Tonto_Icy_Tripod

I think the scale of ships is completely dependant on how large fleets you expect to have. If we're talking 40 ships or so (like in aok) then you can't have them much bigger than they were in aok either... meanwhile, if we're talking 10 or so ships at the max, go ahead and make them huge. You've also got to consider pathing, how close the ships will be allowed to go next to each other and such. From a pure aesthetic point though, 1:1 scale would of course be the best.

Really, anything having to do with supply trains/wagons/units/whatevers is pretty difficult to make work. If you have to have a whole train, it'll be stupidly easy to destroy it unless it's heavily defended, but then how will you survive at the real battle? Compare it to walls. It's much like a wall that you have to constantly defend. If you wanna defend, you don't attack. If you attack, you don't defend. Here you're forced to do both at the same time. It'll lead to a game where you can't possibly break a defence without having twice the army If you're having a wagon, then it'd work like siege in aok/c. You simply rush to get the siege, then fight the army. By killing the supply first, you will gradually get a stronger army. You would need really strong wagons to avoid that... You were talking about just having a supply wagon at all. Then what about multiple fronts? I'd just find a clear spot in enemy territory, park my wagon there and voila, I can fight there just as if at home then, which would in fact defeat the entire purpose of the wagon... Also, raiding would be completely unaffected by this. Assuming it'll still be possible to raid in 0ad of course. How about this instead of supply stuff: When you have an army in opponent territory, you can build in enemy territory, which will allow you to acquire it too. The radius in which you can build will be dependant upon the size of the army (could work like fenris wolves in aom). It would also have to start at the edge of your own borders. That'd mean you couldn't just walk to the back of the other guy's base and build a fort or something. You'd have to actually push forward from your own base. In conjunction with this, you could make it so that units lose health when in enemy territory. Thus, when fighting you'd also build right behind to gain the territory you're fighting in, and wouldn't be fighting penalized. Not sure about the realism, but I think it'd be playable at least....

I *think* it means someone reduced your reputation or something... I don't have any experience with this kind of boards though, so take it as a sort of guess..

I don't see why not. A lot of people complain when game companies don't release enough information. It's better for the community to have an idea of what is going on and that gradually adjusting to the circumstances then to have to wait a year until you get to know anything.

You could give away sucky units to fill up popspace for one. There might be something else, but that's all I can think of right now...

There was a link in the old forums, you can always check that. I'd love to see another screen or something soon again

They will be to scale I believe. You'll atleast be able to put units on them and change the characteristics of the boats that way.

No need to rush it. With 1 year before the game will even be beta tested, focus on the game and not the website. You gotta prioritize

My gut feeling is that it's not good to have a section without having any content there. There's nothing more frustrating then clicking on a link only to see an empty page I thought I'd already posted this, but seeing as I can't find it now, I guess I never did <_< Use one of those calender thingies that you can see on blogs and some people's homepages. It's great to keep track of news.

I'd add in shared pop/resources as it is in aom. Even though it's very seldomly played, it's one of the most fun game types I've ever played

That's the point...if you start in positions like that you get a lot more from doubling (since then you'll be attacking from two directions instead of just having twice the amount of units in one place), winning land becomes more important as you can then connect with your allies, resulting in better trade (I assume there's trade here of course ). Of course, you could always end up with two 1v1s, but that's almost the standard today, so I don't see how you would lose anything?

Minor note in here: wouldn't it rock if in teamgames you actually didn't start next to your allies, but rather diagonally or just randomized? In a 2v2 you'd be set up diagonally, and more than that it'd be random.

I'm not sure what you mean avenger. I didn't mention any specific victory modes. All I said was that in aoc, the standard vill count was 120 or more. If that's what you mean, then I agree with you, it was a bit too much, but I think I also stated that in my post... I'll have to re-read it though to make sure.

A simple, clean site really seem like the best. If someone wants to make a flashy site, let them do it as a fan-site. This is supposed to be relatively serious (I assume) and as such, keep it simple and keep it clean As for contents, seeing as you now have two (2!) people working with news, I guess we can expect a newsupdate twice every day Then again, maybe not Anything that you feel you can release publicly is good. Just don't release everything at once, or people will be overwhelmed at first, and then gradually lose interest. Release the site, with something else (screens?), then wait a while, get some of those interviews rolling, and you know....gradually Perhaps once you feel you have the time and dedication, make a "history of WFG". Just a minor suggestion T_I_T aka toast

Whatever you do, don't remove rushing. An RTS is about making up strategies, and as such, removing one of the most popular strats around seems odd. I can't comment on the borders much though, seeing as I only got the demo for RoN and played it a grand total of 1 hour before getting bored of it The only thing I thought about it really, was that it made it harder to do a comeback, ala aok, where you'd build all over the map in and out of enemy territory. That's just my general impression of it though, I haven't played enough with the concept to really judge it T_I_T aka toast

Seeing as I'm a multiplayer only player, I guess this is kinda my type of thread I guess you could try asking any company that hosts games to host your game.(the zone, ESO (uh, maybe go for BNet first ) Seriously, it's worth a shot, no matter how bad the odds are I don't think there's anything wrong with having options that require huge system specs. Just as long as you don't use them for marketing your product Hardware constantly improves, so why not I guess? Aom has a max of 12, which nobody uses. The normal is 6, though sometimes you see 8. Now, if you were at a LAN, or if you know people have good comps and such, it'd be tons of fun to play a 12 player game. I just think the option should be given, especially seeing as circumstances change I guess. You were talking about units and grouping and such, right? My take on that is that there's a limit where it's just impossible to keep track of your units in any effective manner. In aoc the max was 200, and that was relatively easy to do, seeing as you had atleast 120 of those working as vils, meaning you did very little with them. If you instead had 200 military units to control, that'd be a mess (assuming you have approximately the same type of control as in aoc). Then again, if you have a huge poplimit, it'd be almost impossible to reach it, giving a feel of a game without a poplimit. If that is your goal, then you might as well hide the pop-counter. From a multiplayer perspective, you will never see a game reach pop limits in the thousands. It just won't happen as long as the units are individual (and not grouped as you said). This would then indicate that it's of more interest to a single-player. Correct me if I'm wrong here though <_< I could go on and on about different victory conditions, but I'll just leave it at this: Options rock! Get as many as you can, then perhaps choose the 10 or so most popular (you could have a vote here on the forums for example) If it's possible, why not allow triggers in RMS scripting to allow the scripter to make his or her own victory condition? T_I_T, aka toast