Leaderboard

I think the Carth embassies can be a distinct outlier, but in general I vote to have captured buildings only build the new owner's units. To do otherwise will take a lot more discussion and design work and balancing.

@Dizaka @Darkcity the issue is in the code: Civic centres use <ProductionQueue> units/{Civ}/cavalry_javelineer_b THis will only allow the cavalry javelineer of your own Civ to be trained here, be it a Merc or a CS. İf your Civ doesn't have a cavalry javelineer of any kind then you won't be able to train anything. on the other hand, the Carthaginian's embassy use this units/Carthage/cavalry_swordsman_merc_a This specifies that the Carthaginian cavalry will be trained by pointing to a specific template file in the Carthaginian folder. This means the building will be able to train that particular cavalry unit no matter who owns it, as the trainee is Civ independent.

Non-gameplay expert here. To me it seams that the expected behaviour is that entities specific to the civilisation (civic soldiers, champions) are only to be trained by that civ. Mercenaries however can be bought (not trained) by whoever controls the structure. We can give it (back) to @wowgetoffyourcellphone?

that's just a fancy way of saying he doesn't want to handle it, and he's not. you are so overcomplicating this! - when you conquer a new building you didn't have access before, you can train new units you didn't have access to before. immediately self explanatory. - units trained from captured buildings are the same as if you controlled those buildings as their own civ. no need to change anything, not the appearance, not the stats. - you don't have to train units you don't want to anyway, if you conquered an enemy building you are probably winning regardless. - if new units changed the set of structures you can build, that would be actually confusing. luckily, noone asked for that. - there are no edge cases at all, all building produce exactly the same units regardless of the owner civ, period. can't be simpler than that. - the ui can possibly get messy, but that can already happen if you select a ridiculous amount of different buildings of the same civ. just don't select a ridiculous amount of different buildings and you'll be ok. the ui can handle up to 4 rows full of trainable units icons. we get that you dislike the proposal, but you are speaking out of turn. it's ok if you personally prefer the current status, but don't twist a new proposal to create strawman arguments and drown us in words, rather ask if you don't understand something. in a25, carth merc cav was arguably the unit that was most characteristic of that civ playstyle, and other players could and can train it if they manage to conquer the building that trains it. you guessed it: it really created some LOL moments to me. by the way, I don't think there are any gameplay downsides to this feature, and I don't see any problem for extending it to all kinds of units.

Greetings Fellow Creatives! I've had some questions about how to properly attribute me when using my music. It's super easy. Let's say, for example, that you're using two of my tracks, "MIND BENDER" and "NETHERPLACE" in your project. If you're using only my music (and not music by other artists) then you would attribute me like this: Music by Eric Matyas www.soundimage.org (The reference to my website doesn't have to be an actual link.) Now, let's say you're using those two tracks of mine AND music by another artist or artists. In this case, you need to identify my tracks so people know which ones are mine. So you need to attribute me like this: "MIND BENDER" "NETHERPLACE" by Eric Matyas www.soundimage.org (Again, the reference to my website doesn't have to be an actual link.) All of this information can be found on the attribution information page on my site: https://soundimage.org/attribution-info/ There's also information about how to attribute me in other kinds of projects, like podcasts, theater productions, etc. If anyone has any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. My email address is on the homepage of my site. Enjoy and keep creating! :-)

It is possible to deal with it without needing any new code. DE does it.

Yeah, I talked about this several days ago with @Stan` privately we know about that for long.

Neither denaying this nor I mentioned that it is not case. We can't ask user/player to no do certain events when it is possible in game, right? These cases needs to be handled accordingly. No proposal has been put in front. Thats why I always put my point of view in buckets. Gameplay disucssion was purely from the point of view of player. I plays game quite frequently with both pros as well as new players, so my comments were based on that. Logical persecptive was to answer @Gurken Khancomment that if romans has access to eles in past then they should have used it. It was my logical answer to that Product perspective was my understanding of how UI will be complicated. Attaching a screenshot of the same. If you have 2 different types of units under a player and you select them then what will you see. You can so the buildings they can build, the panel is full. Don't we need this special handling if any units can be trained by any civilization? Cosider a case where 3 or more civilization units are there. 4. I replied to @Gurken Khan how can be handle this case. 5. This was my proposal and final comment @alre. I wasn't completly opposite to idea. I totally onboard to have somethig in between, but based on observations I don't see option 2 as good idea. And, not sure where did I make false claim though. Let me now if I have missed something. I can understand if we not used to look at any disccusion in parts but thats alright. Thanks @Sevda for the code piece you shared.

Proposal. @wowgetoffyourcellphone thoughts ? han_civic_center_no_towers.dae

The converse actually.

@Stan`

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4736

There are two options. Allow capturer to train captured civic units or not allow that. We can look at from multiple perspective. Gameplay persepective Not allow case: In this case gameplay will be as usual nothing impacted. People will know what to expect and what are the benefits of caturig the building. Allow: New gameplay kicks in, people can train any units of any civilization as long as they capture the buildings. Maybe interetsing gameplay, but few limitions are there. User will see so many units types, He will have so many questions. He opts for a civic that has some units. Now he sees so many units from so many buidlings, which one to train? Therotically speaking a game with ffa of 8 players, a player can have 8 different variation of each units like skirmish cav, will he even going to use that? People play a civic becasue they know the civic, sure some variation in units are preferred but with too many options player might get confuse. There can be other cases as well. We should test out this in mode if possible. Logical persecptive: A civilization that especialize in certain units types should have suprior units compared to a capturur that doesn't especialize in it. If Romans captures Sele elephant stables and train eles then they should be inferior in stats. If we are willing to do that then I think it should be fine logically. Certain units types are specific to a civilization that defines their indentity, should fire cav be trained other than by Iberians? It can be questioned. Product perspective A single player can have so many types of units trainable under him, depends on types of buildings captured. It will add to some level of more complexity. UI handling will be difficult. Suppose you are brits, you have ptole backs and roman barcks and mauryans barcks captured, and so on. In certain cases, no of differnet units will exceed the supported number on screen. For example on slecting barack we can show 10 differnet types of units. But now we have 20 types of units, the UI will break. The units trained under capturur shouldn;t be able to build captured civilization building. This needs to be disbaled else it will be hugh mess. For example if a roman civic captured mauryans & brits baracks and trained archer and sling. These units should not build those civic specific building. UI will break. To handle this we will need hard checks, another level of complexity. =================================================================================================== My point is allowing going with option 2 is more complex and less logical than we think. We can make some expercation for certain units and among certain civiclizations, but fully allowing I'm not in favour of. We can either go with option 1 or have some exceptions (something in middle) but not option 2.

It wasn't. It was my bad ^^

well, the team is small and can't have eyes on everything. In this specific case I don't know what the original design plan was and I have (at least at the moment) no strong opinion if this is a feature or a bug, i.e. what the expected behavior is. So all the player are welcome to chime in and give their opinion on how this should be. Is this cool or confusing?

Why isn't the reaction, "Neat! I can train new units from this captured thing!"?

@smiley @maroder

Off-topic but I think it would be good to remove the "Trained by" & "Builds" information from the tooltip. I feel like they provide near to no value and are just visual distraction

Because the tooltip is generic and doesn't know about buildings or units etc.

Seems like there is has been an 3 week silence on this topic. Lately I played a game against @vinme that I wanted to share. Originally I aimed to upload videos at least biweekly, but I realized that I lack the amount of interesting replays of high level strategical 1v1 games.