Leaderboard

Might I suggest reading through your questions a bit more before posting them? That should result in better questions that could even result in actual answers. Right now most of these just seem like a random bunch of words from which one could maybe derive some question if one spends more time than you did while asking it. Also caring about questions by people on a platform where the average attention span makes a Higgs boson's lifetime seem long is nice, but if you are only investing about as much time into relaying such questions you aren't going to get anything that resembles an answer. (Slightly unrelated, but you might also want to keep that pointless thread bumping and necro posting down. Actually adhering to the first part of your signature might do wonders.) That said 3D RTS engines tend to look similar, especially if the art style is similar. Also the Age of Empires series is one of the bigger influences, so some similarity should be expected. But then comparing a few screenshots from a few historical 3D RTS games (more specifically buildings) will show quite some similarities. One of the reasons for that is having game entities look familiar to players new to that specific game, but not to the genre itself (compare barracks layouts which do tend to be U shaped). But anyone spending some time thinking about the whole issue should be able to deduce that those similarites are caused by the type of game being made, quite similar to FPS games really.

The number of serious 3D game engines written in anything but C or C++ is not very large. Both of these languages can be quite close to the hardware, which is sometimes needed to make things performant (yes, we aren't there yet, but that is just lots of work). With Java you'd either be trying to work around the garbage collector by keeping memory buffers yourself, or having to deal with those GC pauses. Python still has that global interpreter lock (which is just as bad as it sounds), and we do already have another scripting language with quite some code written in it, and it works well enough that nobody really considers porting it to something else that will just have different drawbacks a worthwhile effort. Mostly C++ is one of the very few choices for a game engine that makes sense (mostly due to being close to the hardware if needed, and being able to use libraries). Java might be a fine choice for business applications where you can just throw bigger servers at it and tune the GC until it works good enough, but for a 3D game (engine) it might not be the best choice. For Python vs JS the former might be nicer from a language standpoint, but that doesn't change the issue of existing code that works, also we do benefit from JS engine optimization efforts.

Transifex have found the bug I asked them to get back to me when they have fixed it.

That would be fixed by my unit motion rewrite which reintroduces a viable way for units to walk together at the same speed.

Likewise on auras. Hero auras are fine, they make some kind of sense (you see the hero, you're motivated). Women auras though… Kinda hard to wrap my head around. Not a big fan. Personally, I think we should reset all unit speeds to 8/9 for foot units and 13 for cavalry or something along those lines. The splits between archer, skirms, pikemen, swordsmen and spearmen don't make a ton of sense.

Transalpine is the term that the Romans would have used (minus the Anglicization, of course :P). Regarding the resource wagon idea, that's pretty similar to the Mauryans' worker elephant.

Again: this is not about reducing the number of workers necessary for an eco. The OP would induce almost no changes to the number of gatherers required. If you want to discuss reducing the number of gatherers for an economy, please find another thread and if there are none feel free to start one. @wowgetoffyourcellphone: mh. I see your point, but I also don't like that batch size is 5 (I've personally reduced it to 3 which I find far more manageable). Then again 4 or 5 isn't a huge difference. The grove of trees idea is interesting, but I don't think we necessarily need to go there.

The Iberian Video was from the "Testing Propositions" Thread. @Feldfeld and @soloooy0 posted their replays trying to prove that Booming Only is not the only viable strategy. I forgot which one of them I commentated on, but here's the list. And here is feldfeld's replay pack.

this could balance out the speed discrepancy between infantry units, so skirmishers aren't so far ahead in gather rates from pikemen.

Well, all of the aura in the game feel gamey. At the end of the day you have to accept some of these tropes and suspend disbelief. But perhaps the female aura is one step too far for you? For me, it's not so tedious as @WhiteTreePaladin says, because I use enough females that I'm relatively assured that if I send a few of them with the men to mine the stone that they'll have enough "coverage" for efficiant use of their aura. But I have no huge love for the feature though. At one point I removed it from DE -- but put it back again -- it felt charming to keep it, to use Brian [aka WhiteTreePaladin]'s word.

Lo básico.

Hmm, I see your reasoning, I guess I should Invest my time into learning C++, I don't think It will be too hard since Java and C have a lot in common. Thanks for your answers.

It comes done to the fact that they Java and Python are not fast enough for intensely graphical games if you don't want tearing and lag on the screen and keeping track of all the units on the screen for pathfinding. Enjoy the Choice

Thanks for both following up on the report and keeping us updated!

Why don't add groves to the poll?

Yes. Something simple like that.

(I think the number 8 might come from the fact that units that approach the tree also apply to that number, so probably must be kept greater than the intended number of lumberers.)

Ha I'm probably the only one here with degree that includes agriculture and I can't make up my mind. So many good arguments on both sides. While no ones suggesting it; Adding finite farms to one civilisation however may make them unplayable. If we're going to differentiate civilisations, making the farm graphics look different visually may suffice. The paddy fields in the Han mod.

(http://jsonlint.com/)

1. Let the player adapt to the map and have variation in the maps. Should be discussed on a map to map basis. 2. Eight seems a bit much indeed, but wouldn't go to three, better five IMO 3. Not very descriptive what should be changed 4. Careful. The purpose of forests is not solely to gather resources but also to make the map visually appealing. Should be discussed on a map to map basis since some maps have endless wood and others (african ones) very few. 5. doesn't seem necessary to me Agree that the poll is undescriptive

I don't think this should be tied to batch sizes, tbh, because units automatically go to the nearest resources anyway. I would actually rather set batch size to 3, because it's easier to batch by 3 than 5, since that takes less resources, and you can always double-batch to get a batch of 6, which is close enough to 5 (or 7) imo. But that's another discussion. I've added a poll.

Thanks! Apparently it was the "2017-02-27_0005 fuego.rar" (the easiest way I found to match videos and replays is to scroll the video up to summary screen (to see players names, rates and civs) and open metadata.json files in a text editor (reformatting json for better readability) to see the corresponding list)

I don't understand why 5 gatherers per tree is "less manageable" than 3. Certainly it is "more manageable" than the current 8 in that case. I can already see a big difference in the way the units spread out, while maintaining the benefit of the 5 batch. I think the benefits to sticking with multiples of 5 outweigh the benefit of going with some other number that'll seem random to the player. Just my opinion. I added groves for a few reason. You can give them various auras, which are nice because you don't have to give a bunch of little auras to a bunch of single trees. I also made trees and groves passable by units, so that the groves can give a bonus in trees to guerilla units and it may or may not give a noticeable pathfinding benefit. Also, it's just nice in atlas to place a single grove than to have to click and place 30 trees. Other benefits too I'm too tired to detail. lol

For the sake of argument, doesn't this make Raiding easier since you only have to take down a few gatherers to disrupt the enemy's economy?

This remind me there should be a random team option too.

Slingers don't gather faster than pikemen, they shuttle faster because of their faster base speed. there is no "shuttle speed" in the templates, so there's no way to make the infantry shuttle resources at the same speed. BTW, "shuttling" means to bring resources back to the dropsite. In effect, this makes faster infantry more desirable as gatherers than slower infantry, when it is my contention that this should not have to be a consideration for the player and gameplay so a new element in the templates needs to be created for shuttle speed. That is... if soldiers gathering resources is kept for the game. But it would still be a nice element to have in the templates regardless.

@mike82 es para vos. @Skhorn

Te doy otro tutorial lo veo casi igual pero con otros atajos. primero aprende el movimiento de cámara. luego el modo edición de polígonos.

The engine itself has nothing to do with aoe.

But... I'm not like 3 guys for a forest, that be nice for Sid Meier's Civilizations kind of games.

All the replay commentary videos were already posted in the youtube topic, but I think it's still worth to link them to the respective replays here (please correct me if I mislinked any of them): [Anavultus] 0 A.D. Replay Commentary Part 1 Geometrically Confused [Amphibian Hoplite] 0 A.D. Alpha 21 - My First Crappy Gameplay Commentary [Anavultus] 0 A.D. Replay Commentary Part 2 Assimilation [Anavultus] 0 A.D. Replay Commentary Part 3: Top Tier Team Regicide Can't find the replay for this one: 2017-02-27_0005 fuego.rar from here: [Amphibian Hoplite] 0 A.D. Alpha 21 - Gameplay Commentary (Iberian Siege Power) [Anavultus] 0 A.D. Replay Commentary Part 4 A Challenger Approaches [Amphibian Hoplite] 0 A.D. Alpha 21 - Gameplay Commentary (Swordsman Spam)

Yep, my point exactly. Every infantry unit should start at same shuttling speed. Right now, it's way betteer economically to train slingers or javelin dudes to gather because they shuttle much faster. imho, this should not have to be a consideration, and they should shuttle at the same speed.

Delenda Eat places trees in groups (called tree grove or something) that could help too

Nonono, better not remove shuttling. If anything I would like some [minor!!!] complexity added with shuttling: I would like a shuttling speed added to the templates, so that dudes carrying slabs of stone back to the civic center can walk slower. That way, maybe wheelbarrow and handcart techs can affect shuttling speed as well.

Feel like there's absolutely no point having that in-game, but I would be okay with it for scenarios and whatnot however. Edit: that or the complete opposite of the above: I think it would be interesting to remove all other sources of food but farms, with mimo's changes in that patch, and offer a few different types of farms good at a few different things. For example a slow but steady gold source farm (say, peppers?), a fast-but-needs-a-ton-of-space-and-hard-to-defend type of farm (wheat?) and a slower-but-takes-less-space-and-you-can-have-several-villagers-per-farm type of farm (potato or whatever else ). edit: ah wait I forgot we don't have gold as a resource, nevermind that one then