Improving specific rushes.

[Lion.Kanzen]

My post always has a reason, and an introduction that tells that reason.

 

I have seen many complain about the rush.

 

Why don't we create a meta where can some strategies be predefined?

 

AoE have their own rushes.

I tried to implement as suggestions, a bit the slinger rush.

I'm also in favor of an Archer rush and a scout rush (if we can agree on that unit / class it should be in the game).

 

How should we implement a rush?

Our game is asymmetric, not all civs should access the same rushes in a certain way.

Factions / Civs should not access the Archer rush or Cavalry rush. At least in the early game.

 

Nations with archery potential, from the days that they have the technologies, to do as archery tradition, should it.

On the other hand, A generic rush for most would be with scouts (Cavalry)

 

Others with sword infantry rush.

 

We should allocate technologies to focus on the 3 basic strategies.

 

-Rushing

-Booming

-Turtling 

Every player will think ... hummm I chose this faction to performance a rush of archers.

 

In phase one there should be technologies to unlock defenses and for the civic center to defend itself (without garrison units), , in compensation they should have a price and time enough to choose between economical and rush technologies.

 

Each phase should have its own kind of  rush, this encourages further development of the faction.

Our tech tree in the game is not developed and does not compare to that of AOE, even Delenda is surpasses us. (Without discrediting Wowgetoff's work ...)

 

 

 

 

 

[LetswaveaBook]

The big difference between most games is the citizen soldier concept. As ValirhAnt said, booming equals turtling.

What 0ad in my view lacks is units that specialize in either booming, rushing or turtling. Currently citizen soldier infantry fit all of these roles. They are best used for booming, so that is more or less what everyone does.

And then there is citizen cavalry. They are fast but lack the strength to go toe-to-toe with a good infantry force. If you commit to a cavalry rush and it doesn't work out, you need to pump resources in something that does not work out or give up on all the resources that you invested in your cavalry rush. If you do not want to be confronted with such a dilemma, it is wise not to spend too much resources on your cavalry rush. I think that explains why cavalry rushes are most often limited in number.

[Lion.Kanzen]

15 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

And then there is citizen cavalry. They are fast but lack the strength to go toe-to-toe with a good infantry force. If you commit to a cavalry rush and it doesn't work out

That is the idea to change it, not to leave it as it is.

 

16 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

wise not to spend too much resources on your cavalry rush. I think that explains why cavalry rushes are most often limited in number.

That the Athenians make a rush like that is stupid (historical Imprecise) that's why we have it under control.

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

Well  here is a proposal , don´t know if anyone has already said but i just came up with it . What ifcitizen soldier could be restricted to building like 2/3 of the buildings available and women could only build farms , corrals , farmsteads ,  houses , etc ... ( carthage soldiers could build the apartements in phase 1) , i mean people don´t even use soldiers  for farming , so "mirroring " real life , these soldiers would be builders , architects , philosophers , carpenters, etc...  first and conscripts later so would make sense that they  would know how to build  barracks / fortresses , armories and what not . Then women would be primarly resource gathereers and soldiers could no longer  collect these , so unless the player wanted to go on a massive building spree wich would be unlikely due the smaller amount of resources collected due to women being bad at getting anything but food, this would in turn open the way for another class of gathereers wich i have already seen in some topics , the slave would be better at getting stone and metal . All this would make rushes more viable since the victim of the rush, lets a say a booming player would have a lot less troops since booming would not equal turtling in this  proposed scenario.

Edited May 7, 2021 by PyrrhicVictoryGuy

[Lion.Kanzen]

9 minutes ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

Well  here is a proposal , don´t know if anyone has already said but i just came up with it . What ifcitizen soldier could be restricted to building like 2/3 of the buildings available and women could only build farms , corrals , farmsteads ,  houses , etc ...

We agree with the CS.

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

what do you mean?

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

12 minutes ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

what do you mean?

 

We need to change the paradigm of Citizen soldiers a bit.

 

I am still thinking of several solutions.

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

Ah ok CS was citizen soldiers desculpa

[a 0ad player]

Hi,

thank you for the opportunity to take part in the discussion on this topic.

I think more battles between the players before P3 leads to more varied gameplay. Very simplified, I win in 0ad if I have siege weapons to tear down the opponent's CC. I obtain siege weapons through:

• Booming: have as many units and technologies as possible, as fast as possible

• Turtling: have as many units and technologies as possible as safely as possible;
(the many citizen soldiers and especially in a24 the archers as well as the tower spam transform Booming from phase 2 to turtling for cavalry raids (tower spam = turtling against citizen soldier rush))

• Rushing: I slow down my development to slow down my opponent by

• slow down by idle time and picking up single units
  (cavalry raid = over reaction, pop cap, mis macro, deny resources for a short time)

• stop as long as possible by denying resources
  (cavalry raid, towers, citizen soldier + outpost (a23))

• reverse development by blocking resource gathering, blocking space, taking over and/or wrecking buildings so that the opponent surrenders
  (All in (if all goes well) and raiding with slingers, archers, cavalry, dogs, champs, ele).

 

Personally, I don't like All Ins in the first 4 minutes of a game and the CC is the counterbalance to those strategies. When I first played 0ad, Turtling was my strategy to get to know the game. Now it's Booming to be able to use siege weapons as quickly as possible. Rushing doesn't seem as worthwhile to me because it's too hectic and outside of 1v1 my opponent is mostly "just" slowed down. If I have enough hunt available a raid with cavalry is OK.

 

I like the straight forward approach of 0ad. The tree like growth with the citizen soldier as trunk. You get what you invest. When I played Age of empires for the first time in my childhood it seemed odd to me that some people just stand around or fight. The citizen soldier being able to collect resources in a time with less specialized roles makes more sense to me.

 

I think I read suggestions from Borg to create a technology for melee units tradition and for Britten or Gaul to allow forge technologies earlier in the barracks. As well as suggested by Nescio (https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/37312-balancing-defensive-structures-test-mod/) allow more variance in stats of defensive strutures. Technologies (greater variance in stats) that differentiate Rushing or Turtling more could help.For example, a technology that lets twice as many women quarter in houses, gives legionnaires in turtle formation pikmen armor and the speed of Rams, gives the CC 70 or 75m radius for little resources and lots of technology research time. Further, I don't understand the reduced collection rates for rank 2/3 citizen soldier. If I keep attacking and winning in TG pizza my collection rate will be lower, no incentive here. On the other hand, as soon as more space is available, it makes more sense to use cavalry to slow down the opponent most of the time and defeat him in P3 with siege weapons. Bonuses, mechanisms and abilities that have historical origins would be good.

 

I think "scouts", archers... raids are possible and take place in P1 to slow down the opponent. In P2 the citizen soldiers are so numerous that a turtling effect occurs. More differentiation of Rushing and Turling (start lower with the values) strategies could help here. Stopping the opponent or resetting his development are only possible in smaller spaces or take time or game sense with good execution.

[soloooy0]

6 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I am still thinking of several solutions.

The only thing I can think of is that the phase 1 units are more efficient taking resources and the phase 2 units have a bit more armor, to simulate that due to that weight, they cannot load so much, nor go so fast
With a subtle difference in the stats, more tactics would be viable, to favor the ascent to phase 2 or the rush mmmmm

[Dakara]

no fun with build order etc. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

40 minutes ago, Dakara said:

no fun with build order etc. 

It is an alternative.

 

I am realizing that most of the 0 A.D ideas are out of order and have to be put together well as a whole, like a puzzle.

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, soloooy0 said:

The only thing I can think of is that the phase 1 units are more efficient taking resources and the phase 2 units have a bit more armor, to simulate that due to that weight, they cannot load so much, nor go so fast
With a subtle difference in the stats, more tactics would be viable, to favor the ascent to phase 2 or the rush mmmmm

Exactly and to balance the men there may be other classes of collectors that will replace the CS.

 

- Slaves (economic boost) P2

-Villagers male (recibe ab upgrade to quasi militia) Peasants with swords and spears and poor armor.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone

Improved my idea in delenda est, only that of the slaves.

This quasi militia would be a kind of after unitb to defend the CC and the women and men villagers.

 

Then in the pyramid they follow the typical CS.

 

Then next are the mercenaries...