av93

Random number?

Wow! (onomatopoeia), fortress doesn't look so full, now it's much better. Didn't like the "archery" icon. Maybe a tip with a diana?

Maybe you can do it in hacky way, making most buildings have a small territory area, so you have to build close. But maybe it's better to wait and do it in a proper way, instead of wasting time. BTW, the initial selection could be implemented for the main engine? (even could be use it for Carthage mercenary system)

Also, right now Carths having the big walls is an disadvantage, although they have more hp, they are more difficult to build them. Maybe al civs should have the same footprint for walls.

Yeah, I know that the bolts of polyobolos could be small, I was talking more about how to hold them. But I think that the normal oxybeles need a new projectile rather than that model that looks like a stake (maybe it's historical correct, I don't know)

And sorry for the double post, but I think this is needed: with the siege units with crew, projectile hit sound and animation, siege will look very cool and alive! Kudos for all the team!

My humble critiques would be that some kind of differentiation on the polybolos crew with the spears could be needed, it feels like an infantry skirmishers (how it holds the bolt, specially when moving), maybe having a bag or carrying the bolts like how the wood is carried by workers. And then projectile for the oxybeles, needs a new model, right?

Sounds like an huge task. Years to do it.

For a """realism""" point of view, why they would make an elevated ground in the main building? Yeah I know, It gives a garage feel, and help to differentiate between other buildings, but there's some other reason @LordGood? BTW, Iberians didn't have a lot of dedicated buildings, neither acknowledged rams in the recorded history (so my point wasn't start a long serious discussion about that)

Yeah I know. When I write in my phone, I tend to skip words or make more orthographic errors. But the intention in this phrase was to have the work has subject, not you. So I don't know why Enrique or Loordgood haven't committed your work. Even as a placeholder.

Please, do animated crew for the vanilla siege units! Also there's some units left to do for seleucids and ptolomies. Stan did some work, but never comited. i don't know why.

Well, most civs in aoe3 (if not all) have separate buildings into barracks, stable and foundry.

Specially walls should have the same footprint (I don't know if already have it), cause then some walls are easier to place than others. End Offtopic Very nice new flavour. More diversity always is welcomed!

I'm seeing walls done? (for scenarios and modding). If I can ask also an offtopic, do you remember if all buildings (beside specials, temples and wonders) have all the same footprint?

Yeah it would be nice to share the design with a similar shape. Maybe the tower could stay because the iberian are a defensive/tower civ. Maybe not. If you do this buildings, they would be useful for the main game if they are included, but if not they, for modders. Kudos.

So, finally, this a artistic representation of a old Artemis Orthia before romans? What about the left temple, why the "temenos" have a weird form?

I.m sure they will change it when they know when they are gonna release it.

I just think that they just arent making a good enough pathfinder.. Don.t expect any new feature that hasnt been announced or leaked. Its sad cause they lost an opportunity to make a new version of the engine, starting from Aoe 2 HD and fixing the pathfinding and the networks problem, but having the features like triggers and so. Then the new aoe 2 could share the engine and easier to maintain... Maybe would have been more expensive, i dont know.

The main thing that I see here, is that people that are legitimised for changing the design are the developers, cause an ethic ethos of "to say something, you have to get your hands dirty", and I don't see this as a negative thing. Although archiving a good design is not easy, with the currents features, a lot could be changed, but some designs are asking for news features... and only coders can do it. So a lot of discussion I think are gravitating around that, and it's understandable in volunteer project. IMHO a dedicated designer would come only legitimised by working in the engine, not with a game design from "outside". I would feel like people would tell me what to do, and this is not good as the main drive here of one person is motivation. I don't know if somebody have been hurt by my comments of need of change or proposals, but always I try to be constructive. People tends to talk always about what's wrong and not about what it's well done. I have said before, and I would say another time: maybe we can't agree on the main game design, but the free open-source engine that you're developing have no price. Replay and multiplayer support would help with or without balanced civs. That can change easy with people with low skills, but is not like adding this features. Yes, sure, it's more attractive and hyping adding formations than a gamesetup unification, but it's not wasted work. I have follow this game since the first alpha, and never thought that I would play with against an AI or entering easily in a lobby. A lot of time have passed, sure..

For all somewhat new members, this has been tried before, like Sibyllae Vox. But I think that's great to see in very mod new suggestions or balance tweaks that can be added to the main game. Well, I would have to said that this effort wouldn't be in vain. The code would be added to the engine, and it could be used for another game.

That can cause misunderstandings, please try to avoid this kind of post

Didn't know that you can commit, I thought only Enrique could.

I don't know how understand you. I think we're all talking about examples, and I was only talking about the kind of thinking designing the game. That was my point, not to start a discussion about them.

Is not a vague term, either with counters or without counters. I'm not advocating here for one way or another of design. But in this game, sometimes I find different sub-optimal or meaningful choices, that aren't really choices cause there's one better. Of course i'm in favour of asymmetrical design and situational choices (like sea maps) but.. I have written before, clear strategies and choices that let you boom/turtle/rush (and midways). Civs designs that feels different but balanced. Synergies. Maybe I would explain myself better with the mercenary camp example: Ok, we add a neutral mercenaries camps in the middle of the map, between players, a "resource" that should worth taking. Why is worth? · Cause is only a barrack more near the enemy? Cause it's a "free" building that only cost unit time capturing them? It's worth spending time capturing (instead of working) when you can have a safer barracks? · Cause it trains mercenaries? What happen to the civs that doesn't have mercenaries? (are the mercenaries civ bounded, or map bounded?) - Why mercenaries are worth? Cause a cheaper price? Cause are better fighting? Cause (if map bounded) fills unit roles gap that the civ doesn't have (so some mercenaries in some maps are more useful for some civs?)? If mercenary camps are added right now, maybe the mercenary "trait" should be changed a little bit to make them more attractive, cause then with the current stats I think that there's a lot of problem that I write up there that aren't resolved. Sure, mercs are now more viable with the new techs, but a merc camp in the middle of the ground are only useful for seleucids and ptolomies, and add nothing for civs that doesn't have mercs. For example, like Delenda Est, mercenaries could be limited population that doesn't cost space population. But BTW, chaning a small element leads you to balance the thing with the global picture and the general design: -Why spend or not ore in mercs. -> Where I can spend it-> It's ore a plentiful resource or a scarce one -> You can mine it safe or not-> Map design and resources distribution and gathering -Why spend population in mercs -> They can work, They can work better? How perform in battle-> Other military roles -> Differences between soldiers (and between C/s, mercs and champs) -Etc.. But adding mercenaries just like this, I think that doesn't add deep choices. Hope I explained myself and I have give some idea behind the cohesive design gameplay. Sure everyone of them. But if you look the original design, there're a lot of ideas that myself I find random, like adding and adding instead of thinking, like capturing women or horses for corralling. Maybe i'm too influenced by a somewhat competitive and mid ground between Aoe 3 and 2... And finally, I'm' only here to discuss, not to complain. I don't have skills to contribute myself, so work done, it's work appreciated. I have to edit, cause I misclick the post button, and I didn't end it.

Is better to have a cohesive gameplay design, and then add small features. It would work better than a collage.