suggestions Thread for posting suggestions for Alpha 27.

[Fabius]

1 minute ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Tower buffs should be very carefully tested so that it is not too OP to tower rush. Currently towers are fine IMO. We do not want overall strong defenses. What this looks like in multiplayer is A24, where the entire map gets built up if the game is not ended by rushes. It is extremely terrible gameplay.

Think about it: If defenses increase the likelihood of your victory too much in a given battle, then 0ad becomes a battle of defenses where both sides just stare at each other in a game of chicken.

Currently, fighting under an enemy tower, fort, or temple makes things a little harder but the battle is certainly winnable provided you have better micro, better unit composition/upgrades, or more units. 

A fair point, but towers are only ever as useful as whats in front of them. I never build towers in game anymore as they serve no purpose beyond being a vaguely annoying distraction to the opponent and me if they get captured, whats more they cost resources that are better used elsewhere. 

That being said I would prefer stronger walls over towers at this stage, after all there is a garrison bonus on walls, and I would like to have incentive to investing stone into passive fortifications.

[AIEND]

Just now, Fabius said:

一个公平的观点，但塔只能与它们面前的东西一样有用。 我再也不会在游戏中建造塔楼了，因为如果它们被俘虏，它们只会对对手和我造成模糊的烦人分心，而且它们会花费在其他地方更好地使用的资源。 

话虽这么说，在这个阶段我更喜欢更坚固的墙壁而不是塔，毕竟墙壁上有要塞奖金，我希望有动力将石头投入到被动防御工事中。

I want towers to be uncapable or hard to capture, so at least the enemy has to carry a battering ram to destroy these obstacles.

[Fabius]

1 minute ago, AIEND said:

The problem with stone walls is that they need to be built in territory, which means you need to wrap your town in a full circle to be safe, but it's stupid, because on the one hand it limits the development of the town, and at the same time there is a lot of narrow terrain on the map , only a narrow section of wall is needed to block the road.

A sensible player would work with that and try to channel the opponent into crossfire and other disadvantageous situations. If you want to encourage players to think beyond P3 = Ram= victory then you need to give them more options and better ones.

1 minute ago, AIEND said:

I want towers to be uncapable or hard to capture, so at least the enemy has to carry a battering ram to destroy these obstacles.

That is reasonable

[Fabius]

Ideally it would be good to see some kind of wall buff for A26 already rather than A27. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

18 minutes ago, Fabius said:

I am against deleting trees because this can be abused by Rome to delete an opponents forests. Also forests are good impediments to rams and elephants which is why forests in front of walls are good.

Ideally it would be upon wall completion. But I suppose we actually dont have to delete the trees, it just might look a bit weird.

Walls provide a great way to stop attacks that would outmaneuver your army and attack your economy. Extra hp for walls would just slow down gameplay too much. 

25 minutes ago, Fabius said:

Gaps in walls while problematic aren't a big issue when you can quite literally go through walls with little effort

This would make sense if you only ever played infantry vs infantry. Since rams/eles are required to break walls, it means cavalry need to be there to protect them also which limits their mobility and makes defending with infantry easier even if there is a breach. I like the idea of walls being useful but I am very afraid of an a24 type situation where it is impossible to move anywhere.

[Fabius]

2 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Ideally it would be upon wall completion. But I suppose we actually dont have to delete the trees, it just might look a bit weird.

Walls provide a great way to stop attacks that would outmaneuver your army and attack your economy. Extra hp for walls would just slow down gameplay too much. 

This would make sense if you only ever played infantry vs infantry. Since rams/eles are required to break walls, it means cavalry need to be there to protect them also which limits their mobility and makes defending with infantry easier even if there is a breach. I like the idea of walls being useful but I am very afraid of an a24 type situation where it is impossible to move anywhere.

I don't remember A24 being that immobile, I just remember annoying archer blocks and having to use consular guard as that was the only thing capable of blunting them effectively. 

I will also point out that catapults have far higher crush damage now, which I will say I am looking forward to as I believe they are now strong enough to kill a ram in one hit if upgraded. 

So perhaps it is best left until A27 since I think that the new potential for active defense may negate any need for a wall upgrade  

[Lion.Kanzen]

36 minutes ago, AIEND said:

The problem with stone walls is that they need to be built in territory, which means you need to wrap your town in a full circle to be safe, but it's stupid, because on the one hand it limits the development of the town, and at the same time there is a lot of narrow terrain on the map , only a narrow section of wall is needed to block the road.

I saw a video of what you say.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxmY0oip3sWEP-edBazqRSJUzBKoIG3PnY

Is clip of YT.

[Lion.Kanzen]

41 minutes ago, AIEND said:

hard to capture

this is fine. there should be a rule to capture if the building is damaged and uncapturable if not.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

32 minutes ago, Fabius said:

I will also point out that catapults have far higher crush damage now, which I will say I am looking forward to as I believe they are now strong enough to kill a ram in one hit if upgraded.

A turtlers' dream lul. 

I don't think that defensive structures need any overall buff, but I do think that an infantry player should have some ways to restrict cavalry movement. Palisades work as long as you are not facing any melee cav which can kill it in 5-10 seconds. Stone walls would be nice as they are stat-wise, but they are too hard to place since they can't be put over trees and can't be in neutral territory like palisades.

[Yekaterina]

5 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Palisades work as long as you are not facing any melee cav which can kill it in 5-10 seconds. Stone walls would be nice as they are stat-wise, but they are too hard to place since they can't be put over trees and can't be in neutral territory like palisades.

Perhaps a tech to upgrade palisades, not necessarily into stone walls but something that counters hack damage. 

[AIEND]

35 分钟前，Lion.Kanzen 说：

这可以。 如果建筑物被损坏，则应该有一个规则来捕获，如果没有，则无法捕获。

Command & Conquer: Red Alert has a setting where you have to reduce the HP of a building to 25% in order to capture it.

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 minutes ago, AIEND said:

Command & Conquer: Red Alert has a setting where you have to reduce the HP of a building to 25% in order to capture it.

75-50%% I think it is fair in 0 A D.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

18 minutes ago, Sevda said:

Perhaps a tech to upgrade palisades, not necessarily into stone walls but something that counters hack damage. 

Ideally an infantry army could take them down quickly but cav not. I would prefer a .3x counter of cavalry vs palisades.

It might give reason to make inf for rushing in p1, a strategy which usually fails this alpha due to cav.

Edited April 27, 2022 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Fabius]

25 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

A turtlers' dream lul. 

I don't think that defensive structures need any overall buff, but I do think that an infantry player should have some ways to restrict cavalry movement. Palisades work as long as you are not facing any melee cav which can kill it in 5-10 seconds. Stone walls would be nice as they are stat-wise, but they are too hard to place since they can't be put over trees and can't be in neutral territory like palisades.

The Roman dream  

[AIEND]

3 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

75-50%% 我认为 0 A D 是公平的。

I think the remaining HP can't be higher than 50%, and the occupied tower should be easier to destroy by the counter if it is not repaired or protected by the army.

[Lion.Kanzen]

15 minutes ago, AIEND said:

I think the remaining HP can't be higher than 50%, and the occupied tower should be easier to destroy by the counter if it is not repaired or protected by the army.

It gives perfectly the excuse  for make another complete topic.

"Defensive building capture and repair".

[real_tabasco_sauce]

3 hours ago, Fabius said:

I don't remember A24 being that immobile

it was because of buildings and because of all inf being slow.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

18 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

it was because of buildings and because of all inf being slow.

And because the range and effectiveness of archers reduced the area that was safe to travel through.

[Freagarach]

On 26/04/2022 at 2:06 PM, Fabius said:

It would be a nice idea, but unfortunately i believe there is an issue with turret mechanics currently. I was interested in having wall turrets for catapults and it was mentioned the code was unable to support that. Whether things have changed since then I do not know, one would have to ask the coding team.

That being said the other issue is that it is not really efficient as you either have to manually control the archer or have it on auto pilot, neither are particularly useful in the long run.

Catapults can be turreted on walls, one just needs to give the catapult the "Turretable" component.

As of the turret mechanic issues, there is the issue that turreting a unit on another unit makes that you'll need to task the turret to attack something specific if you don't want it to have its own will. The supporting unit likely has no attack of its own so there is some order descrepancy. ;(

[Fabius]

On 28/04/2022 at 6:48 AM, Freagarach said:

Catapults can be turreted on walls, one just needs to give the catapult the "Turretable" component.

As of the turret mechanic issues, there is the issue that turreting a unit on another unit makes that you'll need to task the turret to attack something specific if you don't want it to have its own will. The supporting unit likely has no attack of its own so there is some order descrepancy. ;(

Awesome. I would love to see catapult turrets as an option in the near future.  

 

[Philip the Swaggerless]

On 20/04/2022 at 9:54 AM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

lastly: thoughts on allowing ships to have turret spaces?

What if ships had no firepower other than their turreted ranged units and an anti-ship ram for some ram ships and a catapult for quineremes?

What if there was a "board enemy ship" feature for ships when adjacent?

What if ships had capture points and could be boarded and captured?

Feature request: When you select a number of boats and soldiers, click a button to have all soldiers evenly divide themselves and garrison (or turret) onto the boats. Also a button to have the soldiers evenly repair all the boats. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by Philip the Swaggerless

[LetswaveaBook]

2 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

On 20/04/2022 at 4:54 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

 

What if ships had no firepower other than their turreted ranged units and an anti-ship ram for some ram ships and a catapult for quineremes?

What if there was a "board enemy ship" feature for ships when adjacent?

What if ships had capture points and could be boarded and captured?

Feature request: When you select a number of boats and soldiers, click a button to have all soldiers evenly divide themselves and garrison (or turret) onto the boats. Also a button to have the soldiers evenly repair all the boats. 

I would like ships to have 3 ways to combat other ships:

-having turreted soldiers/catapults/balisatas

-ramming

-capturing/boarding.

But this can probably not be achieved by a simple changes in parameters.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

There never can be consensus on anything. lol

 

If anything, I'd go the opposite route and forget about "units on the deck" and turretable stuff (unless the ships comes automatically with a turreted catapult or it's some kind of upgrade). Manually placing stuff on the decks would be a pain for anything more than a half-dozen ships. If you just want small squadrons of ships for your naval combat, then I guess that's fine, but you still have the huge problem of the scale of the current ships. 

I think the engine should allow for manually turretable things, but the core game should streamline the ship combat and shrink the ships to around the current "bireme" size.

[Lion.Kanzen]

18 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

There never can be consensus on anything. lol

 

If anything, I'd go the opposite route and forget about "units on the deck" and turretable stuff (unless the ships comes automatically with a turreted catapult or it's some kind of upgrade)

that sounds more logical and natural. it's like tunning a vehicle 

[Philip the Swaggerless]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

placing stuff on the decks would be a pain for anything more than a half-dozen ships.

It's already a pain. Whether or not turreting is implemented a button to auto-sort selected units into selected ships would be a huge quality of life improvement for naval maps.

Edited May 1, 2022 by Philip the Swaggerless