Introducing the Official community mod for Alpha 26

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 minute ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

If different civs have different types of slaves or lower social status men or whatever it is/was, then we can call it that and model it that way, and the basic stats and cost and gameplay functionality can remain the same between the civs.

Essentially, yeah. If they had slaves, call them Slaves (Romans, Greek civs, Carthaginians, et al). If they didn't have slaves (Han), call it Conscript Laborer or something. Was just saying the handwringing over the word "slave" is virtue signal-y.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

ok some additional merge requests:

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests

1. ptol houses -40% capture points, +50% build time (could be too much of a nerf, might make it 33% build time later)

2. axe cav buff: unit deals more damage

3. territory expansion and CC/colony cost:

• town and city phase territory increase is 25%, from 30% and 50% respectively
• CC cost: 300 wood, 350 stone, 100 metal
• colony cost: 150 wood, 200 stone, 100 metal.
• This change is designed to increase the importance of expansion and resource management. my thoughts are also that it will make maps "feel" larger, basically more options for strategy.
• compare to @ValihrAnt's mod:https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/68499-territory-mod/#comment-474946

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

https://www.worldhistory.org/Serf/

I'm going to leave this here and not get into an argument.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

it would be nice to use a very general term so we don't need to worry about historical accuracy on a civ by civ basis. Alsoo, it would be obvious that it is the same unit with the same stats.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Essentially, yeah. If they had slaves, call them Slaves (Romans, Greek civs, Carthaginians, et al). If they didn't have slaves (Han), call it Conscript Laborer or something. Was just saying the handwringing over the word "slave" is virtue signal-y.

I get that. But it would also be nice if the people who spit the most vitriol from the depths of 4chan weren't the same people that rank among the most excited for 'slaves.'

I'm not saying it's everyone, but there is a large overlap.

[Fabius]

On 12/10/2022 at 6:13 PM, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I Iike the general idea, but I think it requires new unit models. As for the building to train them, fortress could work, maybe barracks. I think a p2 fortress honestly wouldn't be all that bad, but others might want them trained from CC or barracks.

Wowgetofyourcellphone has a very nice centurion model, in fact he has a couple I believe. So mayhaps you could use his.

I would prefer centurions came from a building other than the fortress, a barracks or civic center seems most reasonable.

That only leaves the stats and bonuses to be hammered out.

P2 fortress I feel would be a step to far, you need siege to break fortresses, all that will do is nullify P2 aggression entirely unless you start adding P2 siege as well.

[BeTe]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

ok some additional merge requests:

https://gitlab.com/0ad/0ad-community-mod-a26/-/merge_requests

1. ptol houses -40% capture points, +50% build time (could be too much of a nerf, might make it 33% build time later)

2. axe cav buff: unit deals more damage

3. territory expansion and CC/colony cost:

• town and city phase territory increase is 25%, from 30% and 50% respectively
• CC cost: 300 wood, 350 stone, 100 metal
• colony cost: 150 wood, 200 stone, 100 metal.
• This change is designed to increase the importance of expansion and resource management. my thoughts are also that it will make maps "feel" larger, basically more options for strategy.
• compare to @ValihrAnt's mod:https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/68499-territory-mod/#comment-474946

 

 

Is expansion actually required if we have plenty of resources around CC? You still can use Barracks to reach that 25%, right? 

Maybe also reducing resources ( metal? )would help?

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@chrstgtr what is your opinion on the gameplay potential of the [male economic unit]? Could it be designed to offer a divergence between booming and turtling? Would that be good for gameplay? 

I am leaning toward that it could be great for gameplay, but needs to be carefully considered.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

47 minutes ago, BeTe said:

Is expansion actually required if we have plenty of resources around CC? You still can use Barracks to reach that 25%, right? 

Maybe also reducing resources ( metal? )would help?

Usually extra metal, stone, or a better woodline can be reached with a barracks or two, but this change would reduce the amount of territory increase that happens when p3 is clicked. I think it also reduces the territory value of colonies too so it is harder to secure a multi-resource location with one colony. I think this will make ccs and map control more important in the game, potentially increasing the value of p2 for map control.

With this change we should probably check to make sure minimum placement distance is not a problem.

[chrstgtr]

18 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@chrstgtr what is your opinion on the gameplay potential of the [male economic unit]? Could it be designed to offer a divergence between booming and turtling? Would that be good for gameplay? 

I am leaning toward that it could be great for gameplay, but needs to be carefully considered.

Sounds like something to experiment with. It’s hard to figure out how it’ll be different than women. Making them captureable or capable of uprisings or something’s seems like a potentially interesting solution. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

4chan

It's an internet troll farm. Hardly worth our consideration.

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's an internet troll farm. Hardly worth our consideration.

I’m just saying there is a lot of toxic personalities 

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

It's an internet troll farm. Hardly worth our consideration.

almost the whole internet is like this since 2012.

I tell you that I take in clandestine forums in Spanish.

basically all the forums (reedits and 4chan clones) and the internet that is not the big tech are like that. except us our specialized forums..The rest of it that isn't trolls, fights or debates is porn.

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

among the most excited for 'slaves

Sound democrat party slaving centroamericans ( call us migrants).

Edited October 14, 2022 by Lion.Kanzen

[real_tabasco_sauce]

ok ok enough off topic. We can agree to test out this unit type in the mod no? I am on board with this.

I am also on board with adding a centurion type unit for romans.

Anyways, any other feedback on the 3 additional merge requests I added above? @BeTe my thoughts are expansion is not required but rather encouraged.

[Lion.Kanzen]

26 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

 

I am also on board with adding a centurion type unit for romans.

What about Auxiliary troops for Romans.

it is more complex. you need a kind of military barracks and some republican units: auxiliary archer (cretan) , Numidian cavalry, Balearic slinger.

[vinme]

22 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

We don't have to give athens 2 new top tier heroes. Just two heroes that are worth training. I can adjust their strength very easily, its just I thought Pericles in particular was a unique and interesting bonus.

yes, im also talking about the same thing, dont misunderstand i dont mean "they arent as op as 3 armor one so i am complaining" i meant they were unusable.

they have to be CLOSE to the 3 armor hero, in value, otherwise no scenario will justify their use.

 

[Stan`]

5 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

 

I am also on board with adding a centurion type unit for romans.

I'm not centurions and legionnaries are out of the timeframe.

[Feldfeld]

5 hours ago, vinme said:

they have to be CLOSE to the 3 armor hero, in value, otherwise no scenario will justify their use.

Considering you can't retrain heroes once they die, yes, there would be.

[Fabius]

3 hours ago, Stan` said:

I'm not centurions and legionnaries are out of the timeframe.

I disagree that centurions would be out of the timeline. legionaries came into being with Marius in 107 BC which is 39 years after the third Punic war ended in 146 BC. Centurions existed prior to that reform with the triple line maniple legion in then current usage by the Roman Republic, which was used throughout the Punic wars.

[Stan`]

5 minutes ago, Fabius said:

Centurions existed prior to that reform with the triple line maniple legion in then current usage by the Roman Republic, which was used throughout the Punic wars.

Sorry should have made myself clearer. The current armor worn by units might be from a later period. So you can have a centurion with a different armor but not the current one.

 

[Fabius]

6 minutes ago, Stan` said:

Sorry should have made myself clearer. The current armor worn by units might be from a later period. So you can have a centurion with a different armor but not the current one.

 

All good  

As I mentioned Wowgetofyourcellphone has several centurion actor skins and I believe he made one specifically for the Republic era, so it would be easy to match the current  armour aesthetic.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

8 hours ago, Stan` said:

I'm not centurions and legionnaries are out of the timeframe.

i guess so. I was thinking Marian reforms were enough justification, but perhaps they were more standardized later. To be honest, Rome has enough units in my mind already.

Edited October 14, 2022 by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

19 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

3. territory expansion and CC/colony cost:

• town and city phase territory increase is 25%, from 30% and 50% respectively
• CC cost: 300 wood, 350 stone, 100 metal
• colony cost: 150 wood, 200 stone, 100 metal.
• This change is designed to increase the importance of expansion and resource management. my thoughts are also that it will make maps "feel" larger, basically more options for strategy.
• compare to @ValihrAnt's mod:https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/68499-territory-mod/#comment-474946

 

what about this? @chrstgtr@Philip the Swaggerless @ValihrAnt @LetswaveaBook

[LetswaveaBook]

25 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

CC cost: 300 wood, 350 stone, 100 metal

CC provides 20 population, like two houses and can produce CS soldiers like a barracks. Also it is a dropsite for resources. So it has a lot of functions. Furthermore it grants territory and garrison space. It also allows you to grab a strategic position. I think the proposed cost is to low.