Jump to content

Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 27.


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, alre said:

tributes should better count as spent though.

I am a bit on the fence for this, i guess. Tributes received would already count towards the receiver's economy score, because they would be spending those resources on their own soldiers and upgrades. Would it be OK to have this number given to both the donor and recipient? 

I had the intention of making eco score resources used so that a relationship (the value ratio) could be drawn between eco and military regardless of the total resources available.

The issue is: if player A gives a total of 2000 food and wood to player B, player B ends up actually using the resources, but player A receives no "credit" for those resources gifted as part of the economy score. Maybe it would be fine anyway to leave out resources donated to dissuade feeding. If a fee is ever implemented to tributes (i think it should), this fee should be a cost to the donor (and would then be part of eco score)

I think the value ratio could be added regardless of the eco score decision, since it is (military score/ resources used) in either case. While I think changing the eco score would help, I am more passionate about the value ratio.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tributes received could be taken out someone's eco score. it would make sense I think, and it wouldn't be that big of a change, but I guess it's also ok to not count tributes, scores can't be perfect anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, alre said:

tributes received could be taken out someone's eco score. it would make sense I think, and it wouldn't be that big of a change, but I guess it's also ok to not count tributes, scores can't be perfect anyway.

yes, but then it wouldn't be clear how a player that was fed could get such a high military score. Perhaps it is best to keep it as simple as possible? Either keep eco the way it is, or make it rescourcesUsed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A finer terrain grid.

Water caustics for shallow water. Just use 30 or so frames and roll those on submerged patches with a stencil test on the water plane I guess.

Do something to make ships better.

Edited by smiley
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, smiley said:

Do something to make ships better.

What do you think of wow's idea to remove trireme and quinquereme boats and make them the same size as biremes and only available through upgrades. A bit like advanced and elite variations.

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

1 minute ago, Stan` said:

What do you think of wow's idea to remove trireme and quinquereme boats and make them the same size as biremes and only available through upgrades. A bit like advanced and elite variations.

Soldier ships and elite ships...what about river size ships?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Stan` said:

What do you think of wow's idea to remove trireme and quinquereme boats and make them the same size as biremes and only available through upgrades. A bit like advanced and elite variations.

There are multiple aspects that need to be addressed wrt ships. First is certainly size. While they are somewhat reasonable size compared to units they may be 3 times as big as the dock which produced them. There must be some compressed space in there ;)

So if we have established that down-scaling ships is an option, what do we hope to gain from it. Certainly room for actual navigation and fighting needs to be mentioned. My gut feeling tells me biremes are still to large.

Next comes what type of ship are need to make naval maps/warfare interesting. A non exhaustive list of options follows.

  • fishing ships
  • trade ships
  • transport ships
  • war ships (probably multiple types, like frigates, fortress type ships etc)
  • siege ships
  • special purpose ships like the fire ships

They are fully abstract and one should be careful to not associate them with a certain model. Let's use wow's new favorite term mixins, they are just that. If you want good game-play primarily think about game-play and then bend reality as little as possible to follow what you envisioned as mechanics. But sacrifices need be made surely.

Once we have an outline of the types and their roles and what combinations are usable by civs, we assign civs and models to them. If there are leftover models using them to visualize tech upgrades is certainly an option even though this is not common practice in 0ad so far. Might be worth investing into though, was asked more than once why phasing up doesn't visually upgrade structures, seems counter intuitive for many. But I digress, knife model number 15 for females which no one ever sees is apparently more interesting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stan` said:

What do you think of wow's idea to remove trireme and quinquereme boats and make them the same size as biremes and only available through upgrades. A bit like advanced and elite variations.

I agree about biremes and triremes being a single unit line because right now triremes are like biremes but better. Quinqueremes have a different role as siege ships and are capable of garrisoning siege. I think quinqueremes should be a unit line of its own.

Different ship lines will indeed make sense if/when we have ship ramming and/or ship boarding.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stan` said:

What do you think of wow's idea to remove trireme and quinquereme boats and make them the same size as biremes and only available through upgrades. A bit like advanced and elite variations.

Since the sizing is the biggest problem, it would be an improvement.

Our maps are not large enough for accurate scaling of ships.

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

8 hours ago, Stan` said:

What do you think of wow's idea to remove trireme and quinquereme boats and make them the same size as biremes and only available through upgrades. A bit like advanced and elite variations.

I'm not so sure, currently boats seem to be the bigger the better, with bigger boats being faster, stronger, and dealing more damage. While this may or may not be more realistic, I think the ships would be better off in different classes, like citizen soldier infantry:

First, some things for all boats:

acceleration

Smaller footprints (scale them all down some, perhaps to near bireme size like @Stan` said)

Less garrison space for all boats

perhaps boat turn radii?

 

bireme -> faster, lighter, perhaps scout ship.

trireme -> medium HP, speed. Some civ specific upgrades could be applied (metal ram, oarsmen training, any other ideas?).

quinquereme -> slower, more HP troop transport +40 garrison space or catapult variants. (slight visual differences)

Special -> fireship, juggernaut, other ideas

 

 

lastly: thoughts on allowing ships to have turret spaces?

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

7 hours ago, hyperion said:
  • fishing ships
  • trade ships
  • transport ships
  • war ships (probably multiple types, like frigates, fortress type ships etc)
  • siege ships
  • special purpose ships like the fire ships

lol sorry i didn't see this. I guess that means we agree XD.

How do you think what I wrote above fits into those classes?

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents worth. Biremes should be first phase 1. Triremes phase 2. Quinquiremes phase 3. Quinquiremes should be viewed as battleships, I am uncertain as to the current view, but my thought is they must be ship killers primarily, like they were in the past. Simple fix to this is to increase the accuracy again. I once spent a minute trying to hit a lone woodcutter with one in A24, it was embarrassing. For comparison in A23 one could evaporate entire armies and coastlines with just one fully loaded Quinquireme/juggernaught. Which was fun :) 

Decreasing the size of ships might help with the performance issues. Adding more interesting upgrades like borrowing the fire mechanic from the Iberians.

Honestly, why has nobody thought to use this for area damage on catapults(fire pots)? or for use by ranged infantry against siege units(fire arrows)? This would be such a good way to diversify tactical options. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

How do you think what I wrote above fits into those classes?

Ramming and other fancy stuff is not (yet) available so it's out of scope. I haven't even seen a description of that feature which allows an implementation, given someone actually wants to work on one.

About ship movement, turn-rates and the recent addition of acceleration by @bb_ , even if for a bogus reason (dancing) are important cornerstones to improve on movement. I wouldn't call it fully mature yet but it's already worth playing with. I believe to remember @alre and maybe @maroder also did some work in that direction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hyperion said:

Ramming and other fancy stuff is not (yet) available so it's out of scope. I haven't even seen a description of that feature which allows an implementation, given someone actually wants to work on one.

Yes, but my point is that the trireme should have various civs specfic upgrades. I just put metal ram as a possibility, not implying it could be readily implemented.

 

1 hour ago, Freagarach said:

I was referring to something along these lines, although this probably would only apply to fishing boats.

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/56010-did-someone-say-improved-ship-movement/#comment-453813

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 小时前,Fabius 说:

我的两分钱值。 Biremes 应该是第一阶段。 Triremes 阶段 2。Quinquiremes 阶段 3。Quinquiremes 应该被视为战列舰,我不确定目前的观点,但我认为它们必须主要是船舶杀手,就像过去一样。 对此的简单解决方法是再次提高准确性。 我曾经花了一分钟试图用 A24 中的一个樵夫击中一个孤独的樵夫,这很尴尬。 为了在 A23 中进行比较,只需一辆满载的 Quinquireme/juggernaught 就可以蒸发整个军队和海岸线。 这很有趣 :) 

减小船舶尺寸可能有助于解决性能问题。 添加更多有趣的升级,例如从伊比利亚人那里借用火机制。

老实说,为什么没有人想到用它来对弹射器(火盆)造成区域伤害? 还是用于远程步兵对抗攻城部队(火箭)? 这将是多样化战术选择的好方法。

The hit rate of catapults in reality is very low, especially in rough seas, and the stones fired by the catapults usually do not fly farther than the arrows fired from the city walls, so most of the time warships are not equipped with this kind of equipment. Not an effective weapon. It's just that there was a need for a "siege ship" in game design in the past, so there was it.
But in fact, colliding with each other, shooting arrows, and throwing incendiary objects are more common naval warfare tactics. The large-scale ancient warships are usually to carry more soldiers, rather than to equip larger artillery like ironclad ships after the 19th century.
If Quinquiremes itself has two attack methods, that is, it can carry more soldiers and launch more arrows, and at the same time, it comes with a catapult. At this time, the catapult is not the main weapon but a supplement, then I can support you. idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 小时前,Stan` 说:

What do you think of wow's idea to remove trireme and quinquereme boats and make them the same size as biremes and only available through upgrades. A bit like advanced and elite variations.

I don't really agree with that, warships are not shields and armors that can be worn on the body, and even if the sailor goes from novice to veteran, it is too much to directly replace the ship with another new type of ship.
The upgrade and replacement of mechanical equipment should require a certain amount of resources to research related technologies to complete, and the same is true for siege weapons.
But I support making warships visually miniaturized. In addition, I also support that machinery such as warships and catapults can accumulate experience and upgrade from novice to advanced and elite. This upgrade does not require visual changes, because mechanical equipment It has not changed, but the operator is more skilled, can deploy and launch faster, and can hit the enemy more accurately.

Edited by AIEND
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AIEND said:

The hit rate of catapults in reality is very low, especially in rough seas, and the stones fired by the catapults usually do not fly farther than the arrows fired from the city walls, so most of the time warships are not equipped with this kind of equipment. Not an effective weapon. It's just that there was a need for a "siege ship" in game design in the past, so there was it.
But in fact, colliding with each other, shooting arrows, and throwing incendiary objects are more common naval warfare tactics. The large-scale ancient warships are usually to carry more soldiers, rather than to equip larger artillery like ironclad ships after the 19th century.
If Quinquiremes itself has two attack methods, that is, it can carry more soldiers and launch more arrows, and at the same time, it comes with a catapult. At this time, the catapult is not the main weapon but a supplement, then I can support you. idea.

what about the fact that a catapult can sink a ship, while arrows can be of little effect on a ship covered by a canopy?

siege weapons weren't very common on warships for what I know, so you can bet they weren't that important, but there is still a conception among historians, that catapults were a relevant tactical element in mediterranean ancient warfare.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 分钟前,alre 说:

弹射器可以击沉一艘船,而箭对有天篷覆盖的船几乎没有影响这一事实又如何呢?

据我所知,攻城武器在军舰上并不常见,所以你可以打赌它们并不那么重要,但历史学家仍然有一个概念,即弹射器是地中海古代战争中相关的战术元素。

The catapult is not an artillery piece, the stone it fires does not have such high kinetic energy, it cannot easily penetrate the deck and hull, and the catapult cannot shoot directly.
Catapults are actually more useful to throw incendiary objects to burn ships than to fire rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AIEND said:

The catapult is not an artillery piece, the stone it fires does not have such high kinetic energy, it cannot easily penetrate the deck and hull, and the catapult cannot shoot directly.
Catapults are actually more useful to throw incendiary objects to burn ships than to fire rocks.

The ballista can fire stones directly, all the catapults in the game follow this design. So yes they would actually count as artillery. While it may not be really possible to sink a ship with one mounted on a ship it would still do significant damage to a ships superstructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 分钟前,alre 说:

怎么不能直接拍? 弹丸不需要通过甲板。

我的意思是抛石机是弯曲的弹道,不能直瞄射击。

I mean the trajectory of the catapult is curved and you can't aim straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 分钟前,Fabius 说:

弩炮可以直接发射石块,游戏中所有的弹射器都遵循这个设计。 所以是的,他们实际上会算作火炮。 虽然在船上安装一艘船可能无法真正击沉一艘船,但它仍然会对船舶的上层建筑造成重大损害。

In fact, there is a question, what kind of catapult is installed on the warship, I have the impression that this kind of catapult is smaller and is used more.t01f6d0e43fadf910d9.jpg.3e7e5dae5b91eb70af82370ee19c22b3.jpg

  • Like 2
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...