Leaderboard

I want to implement a system for unit speech/dialogue in cutscenes next, inspired by that mockup. Should I add a "next" button (to the bottom right probably) for the player to click through the dialogue themselves? Or always switch to the next line after a set amount of time, like a predefined cutscene? How do other games do it? It would of course be possible to provide both options and leave the choice up to campaign makers. Could that be worth it? Or would one option of those two be always be preferred anyway?

In theory, but I'd have my independence, I could modify the engine. But that's a next step. First nerf everything that's wrong, then buff everything that's wrong, in its historical context. Try different tactics. Add new gameplay. Add new technologies (probably a fork of the current mod). Redesign many things. New game modes. Go full for the campaigns. A mod would kill the project. I can also keep it for myself and just record it on YouTube.

My preference would a "next" button - just in case you are a bit distracted or it takes a bit longer to read, then you might miss that page. Also, if you introduce a preset timeout, there will be arguments both to reduce it and to increase it depending on whom you ask. Making that "next" a user decision avoids these discussions.

Both @Classic-Burger and @Deicide4u have some good ideas for singleplayer mode. If you want to playtest those ideas, I would recommend you to make a mod for yourself. That is much more efficient than raising suggestions on the forum that will very unlikely be adopted. If you encounter technical challenges, we are happy to help with specific coding difficulties and you can perhaps team up with @Emacz to make his Historical mod better. Changing anything in the base game will go through heavy scrutiny, especially when tweaking something that can affect the balance, such as your additional techs. Most multiplayers use only the public mods, therefore we have to keep in pristine to prevent game-breaking balancing disasters. If you read the changelog on the gitea, you will see that most balancing changes are very minor increments in stats and something as major as your techs must be tested in many TGs before being implemented. If you don't want to you go through all this hassle to convince the MPs, just do a mod and submit it to mod.io. Hopefully some like-minded players would download it and 1v1 you there. Back to the topic, I like how it's done in Delenda Est. The techs to take very long to research and some choice to accelerate it would be great.

I think you don't like the calls to "nerf" units , but that doesn't mean making the game more boring, to the contrary : what MPs players don't really like are too anchored 'metas' that make all games a bit too similar... Because one build or tactic is too hard to counter, and that therefor a players can repeat it regardless of the opponent being aware of what you he'll do. Ideally strategy, improvisation, adaptation would be rewarded over mechanically applying a cookie cutter build. You get a better experience from a game where you have to use your brain, teamwork, rather then just trying to be fast fast at spamming broken champ cav for example. Idk how exactly that translates for SP, probably just not being incentivize to make an army of 1 unit type, because it's stronger and isn't at risk to be countered, is already kinda giving the game an extra dept. Pretty sure that it's universal that players play RTS for the Strategy part (Even if I've been told that "Real Time" means it should be about being fast clicker or what not).

I think listening to competitive players/esports players results in improved gameplay. High level players like a game where they can continue to improve and as a result of their level continue to beat players who are worse than them, this is why aoe2 is still alive. Good gameplay mechanics are ones that are easy to learn and very hard to master. Aoe4 was seen by some as a sequel to aoe2 but the developers dumbed down mechanics as much as possible and the result was twofold: civs looking different but actually playing mutually equivalent having no baseline to stand out from, and there being no skill expression. The strategy of the game was basically boiled down to the series of decisions made while aging up. A key example of this is that you can't walk thru an enemies raised gate, its an infallible passive filter. Aoe4 as a result has been vastly less successful than aoe2 has despite aoe2 being old as the hills. Maybe this seems elitist but I promise you its not. A game which features skill development is fun for all ranks. So having features which could be seen as "competitive" is actually just good game design.

I like the way you have it now. (I generally don’t like techs that have a negative effect on something else but I recognize that’s mostly a personal pet peeve)

It used to be an unlocking tech, so that you were forced to choose cheaper techs or faster research before the full Forge tech tree could be enabled. Had that for a long time, but then decided it would be nicer for the player for it to be a choice they could make whenever it was convenient. The effects obviously have less impact the later you make the choice, but who knows what may come up. I agree that Special Buildings are a great place for such pairs.

100% agree. I actually suggested something similar the other day in another thread for how we could improve Ptol’s library. I don’t think it has to be a paired tech per se but it makes a lot of sense for it to be one. Maybe these meta techs are places where paired techs work well in general. Nice to see you implemented something similar.

In DE, I've actually pared down the number of paired techs significantly over past alphas. But one paired tech I've kept and that could be particularly interesting for EA in some capacity is in the Forge: The tech isn't required, but presents an interesting choice that helps you as you tech up. Since EA doesn't have the glory resource, the cost for Forging could be time, while Metallurgy costs resources but low/no time.

Ironically enough, trenches/ditches were definitely used by the ancients in pitched battles and during sieges.

Choice Choice (I also don’t research it at either of these times, most of the time) ——- Just because you always research a tech doesn’t mean that there isn’t a choice involved in when you research it. You have a very simplistic view of the game that doesn’t represent the myriad of other choices out there. You can rush, you can phase up fast, you can skip techs that you don’t need, you can skip eco techs in favor or military techs, you can skip techs in favor or getting more pop, you can skip techs in favor of more buildings If things were as simple as you say everyone would have more or less the same economy, which isn’t obviously true.

Its not the techs themselves but this^ that is the core of the discussion. Recent gameplay innovations like mercenaries having a primarily metal cost in p2 has made the most extensive impact on skipping some techs, but of course most of the time the booming=turtling approach makes the most sense. I definitely don't think that adding tech pairs back into the game is a good idea except for some civ specific situations like the mauryans berry upgrade choice.