suggestions Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 27.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Just now, LienRag said:

Don't know, actually.

(the crossbow thing wasn't an answer to this question)

Specific buildings ? Technologies ? Different rates for collecting resources ?

Elating units ?

my bad.

[LienRag]

On 28/05/2022 at 2:59 PM, Fabius said:

I feel that things should be added to counter rams rather than just reverting a change, it can be argued that all civs would know how to make a ram at the minimum, hang picking up a log and using it on a door counts as a ram, so, I think the path should be towards things that can damage rams. 

Not all civs would know how to make an armored ram, so not all civs should have siege workshops, and "log rams" could me made in the barrack or whatever, but have no protection against arrows/missiles.

[LienRag]

On 18/08/2022 at 6:32 PM, Mordred said:

I think it's great to use a specific ship type for a specific map type. No one lets ocean liners through narrow rivers. No one swims across the ocean on a catamaran. The fact that the ships do not fit into one puddle is not a reason to cut them off, but a reason to change the strategy to lighter boats.

 

True but the UI should then show very clearly which ship can go where and which cannot.

It's very frustrating to build a trireme in a port on a river and discovering that it can't go to the open sea because there's a shallow pass in-between.

[LienRag]

Will running be consistent ?

Probably through formations : skirmishing formations would be a good fit for runners.

Edited November 4, 2022 by LienRag
typo

[LienRag]

Kiting would be very nice and help balance the melee/ranged units problem...

[Norse_Harold]

4 hours ago, LienRag said:

Kiting would be very nice and help balance the melee/ranged units problem...

[LienRag]

We really need also a stance for Citizens (soldiers or not) "Do what you are fracking told to do please thank you".

I'm sick of ordering a bunch of CS to build a palisade or to repair a tower and having to keep selecting them and clicking back to the the building because they keep trying instead to capture a lone tower that is mildly firing at them, and this whatever the stance I put them in.

If we have a morale system I could understand that troops would not accept to work under enemy fire, but we don't, so there should be a way to have them do what they're told.

[Feldfeld]

22 minutes ago, LienRag said:

We really need also a stance for Citizens (soldiers or not) "Do what you are fracking told to do please thank you".

I'm sick of ordering a bunch of CS to build a palisade or to repair a tower and having to keep selecting them and clicking back to the the building because they keep trying instead to capture a lone tower that is mildly firing at them, and this whatever the stance I put them in.

If we have a morale system I could understand that troops would not accept to work under enemy fire, but we don't, so there should be a way to have them do what they're told.

I think the "Stand Ground" (not sure if this exact name, can't check game now) will have your units ignore tower fire, but it might not be convenient for fighting afterward so be careful.

[Dakara]

2 hours ago, Feldfeld said:

I think the "Stand Ground" (not sure if this exact name, can't check game now) will have your units ignore tower fire, but it might not be convenient for fighting afterward so be careful.

it work but care at use yes

so the solution is current

[Frederick_1]

On 10/11/2022 at 11:45 AM, LienRag said:

If we have a morale system I could understand that troops would not accept to work under enemy fire, but we don't, so there should be a way to have them do what they're told.

Yes, the button: "DO WHAT I TOLD YOU AND NOTHING ELSE!!!" is a feature that I am missing too. On the other hand it is possible that a wild animal kills a dozen of workers building because they start to fight only when it is too late.

Somethimes it would help when you could add units to working cluster. So when they get attacked all of them start to fight. Then starting to fight would make sense. But this stopping your work for an action that is "designed to fail" is often cumbersome.

To be honest, 0AD troops complaining about enemy fire would be a laughingstock. Their affinity to run into enemy fire for anything is rather a hassle too. Usually 2/3 of the time I am busy calling them back.

[Frederick_1]

Just thinking about this visibility range discussion....

would it be possible to implement that moving objects are visible from farther away. This is how the eye also works. Moving object gain more attraction.  This could be a "enhanced attention"-technology. It would help to react to attacks without unhiding too much of the map.

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 hours ago, Frederick_1 said:

Just thinking about this visibility range discussion....

would it be possible to implement that moving objects are visible from farther away. This is how the eye also works. Moving object gain more attraction.  This could be a "enhanced attention"-technology. It would help to react to attacks without unhiding too much of the map.

 

How can that work practically in-game?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

7 hours ago, Frederick_1 said:

Their affinity to run into enemy fire for anything is rather a hassle too. Usually 2/3 of the time I am busy calling them back.

There is a bit of a fix for this, but it won't be accepted because it's not comprehensive enough.

@Freagarach @vladislavbelov @Stan`

[Frederick_1]

13 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

How can that work practically in-game?

Well, an enemy entity is displayed in this outer vision range when it is moving, not when it is standing still. It helps to react on attackers which move. Not when you are running into a waiting enemy formation.

When this distance is equal to all, it would help especially when woman are being   raided. You would see the riders in the black, not just when they are out of the dark, which for a woman is practically the same when beeing attacked.

Edited November 20, 2022 by Frederick_1

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 18/08/2022 at 6:04 PM, chrstgtr said:

Yeah, what I am saying really shouldn't be controversial...I recall someone calculating the stats for men and they were like 15 feet tall and walked miles as fast as Usain Bolt could run 100M. The simply game isn't to scale. 

A game by nature isn't supposed to be an exact recreation. 

It's hard to tell how those ships scale without other units providing context, but by themselves they look good to me. 

 

A. Current Biremes (light warships)

B. Current Triremes (medium warships)

C. Current Quinqueremes (heavy warships)

D. Dudes collecting seashells by the sea shore (for scale, with the dock)

 

So, I'd say the light/bireme class would remain the same size as they are now, which is A. Then the medium/trireme class (B) would be shrunk down to the size of A, but would be bulkier and have a foresail. Quinqueremes (C) would be shrunk down to the size of B. They'd retain all their detail and come with a catapult aboard. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

 

A. Current Biremes (light warships)

B. Current Triremes (medium warships)

C. Current Quinqueremes (heavy warships)

D. Dudes collecting seashells by the sea shore (for scale, with the dock)

 

So, I'd say the light/bireme class would remain the same size as they are now, which is A. Then the medium/trireme class (B) would be shrunk down to the size of A, but would be bulkier and have a foresail. Quinqueremes (C) would be shrunk down to the size of B. They'd retain all their detail and come with a catapult aboard. 

Looks pretty to me.
 

For me, the biggest problem with ships has to do with their fighting mechanics and pathfinding. I have zero suggestions for improvement. 

[hyperion]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

So, I'd say the light/bireme class would remain the same size as they are now, which is A. Then the medium/trireme class (B) would be shrunk down to the size of A, but would be bulkier and have a foresail. Quinqueremes (C) would be shrunk down to the size of B. They'd retain all their detail and come with a catapult aboard.

Rams, balistae, elses, are already decently large units for game play so I'd decrease them all by another factor of 2 or so in size. Anyway reworking ships is much appreciated.

[Fabius]

I have some ideas for Rome.  

The senate house: A unique building that could either give some kind of aura or have some special technologies, maybe some either or technologies, eg pick this or that but not both, like the Seleucid traditional and reform armies. It was suggested to me to have the option to sacrifice a hero in it for a temporary buff, wrath at Caesars assassination essentially. Another use  might be as means to gain a second chance at recruiting a hero.

The sacred geese of Rome: either a technology similar to sibylline books that gives 10-15% vision range, either just for temples or for civic buildings or just everything. Or a literal war goose like the gallic war dog, geese literally defending Rome is humorous if not historical.

Extraordinari being able to swap between sword and javelin.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

A Senate House would be cool. Evil Geese? Notsomuch. lol

 

Yes to Extraordinarii swap.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 20/11/2022 at 12:44 PM, chrstgtr said:

For me, the biggest problem with ships has to do with their fighting mechanics and pathfinding. I have zero suggestions for improvement. 

Shrinking them up would help with pathing, definitely. Right now the current Quinqueremes are awkward AF because of how ridiculously large they are.

[chrstgtr]

5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Shrinking them up would help with pathing, definitely. Right now the current Quinqueremes are awkward AF because of how ridiculously large they are.

Agree. It won’t fix it entirely, but it def helps

[Frederick_1]

On 25/11/2022 at 3:28 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

A Senate House would be cool. Evil Geese? Notsomuch. lol

 

The geese should be a watchman feature. They warned them for the barbariens attacking.  What I would be good in any case is a better more noticable information when you get attacked. expecially when this is not in the context of your current fighting.

It is almost normal for me that I didn't realize that my home civic center was attacked and is gone when I am fighting somewhere else on the map.

[Akira Kurosawa]

Is there a way to make it possible to select multiple biomes for a random map? One single biome for the entire map is kind of boring...

Spoiler

If you do not like sharp transitions, then you can try using a "climate gradient". It should also randomly select "the start" and "the end" for directions of the "climate gradient" to add a layer of biomes to the map. Although, I think it would be nice to have many climate mapping templates at the same time. I think you already guessed where this idea comes from.

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by Akira Kurosawa

[Frederick_1]

On 20/10/2022 at 2:09 PM, LienRag said:

True but the UI should then show very clearly which ship can go where and which cannot.

It's very frustrating to build a trireme in a port on a river and discovering that it can't go to the open sea because there's a shallow pass in-between.

It is the same for land based entities, when a map becomes mountainous. It is sometimes hard to guess which path is cross able and which not is sometimes surprising.

For ships I have reworked some maps for better ship passage. When the seafloor is flattened enough in atlas, and the stream wide enough, there is a small band of water depth where all ship and all other entities can pass.

It would be helpful, to have better aid in Atlas editor to design waterways the way you want. At the moment it is a litte try and revise process. It is the same with building land.

When atlas could precise indicate how a design works, this would be helpful.  There are tools, in atlas but they do not indicate the details.

These are the maps where I improved ship opportunities, because of this reason of "trapped" ships:

 

[Stan`]

3 hours ago, Frederick_1 said:

It would be helpful, to have better aid in Atlas editor to design waterways the way you want. At the moment it is a litte try and revise process. It is the same with building land.

 

You have tools to show possibility in Atlas in the terrain tab IIRC.