Jump to content

Wow's Forge Rework Idea


Recommended Posts

See @ValihrAnt's blacksmith rework thread here: 

 

====================================================================

As always, Wow is here to propose something innovative and cool.

My Forge rework idea is that the Forge now acts similarly to a Market, in that it is used to exchange resources for something else. In this case, the player exchanges Raw Resources (Food, Wood, Metal, Stone) for Secondary Resources: Swords, Shields, Spears, Javelins, et al. So, now Soldiers don't cost Raw Resources, they cost Food and secondary resources:

Roman Hastatus

  • 100 Food
  • 5 Shield
  • 5 Body Armor
  • 6 Sword

So, those numbers mean something. For example: for every 1 hack resistance, they cost 1 Body Armor. For every hack attack, they cost 1 Sword. For every point of health, they cost 1 Food. The Sword resource had been bought (exchanged) at the Forge with the Metal raw resource (and possibly Wood, to account for the firewood necessary to forge and temper the weapons).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good idea, but why 5 shield and 6 sword ? :D I can see 5 body armour as different parts but I would say seeing unit that costs 5 swords or 5 spears would be odd (ok. he could carry  5 spears but you know :) )

Also it will create new micro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Angen said:

Good idea, but why 5 shield and 6 sword ? :D I can see 5 body armour as different parts but I would say seeing unit that costs 5 swords or 5 spears would be odd (ok. he could carry  5 spears but you know :) )

It's because it's not "5 shields" it's a level 5 shield (because it's 5 levels of resistance). The sword is a level 6 sword (6 hack attack), not 6 swords. :) 

 

Quote

Also it will create new micro.

Yeah, it does. Maybe need to take some micro away from somewhere else to make this palatable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have done a bit of research on the idea of secondary resources in my City Building mod, and yes, it would create micro that while make sense in city building games, quite distracting in RTS games.

One way it could work like in Stronghold games is by making forge converts wood/metal into weapons using ResourceTrickle. Technologies can be used to switch/stop production. In this case, just like in Stronghold, soldiers can be instantly trained.

The problem is that the GUI doesn't really made to accommodate so many resources. @Monder87's 0AD Economy Simulation mod has overhauled the UI for this reason, however I haven't yet able to fully comprehend the code to implement it in my mod, so I will postpone this idea for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's because it's not "5 shields" it's a level 5 shield (because it's 5 levels of resistance). The sword is a level 6 sword (6 hack attack), not 6 swords. :) 

 

Yeah, it does. Maybe need to take some micro away from somewhere else to make this palatable. 

5lvl = "?" a hastatus? So a how much cost a extraordinarius?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Introducing that many weapons sounds like a large amount of complexity for an otherwise additional thing to manage, especially for an RTS.  I would maybe propose a simplification along the lines of units of equipment that work for melee units and separate ones for ranged ones.  

"Weapon Parts" "Armor Parts" might be simpler than a lot of different weapons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or make the produce abstract and call it something along the lines of "forge output", but not as bluntly and merge attack and armour into one secondary resource as you called it.

Rather than a spearman costing 5 armour and 7 spears, they would cost 12 X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I see it as innecesary micro with no gameplay benefits. I try to imagine what interesting mechanics could bring that, but I see no one.

If all weapons/armor resources are created on the forge, they are just extra clicks that you have to balance

If there's the introduction of new buildings to create the diferent resources, you are creating a chain that can be destroyed or raided for disrupting the economy of the enemy, but also is not so diferent of having diferent military buildings to train dedicated troops.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by "similar to a Market" you mean manually exchanging raw materials for armaments, that would be too much micromanagement.

IMO the only way to make this mechanic less annoying is by making barracks produce units in batch of 10, 15 or 30. Or group them as one unit and have a squad based RTS.

Interesting idea to differentiate the civs tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

See @ValihrAnt's blacksmith rework thread here: 

 

====================================================================

As always, Wow is here to propose something innovative and cool.

My Forge rework idea is that the Forge now acts similarly to a Market, in that it is used to exchange resources for something else. In this case, the player exchanges Raw Resources (Food, Wood, Metal, Stone) for Secondary Resources: Swords, Shields, Spears, Javelins, et al. So, now Soldiers don't cost Raw Resources, they cost Food and secondary resources:

Roman Hastatus

  • 100 Food
  • 5 Shield
  • 5 Body Armor
  • 6 Sword

So, those numbers mean something. For example: for every 1 hack resistance, they cost 1 Body Armor. For every hack attack, they cost 1 Sword. For every point of health, they cost 1 Food. The Sword resource had been bought (exchanged) at the Forge with the Metal raw resource (and possibly Wood, to account for the firewood necessary to forge and temper the weapons).

This seems like a really interesting idea and I quite like it - one thing that came to my mind is this - what if this forge/smithy could be available at p1 and then every civ starts with some predetermined number of shield/body armour/sword (for example war civs get more swords, eco civs get body armour (better pockets/loot bonus) and defencive civs get more shields at the beginning of a game)

And then when one builds forge/smithy one could invest resources gathered into those secondary resources to balance out the resources on the map - on maps where there is less wood this would help out if the forge/smithy would use more minerals and just a bit of wood like 5/10 per 50/100 metal for 1 sword - and also this would allow more viability for the market and economy in general would get more nuanced - there would be more flexibility for getting units and less pressure on grinding wood like it is nowadays

One crucial thing that would really make this gimmick forge/smithy work is to implement more metal on all maps - not those huge 5000 chunks but some small, scattered metal ores of 500/1000 around the center end periphery of the map and I would even like to see a new tech in marketplace named "currency" which would buff trading that each resource trade gets a bit metal for exchange like tax - for example traders are set to trade for wood 100% on low wood maps - here every 100 wood would provide 3-10 metal based on the distance travelled by the trader when the "currency" tech is unlocked - I really think that economy would be much more interesting and realistic in that way - and it would give more viable flexibility instead of just grinding resources and keeping part of the army as constant workers to not lose momentum


And also while I'm at it - this "currency" tech could be a prerequisite for bribing tech in CC - so that the bribes can be made through currency implemented by the civilisation - and then make the bribe something like for 5 minutes you see the other traders but your collected tax goes to bribery (i.e. when you bribe the time bribed locks passive metal trickle made by currency)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading all these interesing ideas makes me think. That it could also be a way to make specific directions one could upgrade, like specific upgrade paths defensive/offensive and/or just less broad, more specific but cheaper upgrades. These current expensive upgrades can be justified as they boost a lot of units.

But more specialized upgrades like upgrading just spearmen or macemen or swordsmen, would make upgrades cheaper, allowing to upgrade just the type of fighters you are planning to use on a particular match.

Raidable storehouses comes to my mind relating to some trading/logistics suggestions, but that might need some central storage and some timers or units relocating resources determining how long there's anything stored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, submariner said:

Reading all these interesing ideas makes me think. That it could also be a way to make specific directions one could upgrade, like specific upgrade paths defensive/offensive and/or just less broad, more specific but cheaper upgrades. These current expensive upgrades can be justified as they boost a lot of units.

But more specialized upgrades like upgrading just spearmen or macemen or swordsmen, would make upgrades cheaper, allowing to upgrade just the type of fighters you are planning to use on a particular match.

Raidable storehouses comes to my mind relating to some trading/logistics suggestions, but that might need some central storage and some timers or units relocating resources determining how long there's anything stored.

Well there is a specific tech available only to Iberians and Mauryans that buffs only swordsmen, and archery tradition for archer civs too, and I made a tread a few days ago about simmilar tech for peltasts that would make them a bit better when dealing with archers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dragonoar said:

IMO the only way to make this mechanic less annoying is by making barracks produce units in batch of 10, 15 or 30. Or group them as one unit and have a squad based RTS.

Well, I want this too (Battalions). This Forge idea would go hand in hand. 

https://www.moddb.com/mods/0-ad-delenda-est/news/battalions-and-formations

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another option would be to give the Forge a set of template UPGRADES, the same features used to upgrade a Sentry Tower to a Defense Tower. Essentially, for a cost and a negative resource trickle, you would Upgrade the Forge to "produce" certain kinds of armaments. This would then affect the stats and costs of units. :) 

So, upgrade the Forge to produce Swords and all sword units would be affected (the Forge would have an aura to that effect as long as the Forge remains as this upgrade) and the Forge would have a negative trickle of metal and wood. Want to go heavy on Hoplites, Upgrade the Forge to produce heavy armor for a negative Metal and Wood trickle. So, you can change your Forge to produce different kinds of armaments based on your strategy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Another option would be to give the Forge a set of template UPGRADES, the same features used to upgrade a Sentry Tower to a Defense Tower. Essentially, for a cost and a negative resource trickle, you would Upgrade the Forge to "produce" certain kinds of armaments. This would then affect the stats and costs of units. :) 

So, upgrade the Forge to produce Swords and all sword units would be affected (the Forge would have an aura to that effect as long as the Forge remains as this upgrade) and the Forge would have a negative trickle of metal and wood. Want to go heavy on Hoplites, Upgrade the Forge to produce heavy armor for a negative Metal and Wood trickle. So, you can change your Forge to produce different kinds of armaments based on your strategy. 

I want some grouping of units as well but it might be too harsh against bots. Even workers grouped in groups of 5 or any custom number for easier managing. I only play the game on sandbox learning about implemented mechanics. its complex to efficiently place field workers and even infantry gets mixed up in melee/ranged packs.

No need to turn it onto squad based RTS, just an optional grouping would be sufficient I think. And actually by the idea of opensource I think I should look into mod myself and attempt to learn something from it instead of my pointless ranting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, submariner said:

I want some grouping of units as well but it might be too harsh against bots. Even workers grouped in groups of 5 or any custom number for easier managing. I only play the game on sandbox learning about implemented mechanics. its complex to efficiently place field workers and even infantry gets mixed up in melee/ranged packs.

No need to turn it onto squad based RTS, just an optional grouping would be sufficient I think. And actually by the idea of opensource I think I should look into mod myself and attempt to learn something from it instead of my pointless ranting.

In Delenda Est soldiers do not gather. You don't have to divide them up among different resources to gather efficiently, so it makes sense to make them just exist in hard Battalions.

For EA, that may be a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

In Delenda Est soldiers do not gather. You don't have to divide them up among different resources to gather efficiently, so it makes sense to make them just exist in hard Battalions.

For EA, that may be a different story.

I only just learned that they are as you say hard battalions. I do not approve that being a thing in a main game as for large scale total war kind of battles maps and populations are too small and it's city-building kind of RTS. I only had in mind making custom packs of units of your own choice not to bother microselecting them  later so maybe groups/parties is a better word for what I mean, than battalions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, submariner said:

I only just learned that they are as you say hard battalions. I do not approve that being a thing in a main game as for large scale total war kind of battles maps and populations are too small and it's city-building kind of RTS. I only had in mind making custom packs of units of your own choice not to bother microselecting them  later so maybe groups/parties is a better word for what I mean, than battalions.

A halfway proposal is currently at https://code.wildfiregames.com/differential/

Basically, allowing the training of mixed batches. For instance, you could have the option to train batches of 10 soldiers, 1 officer (2x health; attack aura), and 1 bannerman (speed and armor aura). Or maybe an officer and bannerman would be trained for free if you choose to train a batch of 20 or more soldiers. 

----------------------

I disagree that battalions don't work in an RTS. They worked beautifully in Battle for Middle Earth II. And as I said, if your soldiers do nothing but stand idle or fight, then why not just have them exist in hard battalions? I'm talking about battalions of maybe 2 dozen soldiers, not 100 as in Total War. 

jnx1wDv.png7ueZPKL.png

 

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking a lot about this since I've seen the battalion proposal years ago. I think hard battalion (Total War style) is difficult to apply in 0 A.D. due to citizen-soldier concept and such (In vanilla/EA, at least. It should be easier to implement in DE). But we can still work on soft battalion (Cossacks style). However it's still a long way to get there. Looking at 0 AD code, my opinion is that many unit behaviors (UnitAI) needs to be worked on first before we are working on battalions.

Units in formation should have different set of stances than individual units. Currently formation is just about positioning, but not task allocation. Sure they have different pose in each row, but they still do the same thing once enemy comes. I think units should behave differently considering other units in the same formation.

Simplest example is healer in formation should prioritize healing soldiers in formation instead of any soldiers within range. Or archers in formation should be able to shoot continuously instead of all at once. Or a little more complicated, soldiers with low health moves to the back of formation, letting others with higher health to continue attacking. These are reducing micro and very useful as a base for battalions behavior.

7 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Basically, allowing the training of mixed batches. For instance, you could have the option to train batches of 10 soldiers, 1 officer (2x health; attack aura), and 1 bannerman (speed and armor aura). Or maybe an officer and bannerman would be trained for free if you choose to train a batch of 20 or more soldiers. 

This is also a great step towards battalion. Age of Empires III has Banner Army concept for Chinese civ that works similarly. At least this is a good step to reduce micro.

I know this is a thread about Forge rework, but @wowgetoffyourcellphone's screenshot of battalions really pumped me up somehow. I really want this feature lol, but I admit I haven't yet to comprehend UnitAI.js entirely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, azayrahmad said:

This is also a great step towards battalion. Age of Empires III has Banner Army concept for Chinese civ that works similarly. At least this is a good step to reduce micro.

Yeah, AOE3's banner army concept is essentially what came to mine when I saw the DIFF being worked on. I kind of like it and can't wait to play with the concept if it's ever folded into the 0 A.D. dev repo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Well, I want this too (Battalions). This Forge idea would go hand in hand. 

https://www.moddb.com/mods/0-ad-delenda-est/news/battalions-and-formations

Were you able to get it to work? Squad works much much better when units have synced animation, which doesn't exist yet in 0 AD.

Maybe at this point just make a unit grouping where you can't select individual soldier. The formation system already gives the illusion of a squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...