war specializing soldiers.

[AIEND]

10 分钟前，Lion.Kanzen 说：

阅读原始想法总是有用的。

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/0AD_The_Vision

The current game shows that attempts to completely replace dedicated laborers with citizen soldiers were unsuccessful, and the original intent was to integrate civilians and soldiers into citizen soldiers, moving from two units to one.
But what about the results now? Now there are women who farm, civic infantry who log wood, mine metal and stone, civic cavalry who hunt, mercenary infantry who can build buildings but can't gather resources, mercenary cavalry and champions who can 't gather resources or build buildings.

[AIEND]

1 分钟前，AIEND 说：

目前的游戏显示，试图用公民士兵完全取代专职劳动者的尝试没有成功，其初衷是将平民和士兵融合为公民士兵，从两个单位变为一个单位。
但是现在的结果呢？ 现在有从事农业的妇女，伐木、开采金属和石头的公民步兵，狩猎的公民骑兵，可以建造建筑但不能收集资源的雇佣步兵，不能收集资源或建造建筑的雇佣骑兵和冠军。

I think the soldiers themselves also need to be unified, such as making citizen soldiers, mercenaries, and champions all able to cut wood and build buildings.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

4 hours ago, AIEND said:

Otherwise, if women lag behind men in overall labor efficiency, who will train women laborers?

In phase one it makes sense to train women because food economy is so easy to get started first (berries and hunting). Every good player who wants to maximize economy will start off with women. Unless there is a map with lots of animals to hunt in which case they may start with cavalry. 

You need to take cost into consideration. 

3 hours ago, AIEND said:

I think the soldiers themselves also need to be unified, such as making citizen soldiers, mercenaries, and champions all able to cut wood and build buildings

You treat each game design feature like its a bug that annoys you and needs to be fixed. Mercenaries are quite cheaper than non-mercenaries and it they could gather resources they would be the only units that are trained. 

[AIEND]

2 分钟前，BreakfastBurrito_007 说：

  您将每个游戏设计功能都视为一个让您烦恼并需要修复的错误。 雇佣兵比非雇佣兵便宜得多，而且他们可以收集资源，他们将是唯一受过训练的单位。 

If you think the mercenary is too cheap, which is a problem in itself, make him more expensive.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

13 minutes ago, AIEND said:

If you think the mercenary is too cheap, which is a problem in itself, make him more expensive.

cavalry mercenaries are getting more expensive in the next alpha. In general, mercenaries' low price is balanced from a military standpoint and carrying the assumption that mercenaries can not add to the economy of a player. If mercenaries costed the exact same as citizen soldiers and could gather, they would have no unique qualities left. Mercenaries cost the way they do because they fill a particular gameplay niche that other units do not. This is why "unifying" everything and "simplifying" everything is not always good. 

You complain a lot about the design of the game but you seem to have no idea why any design or balance choices are made. 

Edited April 23, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 hours ago, AIEND said:

I think the soldiers themselves also need to be unified, such as making citizen soldiers, mercenaries, and champions all able to cut wood and build buildings.

No.that way, even heroes would end up cutting down trees.

[Grapjas]

10 hours ago, AIEND said:

Now there are women who farm, civic infantry who log wood, mine metal and stone, civic cavalry who hunt, mercenary infantry who can build buildings but can't gather resources, mercenary cavalry and champions who can 't gather resources or build buildings.

I think the way the roles are divided are pretty good and logical and is something that makes 0AD more unique imo. It takes some time to learn the differences for new players but learning is not a bad thing. You wouldn't hire a mercenary to collect wood, they are hired to fight. Champions are proper combat units, surely you wouldn't send your best trained men to work in a mine. You would send lower class citizens to do that job. Not saying it's perfect though but i think the role dividing for units should stay.

[AIEND]

2 小时前，Grapjas 说：

我认为角色划分的方式非常好且合乎逻辑，并且使 0AD 在 imo 中更加独特。 学习新玩家的差异需要一些时间，但学习并不是一件坏事。 你不会雇佣雇佣兵来收集木材，他们是被雇佣来战斗的。 冠军是合适的战斗单位，你肯定不会派你训练有素的人去矿井工作。 你会派下层公民来做这项工作。 并不是说它是完美的，但我认为单位的角色划分应该保留。

So I'm talking about building buildings and logging. The labor that the soldiers did should be related to the military, even the most elite soldiers would cut down trees to build their own barracks，If mercenaries can't cut wood, why can they build buildings? They were hired as soldiers, not as construction workers.

In addition, even ordinary soldiers will not go to work in mines, because those who have money to buy equipment and become soldiers are usually people with land and property, while miners are usually proletarians or slaves.

Edited April 23, 2022 by AIEND