All Activity

Regarding range units, my idea was Archer All-purpose ranged unit Slinger Especially strong against ranged units (pebbles are very strong against non-armored or only lightly armored targets) Javelineers Especially strong against cavalry units The gameplay goal is that Javelineers behind a meatshield / walls is somewhat as dangerous to cavalry as Spearmen, and the same for Slingers against ranged units compared to melee cavalry. Thus breaking up the core triangle cavalry > ranged > infantry > cavalry, and allowing to create Civs that have armies that approach threats differently. And yeah, techs that buff a specific unit type to either make it excel at its intended role even more or lessen its weaknesses and is only available to one of a few Civs is another possible idea to make the gameplay approach of each Civ more unique.

Hi guys! Would anybody want to help with the art design for the Classic Warfare AEA mod? Here is the forum https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/140701-classical-warfare-aea/

What if we added an upgrade for each range unit that only a few civs would have that gives the unit, a shield, +2 pierce armor and +1 hack armor?

Ah, wait. I think you think I coded something. Sadly, no, it was just image editing. But I'll get into it at some point. I'm just not very fond of pushing changes, considering all the open tickets I've read there are, most of my proposals are just "what do you think about this?" first, not "this is incorrect, in fact, a bug" (with very few exceptions).

Well if it was an innovation from the Gothic language, why the meaning as a farm or an estate is observed in other Germanic languages? It is the case in Old High German with the word Dorf, which referred to both a farm and a village, furthermore it appears that early glossaries translated it primarily as 'farm' or 'estate' rather than 'village'. It is also seen in Norse languages as well. It is not like þorp meant only 'village' or 'hamlet', it was applied to a farm and to an estate as well. And in Old Swedish, it seems to have retained only its meaning as a farm and not its meaning as a village, see again: So again, not an innovation peculiar to Gothic. There is a body of evidence suggesting that the word came to be used to refer to a village over time. As you can see, I have no problem using another Germanic language. As I said, there are also elements in the Nordic languages that support my criticism of your viewpoint. It is clear that the old Swedish þorp has retained its original character as a single farm. I have shown you the evidence. But I’d like to quote an expert in the field to show that my point of view isn’t some oddity that only I share. Stefan Brink, a renowned philologist on Norse studies, said the following in the book The Viking World (2011): "The medieval element torp, however, must be seen in a context of the huge colonisation in northern Europe during the high Middle Ages, within a new ‘feudal’ agrarian system with a ‘manor’ and dependent tenant farms within an estate. In Germany these tenant farms often had the name dorf (< þorp), and the word for such a dependent farm was spread with the new colonising strategy to Scandinavia. Early on, the element torp must have developed into a meaning of secondary farm, a farm detached from a hamlet etc., hence not always denoting a tenant farm within an estate." Once again, I feel like I’m the only one taking into account the evolution of Germanic society, which underwent profound changes as a result of the great migrations. The Germanic peoples inherited urbanized territories and institutions that were foreign to their customs; century after century, they had to adapt to their new reality. Stefan Brink emphasizes once again that significant shifts took place that altered the meanings of various words. The Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch and the other works dedicated to the study of place-names demonstrated the same. These semantic shifts were related to important changes in laws and in institutions. The naming of the settlements followed different periods of naming, with clear preference from a period to the other. These different naming dynamics are a reflection of the changes in the meaning of words. The entry from Cleasby & Vigfusson Old Norse dictionary (1874) you are referring to says exactly what I said, in Old Norse the meaning as 'farmland' or 'estate' remained. Once again, it is not an innovation from Gothic. And if þurpą is mentioned only once in the entire Gothic bible, this shows that it wasn't a term that was used very often by ancient Germans. It appears only in an agricultural context, referring to the ownership of a farmland. It would be good to be consistent throughout your argument. You went on at length over several paragraphs to explain that the Germanic peoples lived in scattered dwellings surrounded by fields that separated them, only to now argue that the term þurpą refers to settlements where houses are clustered together and built side by side without their own enclosure. You initially assumed that þurpą referred to the scattered dwellings of the Germanic peoples; are you still able to defend that view by arguing that þurpą refers to a cluster of closely spaced buildings? I am referring to this message you posted:

If you don’t know how, here are some basics to get you started.

Create a gitea account and push your changes to the repository. Little cumbersome to set up, but it would be sad to see this change not lasting.

@guerringuerrin Ah my bad, thought those threads were public, it is now

Lots of things are possible yes, But currently it's not exposed. It shouldn't be that hard a patch, but it's C++. For skyboxes possibly too .

(If you haven't already) the best thing you can do is try it and draw your own conclusions.

I don't think anyone wants something like that. There has to be a separation on what is mechanical and what is (too) automatic. Basically, I'd say that if there's only one simple way to do something, then that's mechanical, and if you need a tool that solves more complex issues and/or makes choices, that's automatic. That's why I like auto-queue in vanilla, there's only one simple way to "keep producing these units from this building". That's why I don't like auto-scout, there are many ways to do it, and auto-target is much worse, the point of a FPS should be to aim first. Now, maybe many things in ModernGUI are hard to classify, and then it's a matter of consensus on what would be mechanically boring for most people, and with most people it has to be taken into account that most people here are not necessarily representative of most people overall.

Mmm estoy seguro que la primera son los grandes lagos, y la de abajo es los Andes.

I care about how neat it looks like for someone just starting the game, considering how those panels look like in other games. So a mod wouldn't do

This just reminded me of a time I used a mod in Counter-Strike where all I had to do was hold down left click, and the script would auto-target enemies and get 20+ headshots in 3 seconds. Please don’t turn the game into something like that. If the mouse breaks for too much clicks you can replace it in half an hour. If the game stutter or lag you see it everyday. GG.

When I started playing this game and didn’t know how to play, I looked for mods. Autotrain helped me avoid getting stuck in the early stages of matches, and the GUI showed useful in-game information, which definitely helped. However, over time, as I became more familiar with the game’s mechanics, relying on a feature that performs complex calculations—like pop cap, resources, batch size, and army composition—actually made me lazy. I started to find matches boring, and I lost control over managing my resources. When I began playing more manually, I gained much better control over my economy and units production, maybe I am not as fast like other players that boom faster even without autotrain or autoqueue, however I definitely have more control over my game. Now I have to use my ingenuity during matches to manage the game’s variables, and that makes it more enjoyable for me. It’s also worth mentioning that all the visual elements and large queries the mod uses can impact performance to some extent, and as we all know, multithreading is still a technical debt. The game is beautiful, with lots of details and good graphics, but when a single CPU core gets overloaded and everything starts to stutter, it really hurts the overall user experience. Instead of focusing on overly sophisticated features, improving performance is what will truly enhance the user experience for everyone. (I know more than one case that they think they have bad PC that's why the game don't run well and is not that). All I know is that the more players rely on autotrain in multiplayer, the more players there are that I end up not playing with. This mod should be treated like others (such as Delenda Est, Millennium A.D., etc.), with compatibility checks enabled so it’s used under equal conditions (I have seen some players avoid to host so others don't see they are using ModernGUI.) GG.

I think they just want a standard layout for the icons as they currently exist.

Icons get smaller or you increase the bottom panel size, which would decrease field vision You could probably change this with a mod if you really cared about it

I think the tone was that it was a deliberate choice or design decision. It was not. Or, rather, the decision was "good enough for now" several years ago.

@Thalatta, some players, and I'm part of them, think some aspect of the game-play like formations should have a greater role in this game. And I'm fairly dedicated to make it happen, as much as the development process allows it. My thoughts are really to try getting the game a bit away from this cheap filling of clicky gameplay toward funnier and mentally rewarding mechanics. But it is the hard path from what I've experienced. Much more work for sure. As you can see, there is also a lot of controversy when it comes to vision on the gameplay, which add up to make the triple combo : more work, slow development, resistance to change. But there are a lot of awesome people in the staff, and in this community so there is no reason to give up on making the game better, whatever the path might be. Now about ModernGUI, the mod itself is bundling the work of plenty of awesome modders, and I did a lot of work too to get it where it is, I don't think it's no longer a small project as the incremental enhancement added to the UI are starting to make it something reasonably cool imho. There are so many things you can explore through the various overlays, hundreds of added stylized tooltips, and added pages. Generally the mod is named only for the "autotrain" who, even if I do like a lot for playing, is a bit clumsy in the way it is currently. I'm currently undertaking a total rethinking of it, that will resemble more to a feature that fit more naturally into the game.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the tone", it was an honest question :P, I was thinking maybe the way it's coded made harder to position and order that, and maybe there was a reason to be coded like that, like if it was easier if things were constantly changing, and not worth any arrangement right now. Or if an alternative panel was being worked on already.

@guerringuerrin Thanks for the ModernGUI explanation, I didn’t know all those details. I think its capabilities are very interesting, but maybe for a game that has a lot of complexity in other parts, and as we all know, it’s still work in progress, maybe much of that will be implemented eventually if the actual clicking has be done somewhere else (unit’s formations, abilities, more city-building, who knows). I agree that in MP everyone should play under similar conditions (unless something else is agreed), I use the vanilla auto-queue in SP because all that clicking seems mechanical to me, not because it gives me an advantage, even when at the end I think it does, and although I don’t find the AI challenging anymore, I’d rather fight a much harder AI than deactivate auto-queue. So, it’s not that I want things to be easier, I just don’t want them to be boring, but I guess what is fun or not depends on each one. What really surprises me (and this from ignorance) is why the game in MP mode has not been made to detect which mods are being used by the players (maybe for some reason this is an impossibility?). It’s not that I want to minimise the MP aspect of a game, it's that I feel the opposite happens too often, and I stated what problems I see with that. In fact, as I hinted, I don’t even see it as a MP vs SP issue, but more as a mechanicality vs creativity issue, which is different since both could occur in MP and SP, although in competitive MP there’s a clear tendency for mechanicality, which I find unfortunate since for example a MP battle in Total War can be fun, tactical, and not just a clicking race, but it is what it is.

I don’t agree with this. There are different cases of this. Calculating the exact batch size for your available resources isn’t instantaneous to begin with and it changes over time. (besides 3–5 seconds in the heat of a battle is a long time). Also, we know the vanilla system is buggy so you end up with some barracks having long queues while others sit idle, and figuring out which one is idle takes time. Even when using auto-queue. All of that adds up. ModernGUI does this instantly everytime. No -or almost no- mistakes. Finally, there’s the issue of awareness: the human mind forgets things, and the more elements it has to keep track of, the more likely it is to make mistakes or forget to perform certain tasks and that all adds up over time.

The tone here is incorrect. Sometimes things don't get designed efficiently because people focus on other things. I do like the idea of 'standard' positions for things though.

That's often what is brought up but it might be overstated, as you can already have very low clicks per minutes assigned to managing production if you use vanilla autoqueue. From 0 to 5 apm? 5 being if it reset every 10 sec.