Leaderboard

Starting with the Carthaginians, since I've been messing around with them already. Damaged texture variations! Ground decals might be important too, there might be too many models to actually smash these buildings into 3 levels of destruction on the 'mesh level' but at least there's a visual indicator for building damage that isn't eternal fire

#3 i am just happy that i figure it with blender out

For units I will do this of the format for easy UI identification. You will see also standard pose for unit types. Support Units - Female Citizens/Roman Citizen/Roman Slaves (Male&Female)/Trader/Priest - Orange Pose: Dignified. Slight off to the right. (Above: Spartan Woman) (Above: Egyptian Woman) Citizen Soldiers - Blue (Above: Principate Legionary Swordsman) (Above: Athenian Hoplite) Mercenaries - Green (Above: Egyptian Thyreos Spearman) (Above: Celtic Archer) (Above: Thracian Blackcloak) Champions - Red (Above: Indian Maiden Guard) (Above: Spartan Olympic Champion) Heroes (if they do not have a painted portraiture) - Purple

ok, my 3ds max export wont work, but blender very well other questions: how to load png with alpha? how to add 2 meshes on the same anchor?

You can play with "Conquest Units" victory condition enabled.

Hello community, Since I was trying to improve meta-game by doing tickets related to the design docs, I decided to integrate all things I've been implementing (along with design changes I propose), and collect them into a mod so devs and players can try them and comment about the changes I'm offering to improve the game experience. I tested a lot the actual meta-game by trying the three tactics, and I found it plain, since most civs feel the same; all of them go to champions (except ptole and maybe minor rushes) and all of them grow exactly in the same way. At least I wanted to make each civ win with something different, making the metagame more diverse and interesting. Mayor aspects: Design: Rush civs: Strong against eco, weak against wall. Stronger in age 1. Early/free access to economic structures that can accelerate their growth. Early access to economic units. Easy difficulty. Wall civs: Strong against rush, weak against eco. Stronger in age 2. Early/free access to defensive structures. Early access to champion/siege units. Medium difficulty. Eco civs: Strong against eco, weak against rush. Stronger in age 3. Access to the most powerful structures. Access to the most powerful units. Hard difficulty. Champion costs: Rush civs: 150 food/wood/metal infantry (except persians), 200 food/wood/metal cavalry. Wall civs: 100 food/wood/metal infantry, 150 food/wood/metal cavalry. Late civs: 50 food/wood/metal infantry, 100 food/wood/metal cavalry. The diff I'm attaching contains the basic aspects of the game, it will be updated on this very post. If you don't know how to get the patch working I'll upload the mod soon. Thx you all for your time, please if you want to test this don't hesitate to contact me so we test For developers: MetaGameV2.patch PlayerFilesGenerator.sh For players: MetaGameV2.zip

Ok, well then he indeed seems to be lying, sadly.

This guy is a serial liar. I suscribed to the "age of kings heaven" forum, and it seems he has stolen lots of material from age of empires 2 modders too...I think his nickname is Enkeli.

The Carthaginians have their unique harbor in the form of two docks instead of just one like other civilizations, the Namel (Commercial Port) and the Cothon (Naval Shipyard), since it is kind of hard to adequately represent something like a massive harbor in normal play. That only really works in scenarios and eventually campaigns. It has already been rather difficult to adequately depict their triple walls and mercenary based military within the limits of the established gameplay mechanics, so this two dock system was the only way we could come up with to give them a naval bonus, though the Cothon could still use some type of repair functionality, possibly making it the naval equivalent to a Temple, to make it an effective naval bonus.

That feature is ( the formations) it's called battalions.

I hope the first image is clear enough Otherwise I can redo that one See the lower one to get a clearer picture of the layers + layer styles

To me it seems like added complexity without enough benefits. Especially since we have a ton of buildings without that much difference already. If so make one bigger and one smaller, that way the difference could be: small, cheaper temporary fields which can only be gathered from with one unit, bigger, more expensive, fields with infinite supply which can be gathered from by multiple units. That way there would both be a bigger difference than just gather rate, and also incentive for building farms farther away from the Civic Center which would make raiding farms more viable. Just a thought

Somewhere in your actor file there is a <material> tag. That should be this: <material>player_trans.xml</material> (this is with only transparency, with AO, normal and specular you need something else) For the second question: <props> <prop actor="props/structures/athenians/barracks_struct_b.xml" attachpoint="root"/> </props> Make a prop tag inside the <variant> tag and set the attachpoint to root (note that you need to make a second actor file for the second mesh)

That's enough material for a ticket with the pathfinding keyword. Perhaps we should also add the "formation" keyword to related tickets.

I linked the revision which broke it above (r17036), reverting it fixes the animation, but then the issue from #3429 should return (unless it was fixed by something else in a different way). Maybe the code from r17036 can be enhanced to select the formation-specific animation rather than always returning to 'idle' on "MoveCompleted"?

Careful with the crush damage, do we want those things to destroy buildings, if so how many should be required?

That is true for rated 1v1s. Team games are a different story as setting players who left to defeated won't help the team that misses the player. Lag-trolls: Most people who are affected by lag are sorry for it, try and often do fix it. But there are f.e. some that acknowledge that they are lagging everygame every time, also observers yet won't leave the game freely wasting the time of all clients. Or people who rejoin a running game as late-observer, causing a very noticeable performance-lagspike. Once successfully connected they say hi, leave the game again, start rejoining again and again for no reason. Noob-trolls: Claiming to be an experienced player and then building 2 houses in the entire game. Leaver-trolls: Discussing the game settings, playing for some time, then resigning and exiting arbitrarily, without any warning, sometimes even without being attacked, thus defeating the entire team (typically gaia units killing the entire tradeline). (Often observers would be willing to play in place of the leaving palyer, but that won't work if he has resigned and decided to let his units attack his allies). I agree that it doesn't sound feasible nor sensible to track these things statistically. A moderator shouldn't be required for the issues above. The players inevitably have to identify how their teammates will play or whether they will end up sabotaging the match on purpose or due to negligence. It is the duty of the host to confirm and take the decision to either unassign or ban clients that are not compatible.

So we know what to commit after feature freeze :->

Or "Conquest Civic Centers" too.

HI guys, read a many posts but i am very green in this space. I have noticed campaigns seems to be off the boil but my suggestion may work in or out of campaigns. My suggestion is to give a unfair advantage to one or other civilization by having games to increase accuracy for bowman faster soldiers better horses and the such. would be like a game within game. A ancient Olympics as such? Running Combat Pentathlon Equestrian

256x256 v 128x128

More ideas: Like Rise and Fall, an embark/disembark function for ships. Basically, it just locks (or unlocks) a ship on the shore. So when units are told to board, the vessel doesnt move, and make boarding difficult. Idea two: Once necessary animations are done, perhaps we could have different rest and movement anims for different stances. Example: AoE 3 infantry. Once could tell if a unit was in defensive, standground, agressive, or patroling.

People love to have this actually. All of this is good. The movement is good as long as it is automatic. I can see techs for acceleration speed and turn speed and stuff like that. When turning right, I would like to see the right oars stop moving, and when turn left see the left oars stop rowing. Things like that too. This is way too much, IMHO. If you did do it, then base it on the wind direction already in the game (see in Atlas, wind direction change the direction of the water movement). Do not make invisible. The water movement should be a clue for the players. But like I said, this part is not good at this type of game. One step too far, just my opinion. Everything else sound great.

Hello. I apologize in advance for my English. I have some ideas that could be used in your production, not to be in the form of questions because I am not sure all the information about the game. If anyone had a similar idea I apologize. 1. Is the game will have more periods of development, for example. Renaissance and Modern Age, if so sorry for the hassle. 2. More civilizations to choose from. 3. Some campaigns feature embedded in the history, eg.: Persian, German, American and Chinese in that each set in a different time. Thank you for listening to my ideas, I hope that any of you will fall to your taste, because as a child I played the famous game Empire Earth has become increasingly bardzij began to assail me underestimated the level of graphics and more. I am very positive about your production, but if it will be based solely on the ancient times, I must admit that I would be disappointed. Good luck in your work and have a nice day.

Two more improvement suggestions: 1. When constructing towers, fortresses, military colonies, or civic centres, could circles be shown around the existing ones to indicate where you can not build the new ones? 2. When having buildings, ships, or siege weapons selected, could circles be shown around those to indicate their current range?

what do you mean?? I have my own idea ... if you do not like you doing ...

its amazing rts when we zoom in and see the shield is very smooth

i came up with an idea for internal justification as to how heroes and certain myth units can continually reappear. i believe i mentioned the Percy Jackson series earlier in the thread? i'll refresh everyone's memory: in that series (which is alot more truthful to the myths than it may look like on the surface) the continued presence of certain singular, unique beings and monsters such as the Minotaur and the Nemean Lion--which were killed in the original myths--reappearing is that they don't actually die, they crumble into dust when they're killed and are briefly set to Tartarus until they're reincarnated in new versions of their old bodies, retaining their memories but also leaving behind some spoils (when Percy kills the Nemean Lion in one book, for example, it leaves behind a modernized version of its pelt as a lion-skin jacket) anyway, for a bit of artistic flair, i decided that myth units that you can only have a limited number of at a time (the actual number will be determined by "tier" depending on when they're available, with the top-tier only allowing one at a time) turn into different substances when killed, depending on what resources were used to train them. for simplicity, it'll be that each myth unit only costs two resources: one standard (food, wood, stone, or metal) and favor. myth units that cost metal oxidize and crumble into rust, units requiring wood ignite like an enemy in an old video game and burn up into ash, they wither into dust if they cost food, and they erode into sand if they cost stone. heroes, on the other hand, take a cue from AOM by showing their spirits rising into the sky (i guess you could call this the equivalent to the other four for favor). keep in mind that these types of death would be excluded from more unique insta-kill deaths (like being turned to stone by a gorgon, for example)