Leaderboard

Done Thank you @Itms Edit: regarding things not correctly placed inside the map, I opened a new bug: #3289.

It's because we moved away from the _generic_ phases. See http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19838 The problem was that, to add a civ-specific town or city phase, the according _generic_ technology had to be edited, as it had the civ-specific techs as a requirement for autoresearch. This meant that it was impossible to combine two mods that both had a civ with a civ-specific phase (as one mod would overwrite the tech of the other mod, resulting in a civ that can't research one of the phases). So we moved to the "replaces" key, in which a tech can "replace" a different tech, and unlock all its content without applying its modifications or its cost. So currently, the _generic_ phases are removed, and the effects are stored in the regular phase tech and the athen phase tech, while the athen phase tech replaces the regular one, so unlocks the same features. See http://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/16678/ for the commit that removed the generic techs.

I'm unhappy with some situations in the game. When you try raze houses you need give order to raze one per one, that's I prefer a switch mode. -switch : capture/raze

2 suggestion: 1. Ptolemy lighthouse should just lift black map from all the water. Should not actually lift all fog of war from the shorelines. My suggestion make more sense and not be so overpowered. 2. Rename "Persians" to Achaemenids. This make sense since other civ are Seleucids and Ptolemies. Ptolemies because can confuse between old and newer Egyptian empires otherwise. Achaemenids because the Persians had 2 major empires, the other being Sassanids. In Psrt 2 you would have 2 "Persians" civs, so good to differentiate now in Part 1 and also teach a little about the name.

Formation is very interesting moment of the game. It gives to battles more epic view. And I think, formations should easy to be controlled. In particular, what's about selection? Is not better to select all formation by one unit?

Formations and stances have been unsatisfactory since several years now. So whatever behavior turns out to be best in the end I strongly suggest that the default behavior is changed to no formation (every unit acts individually) and a stance behavior that suffices most of the time: - In general stay at the point if the last given command or return to it later (to avoid the units spreading across the map) - If attacked (or a unit in "view range" is) attack back - If enemies retreat (to roughly twice the maximum attack range of all unit in the game) return to the point of the last order - Prefer attacking over chasing/moving - Prefer attacking units that can attack over units that can't - Prefer attacking mobile targets over stationary ones - Prefer attacking units that are vulnerable to this units attacks over heavily resistant ones - If a unit has to move to attack (mainly for melee units) prefer a slower and closer targets ...in that order (This is not perfect for sure but it should suffice most situations). That enables us to compare the use of formations and stances to a behavior much less prone to cause bugs/glitches/unexpected or unwanted behavior. This goes for "move formations" as well, since while one of the original idea of formations seamed to be that all units in a formation reach the target destination/enemy units in a short time frame the actual move formation lead to the opposite in many situations. Units distance to target vary more than if they just would try to go there separately (when of the same type or the distance is relatively small) and it takes longer for them to actually attack since they first go from the move formation into the battle formation before even considering to attack while the enemy happily hits them. So before we dive into this again we should really clarify what's the aim of using formations and stances we'd like to achieve and how it's justified to give certain bonuses to them. "Looking nice", "formations where widely used" or "The long range pathfinder only needs to calculate one path" are all valid arguments but do on their own not justify the extensive/default use of formations/stances over a "do what I want".approach that of cause will never be perfect but causes much less hassle for programming, lag (besides the long range pathfinder) and mainly for the player (For me only the attack move order enables me to give at least one command I'd like to give to my units while move orders barely achieve what I have in mind) IMO.

I think no matter how it's implemented, formations to place units will make the game too slow. Perhaps it's better to include a "move" formation for all units (even females). When tasked to a point (rather than a target), units will go in that move formation (probably a 16:9 rectangle, as that's a very natural-looking ratio). When they are tasked to a target, that target can be economical (buidling, gathering, ...) and then they don't use a formation (or perhaps check the distance to see if a formation would be useful). And when tasked to attack, I'd keep special formations as an option for certain civilisations / unit types. Then loose units should fight a formation like they fight a building, deal damage to the formation, and the formation should distribute it logically over its members. So perhaps we first need to focus on the "move" formation, make sure that long walks are fluent, and the distinction between targets., before we focus on battle dynamics of a formation.