Jump to content

"Arson" attacks should be added to cavalry and infantry.


AIEND
 Share

Recommended Posts

As in Age of Empires 3 and 4, units don't have to choose between capturing buildings and inflicting insignificant damage to them with the weapons in their hands, but should use torches to burn buildings and ships. Archers (excluding cavalry, chariot or elephant archers) can fire flaming arrows to gain an advantage over other soldiers in burning buildings and ships from greater distances.
And buildings can also set the resistance to fire damage according to the ratio of wood and stone used.
For sieges, it can be left as it is, as melee unit attacks are actually simulating killing the operators of these machines. Even if the archers use burning arrows, they will not have a good damage effect on the rams and siege towers that are covered with flame-retardant materials such as metal plates or cowhide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 小时前,PyrrhicVictoryGuy 说:

如果你这样做,没有人会使用围攻

On the contrary, this will first increase the status of the stone walls and forts, thus making the siege machinery more necessary.
In current battles, players rarely build walls and fortresses, except for the walls given by Iberia at the start. So it's easier and more common to capture buildings with units (which honestly feels awkward to capture buildings and then delete them), or demolish unfortified buildings with rams.
And if we make burning buildings more efficient than capturing them, then players will fortify their towns with stone-built fire-resistant fortifications, hindering infantry and cavalry attacks, and siege machines will become Indispensable.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stone constructions would have a reinforcement, they would hold up a lot but they would be weakened.

 

This would be ideal to compensate for the second phase that doesn't have units that can damage structures.

 

We could even see the phase requirements rise, not only for resources but also more buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AIEND said:

On the contrary, this will first increase the status of the stone walls and forts, thus making the siege machinery more necessary.
In current battles, players rarely build walls and fortresses, except for the walls given by Iberia at the start. So it's easier and more common to capture buildings with units (which honestly feels awkward to capture buildings and then delete them), or demolish unfortified buildings with rams.
And if we make burning buildings more efficient than capturing them, then players will fortify their towns with stone-built fire-resistant fortifications, hindering infantry and cavalry attacks, and siege machines will become Indispensable.

 

Well i think that despite your good intensions, you have a lot of "ifs" in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, AIEND said:

相反,这会首先增加石墙和堡垒的地位,从而使攻城机械更加必要。
在目前的战斗中,玩家很少建造城墙和堡垒,除了伊比利亚一开始给的城墙。 所以用单位占领建筑物更容易也更常见(老实说,占领建筑物然后删除它们感觉很尴尬),或者用公羊拆除未设防的建筑物。
如果我们让燃烧建筑物比占领它们更有效,那么玩家将用石头建造的防火防御工事强化他们的城镇,阻碍步兵和骑兵的攻击,攻城机器将变得不可或缺。

 

Actually catapults are not popular in the A25, largely due to the lack of fortifications in the city itself (fortresses are much rarer after not being able to train champions), you can let troops rush in directly. The catapult, a sluggish ranged weapon that takes time to deploy, is naturally unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 分钟前,PyrrhicVictoryGuy 说:

好吧,我认为尽管你的意图很好,但你有很多“如果”。

I don't think there's much uncertainty about it. Because there are ready-made examples to refer to, such as Age of Empires 2 and 4, there are quite a few infantry and cavalry that do high damage to buildings, but rams and trebuchets are not ignored because walls and fortresses are very effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 分钟前,Lion.Kanzen 说:

石头建筑会有加固物,它们会支撑很多,但会被削弱。

 

这将是补偿没有可以损坏结构的单位的第二阶段的理想选择。

 

我们甚至可以看到阶段需求增加,不仅是对资源,而且对更多建筑。

Technology can be added to make buildings use more stone instead of wood, and improve the fire resistance and HP of buildings, so that in the later stages of the game, players will need specialized siege weapons to cause effective damage to enemy cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5分钟前,0AD的玩家说:

攻城塔:“你确定吗?”

To be honest, I think siege towers are more of a field weapon than a siege weapon;), we're mainly trying to get the ranged infantry to fully utilize their firepower while being protected. It's like a Soviet soldier sitting in a BMP infantry fighting vehicle and shooting through a shooting hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AIEND said:

To be honest, I think siege towers are more of a field weapon than a siege weapon;), we're mainly trying to get the ranged infantry to fully utilize their firepower while being protected. It's like a Soviet soldier sitting in a BMP infantry fighting vehicle and shooting through a shooting hole.

I would like to slow down the battering rams.Very strong, no hard counter, only sword cavalry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I would like to slow down the battering rams.Very strong, no hard counter, only sword cavalry.

Which makes no sense at all, they should be easily broken by infantry and need infantry protection to survive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, davidsrsb said:

Which makes no sense at all, they should be easily broken by infantry and need infantry protection to survive

In real life too.

The ideal is that they become strong with units inside.

Stats should increase, it was given to me that these machines protected units to capture walls and destroy buildings.

 

they should  was slow unless more men pushed the siege engine.

 

They are very strong bin 0 A D. compared to other strategy games.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, davidsrsb said:

这根本没有意义,他们应该很容易被步兵打破,需要步兵保护才能生存

I agree with your idea, I weakened the attack and HP of the rams in the mod, and changed the piercing damage of the melee infantry to hack damage, so that the infantry can complete this task. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

现实生活中也是。

理想的情况是,他们随着内部的单位变得强大。

统计数据应该会增加,我知道这些机器可以保护单位以占领墙壁并摧毁建筑物。

 

他们应该很慢,除非更多的人推动攻城车。

 

与其他策略游戏相比,它们是非常强大的 bin 0 A D。

I think rams are too strong now, and the cost is too high. It should be a relatively cheap siege weapon that mainly consumes wood. It should be able to be produced in P2. Correspondingly, it should also be slower, more fragile, and lower in damage.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, AIEND said:

I think rams are too strong now, and the cost is too high. It should be a relatively cheap siege weapon that mainly consumes wood. It should be able to be produced in P2. Correspondingly, it should also be slower, more fragile, and lower in damage.

I am one of those who thinks that there must be a ram made with a trunk and men carrying it.

That would be fun, there is already such a unit in the Xiongnu faction.

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

42 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

This seems contradictory to me.

I think what he meant is that for what a ram is, it's very expensive.

Compare that vs the cost civic center or a fortress.

Not saying what this engine takes from infantry spear/pike damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2小时前,古尔肯汗说:

这对我来说似乎很矛盾。

I mean, in most RTS, the battering ram is a relatively basic unit, not very high in attack and HP.
But 0AD, rams are put in the later stage (I always wonder why P2 did not siege), the cost is very high, and it looks like a high-tech weapon.
Excessive technical requirements and costs result in the battering ram having to be strengthened in terms of data, otherwise it will become an expensive and fragile waste product.

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

3 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

我是这样的人之一,他们认为一定有一只公羊是用一个箱子做成的,然后男人们拿着它。

挺好玩的,匈奴派已经有这样的单位了。

In reality, xiongnu does not seem to have such a battering ram, and they are more likely to use a ladder to climb up the city wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AIEND said:

I mean, in most RTS, the battering ram is a relatively basic unit, not very high in attack and HP.
But 0AD, rams are put in the later stage (I always wonder why P2 did not siege), the cost is very high, and it looks like a high-tech weapon.
Excessive technical requirements and costs result in the battering ram having to be strengthened in terms of data, otherwise it will become an expensive and fragile waste product.

The catapult or trebuchet were much more expensive and hi-tech weapons

The downside of the ram was having to go up to the target, so it needed serious infantry support to survive very long.

The 0AD model of a few unmanned rams quickly flattening a fully manned fortress is so wrong. (or unsupported elephants same argument)

The catapult mainly damaged with fire

  • Like 3
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...