Leaderboard

I think using only individual sounds and not a generic "battle loop" gives a better result in the end and should be the way to go. I would prefer that approach because context sensitive sound in battles make them much more epic than a generic battle track. You should hear it when a horde of elephants charges into battle and you should hear less sword "clang's" when only two or three units with swords are in battle but much more arrow "wuuush's" when you have a big battalion of archers. With generic battle sounds played in loops it will also require a lot of care to make it at least a bit context sensitive but we will always be limited at a certain level. To make the sounds more rich, we need more variation per type of sound like "sword clang" and also more types and more events when they are triggered. A good result is only possible when the implementation and the sounds work well together. I hope Steven (stwf) comes back, he could help with the implementation side. EDIT: I've sent a PM to Steven and told him about this thread.

I wanted to change it this morning but got some trouble with my connection... I will add a temporary name

It might be a good idea to look at how the AI assess players to get a better idea of how to calculate scores. That would be because the AI is typically effective at judging who is the strongest player (and hence the player it attacks first).

To add to the idea, why not make it so that a certain civilization (in this case, Iberians) have units that can ghost through trees by ignoring collision detection? Sort of like how Star Craft miners ignore collision. Perhaps that in order to balance this, can only attack when they're not colliding with trees. Another idea would be to borrow from the two most well-known MOBAs. Both League of Legends and DOTA have bushes that grant the players invisibility, which would work well for ambushes (and it's a huge gameplay element). This idea is less faction-specific than the one above, however. Finally, simply have the Iberians be stealthed when near trees. I believe that Warcraft III's Night Elves and LOTR BFME2 Elves did something to this effect. I'm no programmer, but this sounds like the most conservative option available.

Random maps are coded in JavaScript. So you first have to learn the JavaScript programming language.

No, you don't need to download the public mod, although it is one solution. The alternative is to reset the svn copy to the state of the original repository (thus, the one WFG hosts). In both cases you'll loose your own changes, but not any newly added files. Because of that it is handier to work in a separate mod folder. Any file found in a mod overwrites the data from a file in an earlier included mod. So let's say you want to mod simulation/templates/structures/egypt_mill.xml, it is best to duplicate that file in a mod separate from the public mod (of course, file structure needs to be similar, so the duplicate would go in yourmod/simulation/templates/structures/egypt_mill.xml). In this case though, all you might have to do to get rid of the error is to open the egypt_mill.xml and look for the parent XML file it points to. Without it its data is incomplete as it inherits data from that parent xml file, hence the errors. Simply put, the game engine takes the file, looks for any parent, takes that data if there is a parent xml file and overwrites any values from the parent with those in the current xml file. In this case the parent info should say: <Entity parent="template_structure_economic_storehouse">The name of this xml file doesn't matter much for the current error. Of course, any unit that should be able to build this structure needs the correct name

Hmm, two threads called "My mod" in one day I'll rename them to make it easier to distinguish them (Feel free to change the title of the thread, but please be descriptive and not just say "My mod", or "A mod", or something

To be honest? The point of summary screen is to be... A summary screen. You played a long, few hours game. You wan't to figure out what your enemies did. Let's say there's no replay feature, or that you don't have time to watch a rep. What do you do? You analyse the summary screen. In my first (played) RTS game, Dune 2, and in another one worth mentioning - Warcraft 1 - I was always interested in those filling bars, numbers. It was interesting, especially that I've seen wether I've surpassed my enemy in resources, or not. Maybe I managed to get him down with worse resource production, and I was just a better tactician? Yeah. Summary screen is important, it led me towards my liferoad in some degree, so I guess it does make sense we want to make this thing right. If there was a stat like "player type" to be added - I'd add it as a miscellaneous stat, because it's just something like a cherry on top of a pie. It's not safe to go alone, take one of these: Sorry for the OT ;P

Fighting outside of formation in this time period meant certain death. It meant you had lost cohesion and hence the battle. It's one thing to lose cohesion in the middle of a charge, but it's another thing to have your dudes just mobbing everywhere out of formation. It really shouldn't be that hard to implement a "discipline" factor that makes a formation look a little sloppy. Rome:Total War had it 8 years ago. I believe RTW did it with grayscale PNGs (black specs being slots where soldiers stand in), so it's a bit different than what I propose. I remember talking about this kind of thing with Philip more than once and he always acted like it was reasonable. If anything, soldiers should be using formations even more than they do now. Let's not strip out formations just to solve some buggy behavior. Let's fix the buggy behavior.