13 replies to this topic

[Sef]

So the Barracks is a place where you build soldiers and cavalry (most factions) and I have been thinking lately why not make it so your soldiers are built without any armour on unless you choose them too, if they come out without there armour on they are more efficient at gathering resources and are faster on there feet. The armoured soldier has more armour/health/accuracy/los than there un-armoured side. This doesn't apply to ranged units because they are light armoured as it is. Also doesn't apply to cavalry because there is no point. Maybe you could expand on this like add a Battle alarm to the barracks or civ center that gets all of the unarmed male citizens in the territory to run to the barracks and equip some armour.

[iap]

I had the idea of creating "general" citizens, and then assign them to training to their profession.

[idanwin]

It sounds like a great idea, but I believe there is already a difference between light/heavy units in the game and this doesn't sound like a priority.
The idea of having male citizens run to the barracks would be --- I don't know how to describe it! In aoe you could sound the alarm to garrison you citizens, but to be able to arm them when the enemy is nie! That would be sooo amazing.
It's certainly an idea we should discuss! Even if it doesn't get into the official game, it might be nice to have see if it can't get implemented later on so people can use it in their mods.

This is a bit side-topic, but I was wondering what other people were thinking of the alarm button: where should it be and what should it do?
I had some concepts:
-Per civ center: this would allow you to garrison only in the territory that is under attack
-One button in the global ui that allows you to order all civilians on the map to garrison
-In the form of some kind of "spell": an area effect that orders all civilians inside a certain radius (or that are going into this area) to get to safety

[Brightgalrs]

Tedious micromanagement? No thank you.

If anything make it so you can take armor off of soldiers you train from the barracks.

[Juan Sebastián Gómez]

Brightgalrs, on 30 July 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Tedious micromanagement? No thank you.

If anything make it so you can take armor off of soldiers you train from the barracks.

yeah totally agree. Let's aboid tedious micromanagment.

On the other hand, thae Idanwin's idea of having an alarm system that allows you to garrison only citizens that are in territory that is under attack sound really useful and innovative to me.Why don't we post it? Let's do it right now.

[azayrahmad]

The closest example of this idea is already implemented in the game Stronghold: Crusader. Although in Stronghold, citizens are not created, they came to your town center based on how prosper your city is. In other word, citizens are also one of the resources that gathered, not built. In the game there are barracks and weapon factories. Weapon factories produce weapons,automatically and infinitely as long as there are resources. So in barrack, you don't produce a swordsman with 50 food and 100 metal, but you built it with 1 citizen and 1 sword. In case of knight, 1 citizen, 1 sword, 1 shield.

The automatic system of weapon creation might make your resources management and your weapon amount uncontrollable, unless you manually controlled them. Either way, it is, in the words of Brightgalrs, "tedious micromanagement."

The solutions I suggested to meet your requirement are following:

1. If you build a house, 5 citizens would automatically created (not instantly and not free, mind you. This is just so you don't have to press the button 'create female citizen' ever again. It still takes time to summon all 5 citizens, and your food stock will be reduced too). You can assign them to build or gather. This means citizens are created in houses, not town. Town is only for creating citizen-soldiers. Now since we have female and male citizens, there should be build male house and build female house. Female houses produce 5 female citizens which cannot be converted into soldiers.

2. If you build a soldier (either citizen-soldiers in town center or other soldiers in barrack) one idle nearest male citizen would go to town/barrack and walk out a soldier. If it's a siege weapon, then it's two or three citizens. To save from more micro, there is no weapon factory. So to build swordsman we need 1 citizen, 100 metal.
Remember if no one's idle this would reduce workers so you probably should check all the citizens work again. Also if enemy is already in your city, they could slay every citizen trying to enter the barrack so you need to create soldiers when it's still safe or have some citizens garrisoned there first.

Brightgalrs, on 30 July 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

If anything make it so you can take armor off of soldiers you train from the barracks.

To make this happen, every time you assign a soldier to gather he would automatically drop the armor and became a male citizen again, with citizen efficiency. But if he is needed to be a soldier again he would have to run to barrack again.

Well, this is what I have in mind. I don't even know if the game could actually be modified like that.

[feneur]

I just don't see how that would make the game any more fun or interesting? Adding another step to unit production (or three in your case as you first have to make sure you build enough different houses, and second make sure you have enough citizens to both keep gathering and fighting, and third make sure there weren't any necessary workers taken as soldiers) without adding some benefit to doing it this way is certainly not making the game better. Also, remember that 0 A.D. is a war/economy game (in that order of importance, though of course you need to get a good economy going first in terms of when you do things), so we can't make one side too complicated without making the other suffer (or reduce the complexity of that part to compensate). It's another thing in a game like Stronghold since the emphasis there is more on constructing the stronghold and managing the economy (at least in the ones I've played, haven't played the latest one), and if anything defending against the enemy, and less on attacking.

[majapahit]

Ever try battle realms? The unit concept is interesting.

[azayrahmad]

feneur, on 31 July 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

I just don't see how that would make the game any more fun or interesting? Adding another step to unit production (or three in your case as you first have to make sure you build enough different houses, and second make sure you have enough citizens to both keep gathering and fighting, and third make sure there weren't any necessary workers taken as soldiers) without adding some benefit to doing it this way is certainly not making the game better. Also, remember that 0 A.D. is a war/economy game (in that order of importance, though of course you need to get a good economy going first in terms of when you do things), so we can't make one side too complicated without making the other suffer (or reduce the complexity of that part to compensate). It's another thing in a game like Stronghold since the emphasis there is more on constructing the stronghold and managing the economy (at least in the ones I've played, haven't played the latest one), and if anything defending against the enemy, and less on attacking.

Firstly I apologize for some typo. Assuming that a house holds 10 population, that means creating a house automatically produces 10 citizens. The concept is to replace 'population caps' system with 'citizens available.' I try to view citizens as resources, not just units.


1. Actually, you don't have to make sure. If you want all of your citizen to be able to be converted into soldiers, just create male houses. Female houses are just for players who prefer to have their economy still grow even in total war.
2. I don't see this is any different than the original game.
3. The strategy is to make sure you always keep some male citizens idle/garrisoned inside a barrack/being around barrack. Save female citizens for your important resources.

The benefits:

1. You don't have to worry about creating citizens and population caps. They will be automatically created/replaced (if died) with houses. All you have to do is manage them. Assign them as gatherers, or soldiers.
2. You don't have to decide early. If you don't want to create soldiers yet, fine, you can plan it first while they are already there, being citizens and gathering resources. In original game, I tend to not let the population caps get full, as I don't want to suddenly need soldiers when I hit the caps, only to find out that I spent most of them for female citizens gathering resources that are already abundant. And I hate to kill some gatherers when I hit the population limit and the ratio of soldiers:gatherer isn't what I want.
3. You can build house anywhere and you can build it more than town center. You can build it near important resources, or military buildings. This is better than having to change town center's rally point all the time. And this will make houses' role more important than just adding the population caps.

About Stronghold comparison: I'm just inspired from it (the way it handled citizens). I didn't mean to implement it entirely. Iron ore > weapon factories > armory > barrack = soldier is too complicated for an RTS.

So in short this is not intended to complicate things, but to simplify it (simplify the gameplay, not the game itself). Then again, this is just an instant concept that I developed as I type. I might be exaggerating advantages while overlooking the disadvantages, so you might want to give some views.

[iap]

I like this idea of houses producing citizens and there are special houses for men or women. It adds life to the game.

[Juan Sebastián Gómez]

iap, on 01 August 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

I like this idea of houses producing citizens and there are special houses for men or women. It adds life to the game.

No, too complicated.

[Juan Sebastián Gómez]

iap, on 01 August 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

I like this idea of houses producing citizens and there are special houses for men or women. It adds life to the game.

Sorry but I desagree with Azayrahmad and Iap.

I think the conventional house building system will always be the best.

In fact, struggling with the necessity of building houses because you have no space for more citizens or soldiers is what really add life to the game.

This conventional system is great. Not olnly put your management capabilities to the test, but at the same time is simple.

[Sef]

Brightgalrs, on 30 July 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Tedious micromanagement? No thank you.

I don't think it will be "tedious" because the purpose is it makes your units either resource gathering light armoured guys, or armoured warriors. It would add a harder defend element to the game forcing the player to have wall or a military presents in his base to make sure player doesn't get raided , Example: I don't like the way the bot has his male citizens gathering resources and as soon as you approach his border they magically appear there armour out of no where and all of a sudden hordes of guys have killed your army. If A.I had to equip all of his soldiers before he defended then i would probably do a bit of damage to his base and economy, maybe run away if i had light cavalry.

Juan Sebastián Gómez, on 01 August 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

I think the conventional house building system will always be the best.

I like the conventional way also but too many games have it and it is kind of dull if you think about it. I think 0ad team should make up there own population/housing system, one that's millions times better .
I know there capable of it.

iap, on 29 July 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

I had the idea of creating "general" citizens, and then assign them to training to their profession.

Good idea. And so is azayrahmad's idea of citizens generating over time from your built houses, would be less harsh on noobies who don't really resource race at the start of game and prefer to chill build as i call it.

[azayrahmad]

Juan Sebastián Gómez, on 01 August 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Sorry but I desagree with Azayrahmad and Iap. I think the conventional house building system will always be the best. In fact, struggling with the necessity of building houses because you have no space for more citizens or soldiers is what really add life to the game. This conventional system is great. Not olnly put your management capabilities to the test, but at the same time is simple.

I don't see what's so complicated about it. I rather call it 'different way.'

Conventional system: you have resources > you build house > you decide if you want female citizens, soldier type a or soldier type b > you build them
My idea : you have resources > you decide you need citizens only or soldiers > you build house > you decide you need soldier type a or soldier type b > you build them

But this is especially useful to those who is quite slow at deciding things or those who prefer to take it slow, prefer to scout first then create soldiers composition based on what they think enemy would send. For fast clickers who always got their town center & every unit production busy, this probably might force them to plan what they don't usually plan, thus make it look complicated. So it's a matter of preference, I think.

Probably it would be nice if this system is not general, ie only one civilization have this system. I wonder who'll win

And now that I think of it, I think I'll make a mod about it. Any advice on how to start learning to mod?