You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.21 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » Making an Empire more like an Empire
Bottom
Topic Subject:Making an Empire more like an Empire
deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 03:19 PM EDT (US)         
In the begginning of the game, i have a town center. It is the most important part of my tiny empire. Surrounding it i have 3 villes and i scout. My villes will build houses, mills, lumber camps, mines, ect. From then on, the town center is becomming less and less the center of activity. But this isn't exactly my point. Even in the middle of a game, your "city" is pretty lifeless. All nearby resouces have been depleted. You have several houses that are all cramed together. Lumber camps that once served a purpose are worthless. Same for mining camps. The only activity that happens IN your city are the incessent farmers. It isn't like a real city. The production of troops mostly happens at barracks, stables, ect outside your city or closer to enemy fronts. Surrounding your city are large continents of barren wasteland. Then maybe some massive walls, then wasteland.

Now i don't want to take away from gameplay or fun, but it would be cooler and prettier, and more enjoyable if the city actually looked like a real city.

Possible ways are....
1) Terrain
--a: trees grow back
--b: the ability to plant trees.
--c: pernament mines where villagers dig into the earth searching for gold or stone at a slower rate, but have an infinate income of resouces.
--d: Have a better terrain for where a forest used to be. At the end of an Aok game there are huge circles of brown.
--e: I have always thought the terrain would look 50x more real if it moved. Howabout trees and grass sway with the wind?

2) Houses
--Now there has been some rumors over HG about houses. We don't even know if there will be any. Deathshrimp has hinted at how pop limit will be controlled saying it will be awesom or cool, which suggests its different. One popular rumor is that its determined by controlled fertile land. If its different, then will there be houses? In most Aok screenshots and campaigns, there were roads. But this was eye candy and not implementable in RM or DM.
--a: Have roads spring up automatically on heavily traveled sections. Maybe between two Town Centers, or Two markets, or between allys.
--b: Have the ability to build roads like walls, and friendly units gain movement bonuses.
--c: Maybe have houses spring up automatically around your town, spaced out so units may pass freely. Maybe if your empire gets really big, houses may become apartments, (i'm not really sure if this would fit Norse life.) The futher away from a town center, the move spaced out they are. This would help establish a players territory.

3) City life
--full of farmers. Nothin else.
--a: I'm not sure, but i don't think a city is full of farms, i thought those were on the outskirts. And all of these ideas of mine are just ideas. They may sound radical, and they may have problems, so respond to anyone one of them. Anyway, howabout being able to buy farms at the mill, and they spring up outside your town, no villagers needed. Or maybe villagers could farm, but not have to travel to a mill or TC to dump off there food. If you don't need villagers, farms would have to be expensive, and a limit set on them based on the amount of territory under your control. It would also be nice if they didn't deteriorate, but could be destroyed.
--b: Pernament mines or trees that grow back would increase city activity.

4) Troops
--a: Heres an idea. Click on a barracks, click "train swordsman" A man appears from a house in the city and travels to a barracks. Becomes trained. That way the closer a barracks is to a town, the faster the training time, This stops people from building barracks right next to your town and training gobs of units from nowhere.

Feel free to support or hate my ideas, I want ES to see this. So i may top it periotically.


The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
AuthorReplies:
ThorsHammer_
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 03:30 PM EDT (US)     1 / 21       
Ok heres my opinion on your suggestions:

1):Terrain ideas sound really cool.

2):I would rather have civilians make houses, so you can put them where you want, or make a layout of the city, if you will. Rather than having auto-roads, being able to build roads for increased rate of travel, that would be very handy and cool.

And a Population based on fertile land...Nah, I would rather have a max population, and then if needed, get more food or what not for them(depending on how ES plans it.)

3)The mine idea is great. But they would need to make sure there are mines scattered about the map too, incase you want to increase the rate incoming resources.

4)I love this idea the most of all. (I do it myself, but only because others will if i dont) But building barracks, etc. outside of an enemie's town (or outside your town) is very, very annoying, and hardly realistic.

So having a VILLAGER train as a soilder, would be fantastic. If ES thinks its too much of a hassel to give up their workers for an army, fine, but at least make it so someone comes out of the Town Center and goes to the desired Military Complex to train, so theres no troops poping out of buildings next to your town.

Great ideas you posted, Deadlydentures.

LongSiege
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 04:05 PM EDT (US)     2 / 21       
I really love your ideas!

Quote:

1) Terrain
--a: trees grow back
--b: the ability to plant trees.
--c: pernament mines where villagers dig into the earth searching for gold or stone at a slower rate, but have an infinate

Trees growing back and being able to planttrees is excellent, although I don't like the idea of mines being everlasting. They did this in Empire Earth and IMO it wasn't a good idea.


Quote:

-b: Have the ability to build roads like walls, and friendly units gain movement bonuses

I have heard of this idea before and it sounds good! I think a 1.5 speed advantage would be good! I also think the ability to build bridges wouldbe cool!

I have a personal idea for creating military units! Instead of creating the units from the barracks, stable, archery range of other military building you should have to train villagers into military units. So for example you could send a villager to the barracks where over a certain period of time he is trained into a military unit like a swordsmenor an archer. Military units could also take up 2 population points!

That brings another issue to mind. I think you should need to raise horses for your knights and horse riding unit! The actual kinght and the horse being 2 different units! Sound like a good idea?

Just my thoughts!


http://aom.rtsgamer.com
AoM VIP Alpha Tester
deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 04:25 PM EDT (US)     3 / 21       

Quote:

I also think the ability to build bridges wouldbe cool!


I would love to have bridges. Retractable would be cool too. Maybe even moats.

Quote:

I have a personal idea for creating military units! Instead of creating the units from the barracks, stable, archery range of other military building you should have to train villagers into military units. So for example you could send a villager to the barracks where over a certain period of time he is trained into a military unit like a swordsmenor an archer. Military units could also take up 2 population points!

Thats a possiblity. The way i had thought of it was that just a man would appear( not an actually villager you created) from an house or TC and travel to the barracks and train.
I'm not to sure on the population points. It should probably be wieghed the same.

Quote:

That brings another issue to mind. I think you should need to raise horses for your knights and horse riding unit! The actual kinght and the horse being 2 different units! Sound like a good idea?

In this last series of Screen Shots, there were wild horses. But it seems to be alot of micromanagement. And i'm not sure on the 2 units. It could be cool. Maybe in battle a knight may lose his horse and become a foot soldier.


The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
Stone_Giant
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 04:25 PM EDT (US)     4 / 21       

Quote:

I have always thought the terrain would look 50x more real if it moved. Howabout trees and grass sway with the wind?

I think this ones already there

Quote:

the ability to plant trees.

Don't really need it; I've had 3+ hour games of AoK where there was plenty of wood around

Quote:

pernament mines where villagers dig into the earth searching for gold or stone at a slower rate, but have an infinate income of resouces.

People are always bringing this one up, I personally don't like it.

Quote:

Have a better terrain for where a forest used to be. At the end of an Aok game there are huge circles of brown

Such as?

Quote:

Have roads spring up automatically on heavily traveled sections. Maybe between two Town Centers, or Two markets, or between allys.

Great ways of letting the enemy know where all your buildings are.

Quote:

They may sound radical, and they may have problems, so respond to anyone one of them. Anyway, howabout being able to buy farms at the mill, and they spring up outside your town, no villagers needed. Or maybe villagers could farm, but not have to travel to a mill or TC to dump off there food. If you don't need villagers, farms would have to be expensive, and a limit set on them based on the amount of territory under your control. It would also be nice if they didn't deteriorate, but could be destroyed.

-------------------------

Click on a barracks, click "train swordsman" A man appears from a house in the city and travels to a barracks. Becomes trained. That way the closer a barracks is to a town, the faster the training time, This stops people from building barracks right next to your town and training gobs of units from nowhere

Goodbye fun game, hello balancing issues!

Quote:

Have the ability to build roads like walls, and friendly units gain movement bonuses.

Might work.....

Quote:

That brings another issue to mind. I think you should need to raise horses for your knights and horse riding unit! The actual kinght and the horse being 2 different units! Sound like a good idea?

Its up there with making you create flax farms to clothe your villagers .

Just my Opinion,
Stone_Giant

InsaneCow
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 04:26 PM EDT (US)     5 / 21       
For everyone who wants to train villies into units:
Go buy Battle Realms.

I like most of you ideas, especially tree regrowth and moving grass/leaves.

For your #4, is the guy that pops out of the house a villie? And can this guy be killed on his way to the training facility?


I lost in the AOE3H FRR
Support Gay Pride!
Michael Jackson is innocent!
G-Dubs is the greatest president evah!
deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 04:36 PM EDT (US)     6 / 21       

Quoted from me:

the ability to plant trees.


Quote:

Don't really need it; I've had 3+ hour games of AoK where there was plenty of wood around

Maybe, maybe not. I've played games where i've run out of wood, and it only lasted 1 hour. Also, i'm talking about appearance.

Quoted from me:

pernament mines where villagers dig into the earth searching for gold or stone at a slower rate, but have an infinate income of resouces.


Quote:

People are always bringing this one up, I personally don't like it.


Why not. Tell me why. Is there any specific reason? Or it seems unnatural or something?

Quoted from me:

Have a better terrain for where a forest used to be. At the end of an Aok game there are huge circles of brown


Quote:

Such as?


I don't know, like REgualr Grass. or something so that it looks normal.

Quote:

Goodbye fun game, hello balancing issues!


How so? I don't see any balancing issues. How will it take away from the fun? Give me reasons.

Quoted from me:

Have the ability to build roads like walls, and friendly units gain movement bonuses.


Quote:

Might work.....

Well, at least you gave ONE positive comment.



The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
Stone_Giant
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 05:02 PM EDT (US)     7 / 21       
Sorry deadly, I didn't mean to offend ya .

Quote:

Why not. Tell me why. Is there any specific reason? Or it seems unnatural or something?

The less games become more drawn out and longer, the better . Not that I'm asking to be able to kill someone with a 5minute rush though.

Quote:

This stops people from building barracks right next to your town and training gobs of units from nowhere.

Take rushing away from an RTS game and see how many mail bombs you get each week from the hardcore gamers .

Stone_Giant


SoR_Anarchy
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 05:19 PM EDT (US)     8 / 21       
DD, this is a rts game. Not sim city or civ3. AoM and other other age games are about having a large army and sustaining that army; then you crush your enemy.

God Bless America.

I am the state.

deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 05:19 PM EDT (US)     9 / 21       

Quote:

Sorry deadly, I didn't mean to offend ya


No problem.

Quote:

The less games become more drawn out and longer, the better . Not that I'm asking to be able to kill someone with a 5minute rush though.


Thats why it shouldn't produce gold that fast. Maybe it should be like a farm, and should only assign one ville to it.
Attacking takes more resources than defending. It would also make players strive to get as much territory as possible so they can build more farms and mines. So even if it takes 3 hours, it won't be boring.

Rushes are alright. There are those who love them because they know how to do it fast, and there are those who hate them because they suck at it. ES has specifically said that they want to get rid of the rush to get to an age, but they want fighting in the first age. So instead of a rush of several units destroying villagers, it might be archers vs archers.
In AoE, Rushing was everything. If you weren't fast, you were dead. Even if you were fairly fast, if you go agaist someone faster you're dead.
In AoK, it was much better, you could hide your villagers in your TC and towers. You almost needed siege to take a town. I have never played a 2 hour game in which almost every sec i wasn't busy fighting or building or something.(except for hunting down some hiding units) Only when you have a couple of people who want to play defence is when you have your really long and boring games. But as i stated, the agressor will have the advantage in this game, b/c of the more land he controlls, the better he is off.


The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
Sir_Deraj
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 05:26 PM EDT (US)     10 / 21       
My favortie idea was how the villies could permantly dig under the earth however as they kept digging it would get slower and maybe after a few hours it would hardly move at all.I am sure ES could balance it all out.I also like the idea that your popualtion is based on the amount of fertile land you have it would prevent players from turtling becasue if they did and the other player occupied most of the map the turtler would have a far lower pop limit howevr there should be a minium limit if it works like this.

I came
I saw
I conquered
PROUD MEMBER OF THE LONELY KNIGHTS CLAN
deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 05:27 PM EDT (US)     11 / 21       
some of my ideas may be a bit much, as i said, but i don't think my ideas are like Sim City or Civ3( the wild horse needed to be knights is Civ3'ish). Alot of my ideas were more of automation. I know they focus alot on graphics and beauty, but that was the major focus in this post. I don't believe any of my ideas had diplomatic victories or non-military victories involved. BTW, RTS isn't ALL about having a large army and sustaining and fighting with it. Real-Time-Stradegy. Its mostly played in the conquest fashion, but even then, it has more parts. King of the Hill? Winning by Wonder or relics, or howabout score? But you have to have an economy to develope an army, which often seperates the noobs from the pros. Anyone can click some buttons and make some units and send them to fight.

The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
Alexandergreat3
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 05:34 PM EDT (US)     12 / 21       
1) Terrain
--a: trees grow back
--b: the ability to plant trees.
--c: pernament mines where villagers dig but have an infinate income of resouces.
--d: Have a better terrain for where a forest used to be.
--e: trees and grass sway with the wind?

A) Cool!
B) good idea. perhaps u can plant them like u do with farms.
C) a lot of people didn't like this in EE, and if they make this in AOM, they must do it different somehow. I hold my judgement on this.
D) Grass terrain would regrow over the brown terrain after time. This would be very easy for 3D engine, since terrain can be easily deformed.
E) It's already in EE and I think it's already in AOM.

a: Have roads spring up automatically on heavily traveled sections. Maybe between two Town Centers, or Two markets, or between allys.
--b: Have the ability to build roads like walls, and friendly units gain movement bonuses.
--c: Maybe have houses spring up automatically around your town, spaced out so units may pass

A) Awesome idea! In the old Egyptian SS, I think they have this.
B) Roads must cost very cheap, fast to build, and give lots of speed bonus, otherwise people wouldn't want to spend their time and resource building them.
C) This wouldn't be good, because if I was playing, I'd rather have the option to build my houses where I want them to be. I wouldn't want them to pop up randomly and take up building space. Not a good feature.

3. howabout being able to buy farms at the mill, and they spring up outside your town, no villagers needed

That would be too easy and take away the fun. Plus, if the farms spring up outside my town, they would be easy targets of raids, and I wouldn't want that.

4) Troops
--a: Heres an idea. Click on a barracks, click "train swordsman" A man appears from a house in the city and travels to a barracks. Becomes trained. That way the closer a barracks is to a town, the faster the training time, This stops people from building barracks right next to your town and training gobs of units from nowhere.

Good for realism, but would be hard for game balancing, I think. Might be better for Scenarios and campaigns.

deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 05:47 PM EDT (US)     13 / 21       

Quote:

C) a lot of people didn't like this in EE, and if they make this in AOM, they must do it different somehow. I hold my judgement on this.


How did they do it in EE, and what was hated about it?

Quote:

C) This wouldn't be good, because if I was playing, I'd rather have the option to build my houses where I want them to be. I wouldn't want them to pop up randomly and take up building space. Not a good feature.


i can see the problem in this, and i thought of it before i posted it, but decided, what the hell, maybe someone will think of a good way to get around it. Maybe it'll just move to another spot. In other words, it wouldn't prevent anybuilding, it would just disappear and appear at another spot.

Quote:

That would be too easy and take away the fun. Plus, if the farms spring up outside my town, they would be easy targets of raids, and I wouldn't want that.

True. Maybe one would have to build towers and castles or stuff to protect their outter territory too?

Quote:

Good for realism, but would be hard for game balancing, I think. Might be better for Scenarios and campaigns.

I know, it was an idea. Maybe just forget the villager and increase the time of production based on distance from nearest TC. But wait, then one would just build a TC, and THEN build barracks. Maybe the first TC, or average distance.


The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
IV1066
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 06:39 PM EDT (US)     14 / 21       
In order to keep the graphic effect you want of seeing people go from house to barracks and then get trained (which is straight out of city-builders, but that's cool. ), but not make the game less fun, you could have it so the unit cover the distance in the time it takes to build the unit. So instead of just seeing a bar go up in the barracks, you'd see the guy walking to the rax too. Might be an issue with the Norse if they pump infantry out like the Goths did... having to see a unit cover the length of the screen in 5 seconds would be nuts.
deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 06:52 PM EDT (US)     15 / 21       
never played city builders. Maybe the Norse should scooters or skateboards or something.

But on a more serious note, i don't think training time should just be how long it takes the unit to transverse the screen. For instance, knights take longer to make, or what about siege? One might want a combination.


The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
vladimir87
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 07:11 PM EDT (US)     16 / 21       
deadly dentures, you ahve some real great ideas... but being the mean person I am I hardly agree with any of em

Most just will make the game more complicated, more unbalanced, and less fun...

1.a. trees grow back- this wouldn't happen in a day if you want realism (wait a sec, vills wouldnt cut trees in a day, nevermind.) Still, I have no problem with expanding out a little... It makes it harder to defend, and I ahve no problem with taht... That is the way it works... Maybe they could grow back... very...very....slowly

b. ability to plant trees- would this cost resources? why would u bother? It would just be easier to go on outward.

c. permanent mines- I really dislike this one... Why expand at all. What's the point in capturing the mines. We want there to be sort of spheres of power one might want to take over, such as choke points or economy spots... This just would make the game less interesting never being able to touch the other guy's vills...

d. better deforested terrain- uh... well... I guess that's a good idea. I mean, that's what deforested ground is like though, brown and desolate... Maybe some stumps

e. terrain movement- grass swaying seems really hard, even for the BANG, but it would be nice..


2. a. well we know houses have some role, they must, as they are in many of the screenshots... I REALLY dislike the fertile land idea... I don't know how that's supposed to work, send a scout and claim it as yours? No, ES plz plz plz stick with normal houses for the population limit

b. have roads spring up- nice! I like that... Or maybe the grass sort of gets trampled

c. Auto-building houses that depict what territory you have- It's all for show. And AOE isn't about show, its about conquest. Vills MUST build houses, and the houses MUST have the same role as before I think... Imagine how annoying it owuld be to have all those houses everywhere when you attacking. I'm the kind of gy who leaves no prisoners, and razes everything except the walls to the ground... I would hate that

d. farms outside city limits... Hold on a sec, you are trying to change everything AOE stands for... Once again, this isn't Caesar III (that is your kinda game). This is fast to feudal look out for rush warfare. I don't wanna have my farms out in teh middle of no where! I want them next to my TC for protction. I don't like all this stuff for better looking towns, you really need to get Caesar III :P

e. permanent mines- look up- I don't like them

4. a. Oh my your REALLY out to change AOE aren't you lol. Now you want to eliminate forward bases huh? :P ... Units are trained at barracks, come out at barracks, and can fight right from out of there. That's what you need for a rush, and that's the way is HAS to be

Sorry to disagree and argue so much, but I really am not for the city-building AOE game (Though Sim City and Pharoah are really great games)... I think you will LOVE the AOM scenario editor...

deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 07:24 PM EDT (US)     17 / 21       
vladimir87--
no problem man, i appretiate(sp) the critism(sp)

The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
IV1066
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 07:37 PM EDT (US)     18 / 21       

Quote:

But on a more serious note, i don't think training time should just be how long it takes the unit to transverse the screen. For instance, knights take longer to make, or what about siege? One might want a combination.

No, no... you misunderstood me. When I click on the stable to build a knight, a unit (can't be killed or controlled... it's just there) comes out of a house or TC, and in the time it takes to build the knight, the unit walks from the house to the stable. And then, a few seconds later (ie, when the knight finished being built), he pops back out as a knight. The end knight wouldn't move at the same speed as the little dude from the house.

Quote:

never played city builders.

You should... Pharoah and Zeus are as fun as AoK, except you revel in the creation of greatness, not it's destruction. The Impressions games are just awesome.

deadlydentures
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 07:45 PM EDT (US)     19 / 21       
oh, so some units will walk pretty slowly(knights), while others are running (archers)?

The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
Clarissimus
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 07:59 PM EDT (US)     20 / 21       
My response:

1)
--a: The problem is that unlimited resources make for a very long game.
--b: Too much micro.
--c: Ditto on unlimited resources. If all we want to do is change the look and feel of the game let's not mess with actual gameplay.
--d: I agree here. (But all the graphics are gonna be better anyway, right?)
--e: Good idea here too. I hope this is already implemented.

2)
--a: I like it, as long as it doesn't take up too much memory keeping track of where every villager walks
--b: Eh, maybe. It just doesn't seem realistic that only the friendly units would benefit.
--c: I don't really like this. The actual placing of the homes can affect strategy. I'd rather have a bunch of homes crammed together to fill in that gap in my walls than have them sprinkled randomly but aethestically throughout by town.

3)
--a: Too complicated, too unrealistic.
--b: Ditto for above comments on unending resources.

4)
--a: This could be an interesting idea. Houses might work similar to the power cores in SWGB. So rushing would be a little bit tougher but still feasible since you would need a house next to your forward military buildings.

I am against the idea of trying to stop rushing altogether. In AoK you could play Black Forest if you wanted to turtle and Arabia if you wanted to rush, so your options were still open. But forcing players to do one or the other is a bad idea.



"It may come as a shock to you . . . You can have fun and be serious all at the same time."
IV1066
Mortal
posted 21 January 2002 08:04 PM EDT (US)     21 / 21       

Quote:

oh, so some units will walk pretty slowly(knights), while others are running (archers)?

It also depends on how far they have to travel, but, yes, the pre-archer would move faster than the pre-knight since it builds faster, assuming they're treavelling the same distance.

You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames