Jump to content

Proposal for a new behavior of Civic center (reaction to farmfields)


Recommended Posts

I have read the interesting discussion about moving farm fields away from civic center and I agree with some points of view of both sides. However, it seems to me that many of them at least somewhat depend on the time period (phase) of the game. Based on that I got an idea which in my opinion could both make the game a bit more realistic and create interesting new strategies.

The idea consists of two parts. The first is that the civic center would have three different instances with different characteristics. What follows is only a suggestion and its main goal is to illustrate the idea.

  1. Village phase: the civic center is all-in-one building, basically as it is now, meaning that it would have the functionality of a drop site for all resources, defensive character, able to train citizens
  2. Town phase: the civic center could have mostly technological importance (it seems to me that some civ dependent technologies would be best), it is a drop site for only "expensive" resources (metal and possibly stone and meat), has defensive role (with possibly fewer arrows with more damage), trains citizens but not cavalry anymore
  3. City phase: the civic center has mostly territorial importance, does not work as a drop site at all, can only train female and one citizen soldier, looses most (or even all) of its defensive abilities

The second part is that the more sophisticated civic centers would require "better" surroundings. For example, there would have to be a market and a temple nearby for the civic center to by in the last phase. Each building could e.g. have a "nice aura" with temple being positive and storehouse being negative. Hence the limit of n buildings required for the next phase could be removed. There could even coexist civic centers from different phases so that you could rule one city and one village while each of them would have its special traits.

In that way there could be a very dense and simple society at the beginning and a sophisticated society with at least somewhat realistic city center at the end and it would present the player with the choice of placing the farms next to the civic center knowing that they would have to build a new one somewhere else or demolish the farms to get the upgraded civic center OR build the farms away from the civic center at the beginning.

And because this is my first post here, let me thank you for this already great game (y)

  • Like 7
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome young child. The Holy Church of the Beaver Absolves you of your sins.


In all seriousness. Personally, i dislike your idea of Changing the role of the City Center every Phase. It's not a bad idea, but it definitely would not fit in a game like this.  Not unless several extreme changes were made to adapt to such things.
As it is, it's best to have it as the all-in-one thing forever. If you want to change anything, it should be a forever change, not an as-you-advance thing. That would be too confusing for new players and make too many Cheek strategy's evolve.

I like the whole Having one city-center in different areas thing, like actually making them "City-Centers" Instead of just I'mTerritoriesAndTrainsWomens Buildings. We could also tie this in with DE's idea of being allowed to build buildings outside of territories instead of just outposts. (but still degrade over time, of course) This would make building towns less difficult, Those circular territory things can be a pain sometimes. And also have them be much father away from each other (which would make city placement a strategy of itself!) Also making building further away from your territory would mean more loss of HP for your buildings would be good too.

The aura stuff is a full-blown-no from me. 0AD is not a city building game. If you want something like that i can suggest a few :D

Also about the Farming stuff, i think it should be kept Simple. Either put them wherever you want, or just around farmhouses. The latter would also help in the (Yet-to-be-developed) Animal Housing building which you can herd animals into and have an infinite food source at a steady rate. Farms being better of course, but requiring more effort (I.E People)

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

1 hour ago, Auron24015 said:

Either put them wherever you want, or just around farmhouses

Just around farmhouses would not help that much, as you then can just build the farmstead close to the CC. So you would have to add a minimal distance between CC and farmstead, which is just a more complicated way of using a minimal distance between CC and fields.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Auron24015 said:

Personally, i dislike your idea of Changing the role of the City Center every Phase. It's not a bad idea, but it definitely would not fit in a game like this.  Not unless several extreme changes were made to adapt to such things.
As it is, it's best to have it as the all-in-one thing forever. If you want to change anything, it should be a forever change, not an as-you-advance thing.

Thank you your opinion. I would like to just clarify few things.

  1. each instance of the CC would have to look different - exactly not to confuse players
  2. the advancement into a new phase would not have to automatically change the CC, it could just unlock the new instance and just like a sentry tower can be converted into a stone tower the CC could be converted (if conditions satisfied) or a new one of the higher instance could be built.
  3. as I have imagined the idea it would be a forever change at least in the sense that the CC would never downgrade which might not have been clear

I see the different phases as the transformation of the society and as the society being build around different structures (here represented by buildings). You transform the biggest farmstead in the village (CC of village phase) in to a senate building (CC of city phase) and while loosing the possibility to store thing there you gain influence in your region (territory).

I might be completely wrong about the historical background for this and I will gladly learn from anyone better educated on this topic. Nevertheless, in the presented idea I have seen a potential to keep the beginning of the game simple while keeping the player from storing resources in the Agora which probably was not the case.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fales said:
  1. as I have imagined the idea it would be a forever change at least in the sense that the CC would never downgrade which might not have been clear

I see the different phases as the transformation of the society and as the society being build around different structures (here represented by buildings). You transform the biggest farmstead in the village (CC of village phase) in to a senate building (CC of city phase) and while loosing the possibility to store thing there you gain influence in your region (territory).

Are you suggesting that CC's don't expand your territory automatically when phasing up?

I am not sure if anyone would choose to 'upgrade' their cc in this way in a competitive match because one would need the arrows from the CC to deter enemy infantry, meanwhile the CC can serve as a dropsite for resources, which is convenient. The resource we are after could be any one of wood, stone or metal, although most likely metal in A24 games. Arrows in their home CC is also important to shorten Gaul naked fanatics rush and ranged cavalry rushes; without arrows these rushes would go on forever.

Why we build extra CC:

1. To reach for resources. We build it close to the resource we want and use it as dropsite + labour force supplier. Therefore its dropsite function is important. 

2. Get closer to an enemy. Pocket players often build a CC next to a border player so that troops can be produced close to the battlefield and reinforcements arrive promptly. If the CC can train units then that saves us the time and resources to build an extra barrack. 

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

5 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

Are you suggesting that CC's don't expand your territory automatically when phasing up?

Yes, it would not provide any additional territory until upgraded to the "next gen" CC.

Sure, there would be more things to solve. My goal was to start discussion. It could be even possible to build the basic 1st gen CC also in the city phase. In the case that the players would not be motivated enough to go for the later CC's without defensive qualities, there could other bonuses provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way in the long run we should also give different defenses (how, armor resistance) to the CC for each phase. 

 

We plan to change their appearances for each upgrade, that is, each phase pass.

The logical thing is that the stats change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Yekaterina said:

What about decreasing territory influence of second CCs? Perhaps their territory effect is a bit too OP?

I doubt if it is OP. CCs are expensive but useful can be useful. More territory also means more territory to defend and in that view a second CC also makes you vulnerable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking: If one really wanted more realism, a solution could be to build three functionally differenct CCs, instead of just upgrading the first and only one. For example:

  • Village phase CC - rural center, works as a dropsite, has limited garrison power
  • Town phase CC - acropolis/hilltop fort, doesn't work as dropsite, but has high defensive capacities
  • City phase CC - agorà/central square, mostly economic building, doesn't defend

Note that the historical position of such locations would not be the same, and that they could coexist.

Anyway, such a different approach to phasing makes more sense if looked as a more nuanced progression (instead of neat numbered phases), where completing some building gives you access to other buildings which give you access to further buildings and techs, until you have unlocked all the progression tree.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, alre said:

Village phase CC - rural center, works as a dropsite, has limited garrison power

 

-----I thought of this as a game mode ----

I have been thinking of having a stockpile, similar to stronghold, If your enemies make you a  raid, and you lost this building, you lost 1/3 of your total stockpile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, alre said:

I was thinking: If one really wanted more realism, a solution could be to build three functionally differenct CCs, instead of just upgrading the first and only one. For example:

  • Village phase CC - rural center, works as a dropsite, has limited garrison power
  • Town phase CC - acropolis/hilltop fort, doesn't work as dropsite, but has high defensive capacities
  • City phase CC - agorà/central square, mostly economic building, doesn't defend

Note that the historical position of such locations would not be the same, and that they could coexist.

Anyway, such a different approach to phasing makes more sense if looked as a more nuanced progression (instead of neat numbered phases), where completing some building gives you access to other buildings which give you access to further buildings and techs, until you have unlocked all the progression tree.

This is basically what I had imagined. The reason I had mentioned upgrading the CC from one to another is that due to the territorial importance of CC you don't want to delete one CC type to be able to build another on the same place. And on some maps with limited space, you could need to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hello! I'm upping this thread because I think there are a couple of interesting ideas going on. None of this is highly a priority in the dev schedule, but maybe is a worthy discussion idk..

Anyway I was recently messing around with map building in the atlas editor and I've realized there's a lack of proper "villages" in the game. Especially if you want to simulate the aspect of a rural countryside, you're forced to drop a CC to place other buildings around, and this "ruins" the purpose. 

I like the DE alternative of giving free room to dropsites even outside the player territory, but I was thinking that another alternative could be to consider a "village center" for early expansion. I think it may have been mentioned also in other threads, but basically this would be a cheaper sort of military colony with some root territory around that can substitute the CC effectively.

Some people have mentioned that great game of Imperivm in another thread (happy it enjoys some popularity!), and that's basically what I'm thinking of: a small center dedicated exclusively for economic activities that allows you to expand further and have more room for farms and dropsites. Possibly, military buildings can't be built around this territory (so to not exploit this), unless such village is upgraded to full CC, gaining then full features. 

I think such a feature can maybe encourage expansions earlier in the game, and, again, make more use of the whole map. 

What do you guys would think of this? Too dumb? Unnecessary? I'm curious to hear some opinions! :)

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
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...