av93

Community Members
  • Content count

    458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

av93 last won the day on June 11 2016

av93 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

238 Excellent

1 Follower

About av93

  • Rank
    Triplicarius

Recent Profile Visitors

788 profile views
  1. Now I see the problem: they made it a 14 days kickstarter. I think that they will relaunch a crowdfunding if that one isn't successful.
  2. There is a old wip patch somewhere to show only the generic name as an option.
  3. Civilization meets a city-builder. I would play it, but i feel that they wont make it.
  4. Wouldnt be useful to recollect this info in the multiplayer?
  5. And mods! No need of storage, the page could provide a link.
  6. Well, the only animations that maybe you will need are for gunpowder units
  7. Hmm maybe it could be implemented in this way: slaves in normal mode have a better rates working, but you can use the upgrade component to overwork and exhaust them (losing health but better stats). It could be changed again. Something like your mauryan champ weapon swapping feature. Something like chaos workers in dow1.
  8. What factions belong those two kind of hoplites?
  9. To cool everything down, I think that there's a lot of misunderstanding in this conversation. At first, Wraitii never said to train units individually to form a battalion, just that the engine should support three kinds of behaviours. He specifies that fact later. Then Lion phrase it's very hard to understand. IMHO, cause Lion is in favour of individual units managing, he hasn't wrote a concept that actually the others agree, so the ticket isn't really useful cause the concept is vague and lacks a really good description for someone to implement, being prone to another never-ending discussion about how implement battalions. That's maybe the cause that made Wow write "that his enthusiasm is gone". As Wraitti said, the engine can handle individual units, so no worry about that. Engine supporting "dynamic" battalions, for adding or dividing units should be nice. But the problem is that some wants that game should be based on less or more solid battalions and not mess it up in micromanagement.
  10. If storehouses are free and can be built in neutral territory, losing one isn't a big deal, right? Yeah, you only lose time of the workers.
  11. Sé poco de photoshop y nada de animaciones. Si lo que te refieres es traducir algún texto en concreto, podría. EDIT: No soy un maestro de la ortografía, pero por favor cambiar el título del post (es colaborar, no colavorar)
  12. Sorry I misspelled the sentence. I wouldn't like to portrait them as "savage" people. BTW, a compromise between having and don't having C-S, would be to have only "militia" or "youth warriors" only trainable on the CC, that can work, but that can't be upgraded and have a medium disadvantage against regular barracks soldiers, that step up with the upgrades and the progress of the match.
  13. Just as historic note, animal hunting as never been a big basis of the human diet except some few cultures (like Inuit). We always talk about hunter-gathering tribes, but they really were gathering-hunter tribes, the first performed by usually women.Don't know if Iberian and Celt culture was a heavy hunter society, although I'm for a gameplay>historic realism, I wouldn't like to portray them as barbarians "more on less savage" civs.Of course there was difference between them and the grecoroman culture (for example they had a more individualistic way of fight, in contrast of the Greek and Roman fashion, if my history notions are right)
  14. Why don't add groves to the poll?
  15. Well, don't know if this is the right place, but now that there's a lot of discussion about design, I just found this on reddit. I hadn't read it https://es.scribd.com/document/318886164/AGE-2-Design-Document