Leaderboard

Do not fear, the more we can discuss, the better we can improve ideas overall. About (1), I talked about Romans, because I read about them but I guess other civilizations may have similar 'technologies'. About barbarian civs, that's exactly what I meant in the main post: "Civs picks will have direct consequences when/if a siege situation come into the game". In my opinion, barbarians would still be played by aggressive players which wants to brute force the match, or as the perfect complement in team games (thus you will need more synchronization with your team players). Regarding the rest of points, I'm glad this is already planned at some point for the game Of course, as you point out, there is still a lot to learn and think since the capture update but I am sure all together we can bring nice ideas and feedback to our nice devs. Thanks for your compliments. I'll be glad to discuss more. Have a nice day!

Would anyone besides Farwest need this option? If you don't want to read the specific name, read the generic name. We shouldn't have hundreds of options for things nobody changes.

I'm not sure what you are asking; there is a 'Teams locked' option in the match setup, are you talking about it? It doesn't work as you expect it to? How is this related to the trade bug (the topic of this forum thread)?

I agree. But keep in mind that I opened this forum on 2012 (time goes fast!) before adding mauryans, ptolomies and seleucids.

I don't see problem with having cataphract as champion for more than Seleucid civ. In Part 2, the Dominate Romans (Early Byzantines) would have a cataphract as champion (or possible Spear Cav upgrade, making them all but champion). General scheme is to have 1 heavy infantr and 1 heavy cavalry as champions (with some variation on theme of course1). Csn't get much more heavy than a cataphract.

You will now all see the emoticons.

Could you tell what version of the game you are playing?

Player should use caution when suggesting changes just because current alpha play one way or another. Because everyone in alpha 19 go heavy champion does not mean this will be case in alpha 20, using your suggestions or no. Remember that not all gameplay is complete. It is a hope that formation fighting, charging, tramplling, chasing, etc. will change combat with significance. Until thing like these implemented, it is difficult to say that Persians should get to build more than 1 Apadana so that they can train more Immortals. Why not beef them in another way? Like their archers or other ranged unit. In Delenda Est, Immortals have a train limit of 30, but they are traine supremely fast (4 seconds after all research). Not saying this is solution, but it is alternative you don't mention. Just saying there are many way to balance this stuff but until the gameplay complete it should wait. Obvious to me, the team disagree so "balancing" will continue to take up an unnecessary amount of time better spent on adding feature and squashing of the bugs.

There is a planned features page on the wiki, I try to keep it updated. But it doesn't really state if this follow the vision or not.

Agree on Stan. That would really help envisioning as well as taking a look on what we still need to do with the game. People like me who are really on and off with the game and its development would also benefit in that we could track visually the progress of the things made and where we stand now.

I created a ticket for it: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3397