av93

Community Members
  • Content count

    449
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

av93 last won the day on June 11 2016

av93 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

224 Excellent

1 Follower

About av93

  • Rank
    Triplicarius

Recent Profile Visitors

687 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
  3. 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.
  4. 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)
  5. Why don't add groves to the poll?
  6. 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
  7. What is the general opinion on this? It favours rushing, and adds deeper strategy placement and control map thinking.
  8. Well, in a new founded colony away from home, berries have sense in aoe3
  9. Regicide: a no attacking unit could be changed instead of a hero Survival: first wave can be delayed Unknown nomad: You could add additional starting units. (all are easy changes) Instead of adapting the important core decision, adapt the secondary game modes.
  10. When I have time I will write on this. But phase I could be a rock-paper-scissor of spearman (Rush)>tower (Turtle)>javelin cav (Rush) Next tier could add ranged infantry to kill spearman and javelin cav, and melee cav to kill ranged infantry and javelin cav if caught.
  11. Or cavalry shouldn't be able to gather food. Even if you want keep citizien-soldiers, it feels weird cavalry working with herdables: it should be able to only hunt wild animals. But this doesn't fix the problem in some maps.
  12. When I was talking about resources managing, I was talking in a broader view: should I expand, should I build first workers, or soldiers... I was talking about decisions, about time, rather than gameplay. I'm for a low micro economy. I will continue later
  13. I know that there's a lot here being said. Just as a summary or to talk about my vision, here is it. Newer ideas on others fields, but lets start with general vision and economy 1. Realism. The game should be gameplay based on history or historical plausible facts, not a simulator. Gameplay should be a superior objective. 2.Pace of the game: Would like to design a game around 20-30 minutes. 1-hour game should be achievable with some game modes, but it's not the main aim. 3.Economy: RTS are primary economical games: how you manage your resources and try to choke the enemy incomes. In the long run, a player with more resources control should win. So, in general there shouldn't be infinite supplies of resources or those should be marginal (except food to no microing farms). Shouldn't be very microintensive, to allow more focus on decisions and battling. Resource wise, it should be very symmetrical. No need of provinces but some kind of starcraft resource placement divided by zones with resources spots. Eyecandy and art object should break the monotony of the space, but not the resources. I prefer fewer workers with fewer slots of workable resources. Trees could be grouped into Forests (a single entity)1 with some kind of workable points when the unit plays the axe animation, although individual and don't workable trees could embellish the environment. Huntables it's the only problematic "spot" to redesign. The overall feel should be something like, not only I have 10 workers on food, but I have 2/3 of the resources points being worked. Think something like Aoe meets Dawn of War 1. Only very rare case units should cost more than 2 resources I have 2 design layout ideas: -Traditional aoeish: food, wood, stone, metal, with traditional scheme of uses. or - 5 resource. Also with traditional scheme of uses, following DarcReaver proposal, a 5 resource could be added. Don't care about the name of the resource itself, but in my head could be a some kind of high decision and build order making. For example, it could be "money": a resource only gathered by trade, or autogathered in the markets. It could have 3 uses: It could be a more than normal profitable resource for bartering, buying mercenaries (that would always cost this 5th resource) or researching special techs (I'm not talking about only unique techs). Think like aoe3 envoys, that help you to build a strategy. That kind of feel could be achieved with the cost being always numbers multiples of 100, tied to some "level" feel. - Traditional scheme of uses: *food (main resource for progression, units and techs) *wood (buildings, techs and trash units) *metal (techs and no trash units) *stone (defensive buildings, defensive techs, maybe advanced building and militar buildings Other *Corrals feels redundant. For a infinite supply of food, you have farms. Corralling animals to generate resources or cost reductions feels a little out of place IMHO, and unnecessary micro. The models feels a little out of place for cavalry techs or allowance of cavalry production (too small for a stable). MAYBE it could replace farms for the first phase if farms can only be build on farmlands spots away from the starting location, but they should be autoproducing. *Trading congas should be erased. Don't know if limiting trading units or with another idea. Market or Trading spot from aoeIII feels like giving a good strategic edge to the maps. *Bartering shouldn't restore. It should decay with the buying at medium pace, making impossible to sustain the war with unlimited food. *Metal and stone shouldn't be in CC range. (1) Reducing forest to single entities allows to: fewer lag, better resource design management, ability to spawn auras related to the entity like ambushing. I would change them to don't obstruct the units.Also this would help pathfinding (I think that Delenda Est have done this before) Will continue tomorrow
  14. Well, an interesting aoeish way regarding uniqueness of civs would be something like, in cavalry area, having 2 techs: one improve speed and another HP. Most civs should have available only one of them, bending to fast but more fragile, or slower and sturdier cav. Cavalry civs could have both. As example. Would try to write my general gameplay proposal if there's some idea that can be borrowed or criticized (in my own topic). If it helps a little, i'm happy.
  15. Limiting trader units reduces most issues.