Leaderboard

Housies Infuriating 5 pop footprint Egyptian housies @Sundiata

I don't see this as a bad thing. You're supposed to scout your enemy and learn his strategy that way, not automatically know what strategy they're going to pull based on the civ they pick in game setup. Options and choices made at the beginning of a match have knock-on effects that resonate throughout the match. Indeed that's where my thoughts first started formulating. Each civ can have its "default" play style, but meta customizations made by the player can add additional dynamism and choice.

I disagree. I think range, firing rate, and accuracy should be inversely proportional to damage. Movement speed is inversely proportional to armor. Health is inversely proportional to Food cost. Health+Accuracy inversely proportional to train time. Wood/stone/metal cost (whichever) inversely proportional to damage+range. This all depends on how granular you want to get. It's not absolutely necessary.

When messing around with Delenda Est, I've managed to add special starting units, special starting structures, and other things for most of the civs. And then it dawned on me watching Wow Jr. playing LoL and AC: Odyssey: Perhaps we can allow players to adjust/customize their civs within defined parameters? This would add meta to the game where it is sorely lacking. We could have a civ customization page in the game, accessible from the main menu, and then add an option to the gamesetup for the host to enable or disable Customized Civs (default is enabled). Let's look at Sparta Choose between 3 Starting Heroes. Every player starts a standard match with 1 hero, in their "infantry" or "foot" state. Later, in City Phase, they can be upgraded to a mount or other state. If customized civs are disabled, this hero would be randomly chosen, but the player can choose which hero they want for their customized version of the Spartans. Choose a Starting Structure. Every Hellenic/Hellenistic civ gets the Stoa as an option, which has the Greek Architecture aura (All Structures +20% health, +10% build time) or a free Cult Statue of Apollo or Leonidas (if he is not the chosen starting hero) with some kind of bonus. Choose a Special Starting Unit. A Spartiate Hoplite champion. A free Champion so can help in defending the base in early game. A Skiritai Runner, elite spearman. Not quite as strong as a champion, but can help build structures and scout. 2 free Helot Peasants, who cannot build or fight, but are very good gatherers. Choose a Special Technology. Have 3 or 4 historical technologies from which the player can choose to unlock. Hellenistic Reforms (Unlocks the Spartan Pikeman and Syntagma formation) The Agoge (Hoplites +15% health, +10% train time) Olympic Champions (unlocks the ability to upgrade 2 of your Spartiates to Olympic Champion bodyguards, as in Delenda Est) Krypteia Secret Police (unlocks an aura for Champions and Heroes that boosts the performance of Helot units) You'd have these kinds of options for every civ. The GUI would be rather simple. Just have these slots that you can fill in by choosing from the available customizations. You'd need a civ drop down or dialog to choose the civ to customize. Initially, there would just be the option to customize a civ once, so this becomes your 1 customized version of the Spartans, for example, and you can customize each civ once. But later, perhaps you can have up to 3 customizations for each civ and you can save each one with an annotated name.

First mission progress

Hello, We are currently reviewing and discussing your case.

@Genava55 good enough? did this quick mesh (WIP) for the side decoration:

Mauryas actually had siege equipment. It's been brought up before... Some excerpts from Kautilya's Arthashastra, traditionally ascribed to Chanakya (aka Kautilya, aka Vishnugupta), who helped Chandragupta Maurya in his rise to power. Although some scholars claim it was written by a number of writers and estimated the date of the text to 2nd century BC - 3rd century AD. As a side note, the text also speaks of nágaráyanam, or assailing forts and cities with elephants. It also speaks of the maintenance, formation and guarding of new "timber and elephant forests", proving that forest management in antiquity wasn't just important, it was vital! These managed forests were used as reserves for wild elephants, which could then be captured and trained as needed. The text also speaks of elephant stables. Trained elephants could be kept inside the fortifications. Untrained or rowdy elephants were kept outside. Someone who poached an elephant was simply put to death! Someone who burnt a timber and elephant forest would be killed by fire! @Nescio In a discussion a while back, you asked for this texts, so here it is: https://csboa.com/eBooks/Arthashastra_of_Chanakya_-_English.pdf Special bonus unit for the Mauryas:

It is one of the Monte Bibele helmets (there are several decorated helmets from there this is why you can find differences between the helmet patterns, Rome at War is mixing two helmets but it is not that much a problem): A few tentative of reconstruction of different helmets here

I wonder if a lot of these options are truly worth making an option to customise at the beginning. The most justifiable one would be the hero. Apart from that, I would leave it down to build orders. If the enemy player doesn't know the choices another has done, it would greatly hamper their ability to understand the strategy that would be the inevitable best option of some option taken. Meta that the game misses is primarily due to adherence to a strict formula based upon Age of Empires without attempting to bring any of the depth with it. The civilisations definitely have historicity in mind with their rosters, but I have yet to see any serious attempts to sit down and think about at how a faction would feel to play at each stage of the game.

i liked so much the scythian brooch and the illyrian helmet ram so i wanted to do the celtic one: @Genava55 do you know a proper visible reference for this helmet? ive already have this ones:

It was a well discussed topic. But, I want to remind some of the inequality amongst civilizations... 1. Building Time:- As we know, Gauls and Britons have a lowered building time for their weak structures. But conversely this gave them advantage in games. As per history, their knowledge of architecture wasn't well and scientific as like that of others(Romans, Carthaginians, Persians or Greeks). So, it's obvious that their building would be rubble. But, this deduction in 20% building time make them more efficient. Again, most of their structures has a population bonus. But think carefully, did a hut like structure has any access to extension option? I think no, so it'll be better and more balanced if Britons & Gauls have a slightly slower building rate and No population extension option by houses unlike others and also weaker Armour for buildings(20% less). 2. Superiority of Slingers over Archers(Especially) and Skirmishers:- Apparently most of the player would definitely admit that Slingers are the strongest unit in the game. But, is it feasible for Slingers to have more than 1.5 times pierce damage than Archers. A piece of stone cause more crush damage than pierce. So, I think there should a balance between Slingers and Archers. Maybe 7.5 pierce damage for Archers and 8.5 pierce damage along with 1.5 crush damage for Slingers. 3. Superiority of Roman Siege and Persian Rams:- There is no doubt that Romans and Persians had a superior Siege units with better atrack. But, this wasn't spontaneous. This was achieved by a long period of experiment. So, It'll be best to give them a technology(with practical costs) instead of just giving them directly. Along with that I would also suggest to give Carthaginian and Ptolemaic Juggernauts and Heavy Warships an equal Bonus by a similar technology. 4. Unlimited Access for certain Buildings I'm listing some buildings that can be built during game... Persians--- Apandana- 1, Hall- 2, Ishtar Gate- 1 Carthaginians--- Embassy- 2, Tophet- None. Sparatans--- Royal Stoa- Unlimited Athenians--- Royal Stoa- Unlimited, Gymnasium- Unlimited Gauls--- Tavern- Unlimited Britons--- Kennel- Unlimited Mauryans--- Palace- None Kushites--- Nuba Village/Camp- 2 Diadochii--- Military Colony- Unlimited Romans--- Army Camp- Unlimited These all disparity makes some civilization really underdog and some of them really strong. Please fix it. Maybe by giving an option for increasing the number of town phase buildings by 1 for each Civic Center was made and by limiting the number of City phase structures. 4. No Trample Damage for Elephants and Ability of Rams to Attack Organic Units:- This is one of the worst and impractical thing that makes Rams more stronger and efficient than Elephants. As Rams could only be destroyed by hack damage(most efficient and fast). On the other hand, not only Elephants can be killed by Ranged units easily but also they can be easily blocked by any units or women. And so this makes them useless. Again, more or less equal speed of an Elephants as compared to Rams make them more impractical. But, ideally an elephant has a great momentum along with a speed of nearly 40 km/h. So, I think they should have more speed with a continuous movement not obstructed by Organic Units. It'll be also better if we add trample damage for cavalry. 5. Costs for making a Catapult and Elephant:- An elephant costs 250 food and 250 metal and 3 population which is really impractical. Raising an elephant is more costlier than making a Ram. Again, making a Catapult cause not that much wood (400). So, there should be a balance. Again, most of the units first try to capture Bolt Shooters and Catapults instead of just destroying it! So, there should be a mode which can determine whether units will attack it or try to capture it. 6. Units and Faction Requests:- And lastly, I've some personal thoughts that I would like to share. In short--- I) Maiden Guards should not be trained from Barracks. They are elite and special units which only protect Royal persons and so they should be trained from Palace. And please give Mauryans access to Rams. II) Kindly give Chandragupta Maurya and Chanakya a decent hero bonus. And please reconsider the bonuses given to some heroes like Hannibal(a bonus of 20% faster batch time for mercenaries instead of 20% less damage for enemy mercenaries) III) Instead of giving a 20% health Reduction for Archery Tradition, it'll be better if we apply a 5% or maybe 10% health Reduction just like Persian Infantry. IV) Civ Bonuses--- Some Civs have very much helpful Civ Bonus(Iberians, Seleucids, Ptolemies, Sparatans, Athenians, Macedonians, Romans, Gauls, Persians, Kushites) and some have impractical Civ Bonus(Carthaginians, Mauryans, Britons). Please reconsider them. Hope, the authority will consider my urges...

I got it dont worry

No, not necessarily. Egyptians were using phalanx formations for almost a thousand years before that. Long before the Archaic period in Greece had even begun...

Right. What I'm proposing isn't much different, in magnitude, from AOE3's home cities and shipment decks.

That's nice. Largely good enough.

Why not? ------- With Persians ,.. Somebody know this?

This text, Kingdom of Magadha: Wars and Warfare, mentions the use of something like a catapult by King Ajatashatru of the Haryanka Dynasty of the Kingdom of Magadha, against the Vajii, a confederacy ruled by the Licchavi Kingdom, in the early 5th century BC (484 BC – 468 BC), more than one and a half centuries before the rise of the Maurya Dynasty. Wikipedia corroborates this. This Indian catapult was called mahashilakantaga, though I can find only very few mentions of the name, which all seem to point to the linked ancient.eu article. In the book, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, By Pierre Briant, p763, it's claimed that the Achaemenid Persians might have actually invented the catapult. this isn't exactly hard evidence though... Buuuuuuut.... There's this verse from the Bible, 2 Chronicles 26:15, which talks about King Uzziah of Judah, who built what sounds like catapults way back in the 8th century BC! That's definitely a possible source for the later hypothesized Persian catapults... It's also the reason why I'm not so quick to ignore the apparent mention of catapults (a thing casting stones at the enemy walls) in Piye's Great Triumphal Stela from the Amun temple at Napata, c. 727 BC: The Kingdom of Judah entered into a sort of protectorate relationship with the Kushites after Piye (they paid tribute to Taharqa), and they probably had relations before that. So if King Uzziah had developed catapults a generation earlier, the idea the Kushites employed them isn't totally unbelievable. The book Technology and Culture in Greek and Roman Antiquity even states that there is a possibility that siege weapons including catapults came to Carthage from Mesopotamia via the Phoenicians. I know that the invention of the catapult is generally ascribed to the Greeks, but It's almost as if some of the Greek and Roman history writers and some of the people interpreting the texts today are full of manure... Greek scholars travelled all over, including Mesopotamia and Egypt, studying the local knowledge, then brought it back to Greece, adapted it and made it their own. The Pythagorean Theorem is good example. A lot of people think it's Greek, even though Pythagoras travelled to Egypt and studied there with the priests, where "Pythagoras' Theorem" was already known for about one and a half millennia before Pythagoras was even born...

Age of Mythology had three civilizations with three starting gods each, and every age advance players had to choose between two different minor gods; effectively this meant 2^3=8 combination for each starting god, thus 3×3×8=72 combinations in total. 0 A.D. is a different game, of course. However, something similar could work for a few (though not all) civilizations. E.g. have a Greeks starting civilization, then choose between Central Greece and the Peloponnese upon advancing to the town phase; if Central Greece, then choose between Athens and Thebes upon advancing to the city phase; if Peloponnese, choose between Corinth and Sparta upon advancing to the city phase. Having multiple faction choices could also be interesting for tribal civilizations such as Gauls or Thracians.

@LordGood Ok, I found one little thing to nitpick Your entrances are all a little offset from the center, either to the right or to the left. This is perfectly fine! But the decals have a pathway leading into the center of the front walls. Simply adjusting the decal to become 2 different decals with a pathway either on the left or on the right would be all it takes to fix (I don't know about template stuff though). Is it possible to retexture the houses with the Kushite texture pack to create Kushite variants? Then we'd have some minimal architectural overlap between the two civs (like with the Greek civs). Then you can add the Hellenized house variants you made earlier for the Ptolemies to the Ptolemaic roster as well. Then Ptolemies would be using 4 "Egyptian" style house variants in addition to 4 "Greek" style variants, and the Kushites would be using 4 "Egyptian" style variants in addition to 4 "Nubian" style variants. It would be the most historically accurate, visually interesting, and highlight some of the commonalities between the two Nile Valley Civs, while still maintaining their uniqueness. Again, lovely work! I'll be playing a lot more Ptolemies in the future

Aoe 3 kinda did this with homecities

I don't see why. In many RPGs you customize 10 different things about your character.

It may have been to compensate for not having catapults. Not sure. I think the Persians (and Mauryas) should get catapults though.

Basically some idea i have to implemented the selector screen. But there are four. Additional thing... In EE you have a some minutes to take or grab a civ, can be nice have some. That give some bonus.

Can you migrate this to GitHub? @PrincessChristmas

Overall I agree with your proposal, very urban civilizations have a denser population so they should have houses and residentials with a better increase. However, it has nothing to do with science, nor they are more scientific than the others. Greco-Roman houses construction were not applying more scientific principles than their Gallic equivalents. It is another matter for more complex buildings but for houses it is not the case. At this time, engineering has little to do with scientific knowledge but more with practical experience and socioeconomical needs. So I agree, civilizations that were more rural than urban should have cheaper and simpler houses, but not necessarily a population bonus. In the case of the Gallic, maybe it makes sense to give them a strong asset in spreading strategies in regards of the history of the La Tène culture but not necessarily through population bonus by buildings. Good idea.

Here files to watch replays of this match. metadata.json commands.txt

any interest in having playing/won/lost/spec status in playerlist in lobby?

I in no way claim to be well informed about the siege methods of Persia at this timeframe, but at least the original developers thought that their capabilities were subpar. What's your basis for considering them so good?