Leaderboard

All civs now get a battering ram, and I think it would be good for the base game to have a simple "handheld" battering ram for some civs. Or perhaps all civs get this handheld version in Phase II, with a "Covered Ram" upgrade in Phase III for some civs. The Norse "Portable Ram" in Age of Mythology: Something like that, but with 4 dudes. Delenda Est has one from Millennium AD, but the ram log looks way too big and the way they hold it doesn't look right. The log doesn't seem to have weight, while the Norse one does.

In this forum ,(I googled and google show me our own forum) Is a makeup Isn't made by me but...I have same idea in mind and wheels.

I would like the Elephant Archer to be merged with the Armored Elephant into one unit, which means the Armored Elephant has a "turret".

This goes to show the usefulness of P2 siege unit, you don't seem to even beware they already exist for a long time in the form of club man.

hi guys i wouldnt say I'm a historian but rather a history fanatic with ancient warfare and in doing so its become somewhat of a hobby any who i just had some suggestions to make first off would have to be the 2 pila for roman hastati... the grape juice mod does a good job at this but for some reason the infantry misbehave in combat and brake their battle line and rans off to fight some other oak at the back (by the way ammo i think is a very good concept i think you guys should try implement in the future) next would be a to give formations bonus stats for the troops involved, for eg. forced march a speed boost maybe at the cost of armor as the infantry are off guard (just an example) lastly would be to correct some errors with some of the troops (i promise im not trying to be a critic, i love this game and its what started my hobby with ancient warfare) but the phalangtists (pikemen) were lightly armored because their primary defence was there 6 meter serisa pike and also strength in numbers, but i understand you guys did it for balancing proposes anyway i love this game and these are suggestions... not me criticizing your work, i hope you guys can see what i mean by this :)

queuing garrison orders is how I do it right now, although it can be a bit inefficient when the garrisonable buildings are not at the same side of you retreating forces, and inefficiency while being chased can be catastrophic. that's why I suggested allowing it on a selection of men instead of from the cc. it would only affect them. the utility would be that you save your men from a sudden overwhelming attack and at the same time you save your buildings from capture, meanwhile you can regroup the rest of your men and maybe ask for help from your allies, and think about the next move. I've saved desperate situations using garrison order to deny favorable fights to attacking forces.

another way to do it is to queue garrison orders: so garrison one barracks the queue to garrison the next barracks and so on... the ones that are garrioned into the first barracks are removed from the selection so the remainder go to the next barracks.

Alright, that is agreeable simpler ram construction entity in P2 and then a more advanced piece of machinary for P3.

So a battering ram with a roof is the minimum, otherwise it is better to let the soldiers directly take the sledgehammer and the logging axe to demolish the building (some games have such a combat sapper setting). But as far as battering rams are concerned, we need the minimum battering rams of P2 and the advanced battering rams of P3, the latter may be wrapped in more rawhide, use more hardwood and metal parts, which is heavier , slower and stronger. As for the possibility of joining P4 in the future? I think if there is a technical upgrade in P4, it should be reserved for more complex siege weapons such as catapults.

A fair point, I would advocate for the tower mechanism, with the added caveat of focusing organic units over buildings

The previous Han Dynasty siege tower model had some "Ji" inserted on it, very similar to this Ming Dynasty illustration, but the real Chinese siege tower will not have this on it, these melee weapons are a metaphor, like a weapon rack , meaning this is armed.

If not specially manufactured machinery. Then the ram may usually just be a log with no metal wrapped around it.

There is also a pattern of a battering ram without a roof. In theory, this ram can be arbitrarily matched with the roofs of the above vehicles.

That info is from 8th Century. They must have changed... Siege weapons Edit "During the siege of Hermopolis in the 8th century BC, siege towers were built for the Kushite army led by Piye, in order to enhance the efficiency of Kushite archers.[61] After leaving Thebes, Piye's first objective was besieging Ashmunein. He gathered his army after their lack of success so far, and undertook the personal supervision of operations including the erection of a siege tower from which Kushite archers could fire down into the city.[62] Early shelters protecting sappers armed with poles trying to breach mud-brick ramparts gave way to Battering rams.[61] The use of the battering ram by Kushite forces against Egyptian cities are recorded on the stele of Piye" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Nubia """Then they fought against "The Peak, Chest of victories"...Then a battering ram was employed against it, so that its walls were demolished and a great slaughter made among them in incalculable numbers, including the son of the Chief of the Ma, Tefnakht....""" — Victory Stele of Piye.[63]

Sounds good overall I would be inclined to go for increments of 0.25 rather, so rank 1 is 1s, rank 2 is 0.75s and rank 3 is 0.5s. But there is also merit in starting where you have suggested and then if it is found to be to strong then drop it down to the figures I have suggested.

For alpha 25, archer elephants were given 2 population per elephant and this makes them really bad in a cost/power relationship. I think the 2 population should stay, but they should be given a fire rate bonus for each rank up. This would be a good way to represent the extra archers that visually appear on rank-up. Considering this would be a substantial buff, perhaps it makes sense to add some XP to rank ups, but this could be determined in testing. rank 1: 1 second rank 2: .5 second rank 3: .333 second This would mean that extended battles with a few elephant archers would yield dividends in the long term, but big masses would get killed and not be as effective. rank 3 elephants would also be something for an enemy to prioritize in battle, so a mauryans player would want to keep them alive. From a balancing and realism perspective, I think it makes good sense and offers a functionally unique unit.

IMO, what makes a good design document is that the design document + the technical documentation of the engine and and any other development tool + any good encyclopedia should give enough information for any competent developer to deliver the completed product. Yes, that does not usually require specifying exact unit stats or civilizations to include, but that is because this information is implied by the more general descriptions of the gameplay and the scope of the project given by the design doc. On the other hand though sometimes is is necessary (or maybe a better word is proper) to get into specifics. The most useful thing the design doc can do is let you detect problems before you go to the trouble of actually writing code. That is easier to do when systems are described directly. (This is why I suggest describing counter cycles in detail, we know that this is a hard thing to get right. Being specific about them makes it easier to to spot any contradictions and logic holes before someone has to start interpreting the intent into working code. Their job is hard enough already.)

Two years is too long without minor releases. Minor releases aren't really a thing since even small bug fixes can make versions incompatible. Minor releases should be compatible, else its a major release. There isn't a way to ship those changes without an actual release.

baber02 left with rage quit - without resign. commands.txt

Petreo left w/o resigning @user1 metadata.json commands.txt

Hi @user1 I would like to report player called Barcodes. We played a 1v1 rated match which Barcodes was loseing. he/she paused the game for a long time and after that he quit without resigning. He did this after i warned him/her a couple of times in the chat and said some offensive things in the game i was spectating after this event happened. This player is rated 1500+ and this is not the rank range where actions like this should be tolerated. Here, I send you the replay of the game. As i have come to understand receantly this player has been reported allredy, but yet he/she continues to do rule violations. I sincerely hope that the staff takes action on this matter, because actions like theese really take the fun out of the game. My in-game username: reba. Reported player: Barcodes Kind regards, reba. commands.txt metadata.json

More campaigns and AI development - basically, more ways to play the game by yourself even after you're a good player.