av93

This post was inspired by this one. Currently, units only have in the description, the classes that belongs to. As before in previous alphas, I think it will be useful have a description for them when hovering the unit portrait both when selecting and for training the units. Although we've discussion a lot for the units roles and I'm not a favour about the actual design, I think that it's needed a written clarification about them in-game, for both new players and people that hasn't or don't want to check the numbers. Players need why train infantry melee A and not infantry melee B. That's my initial suggestion, based on actual stats (not my design proposition idea): Skirmisher: Fast ranged unit with a powerful piercing short ranged attack. Useful for hit and run tactics or close combat support. Slinger: Ranged infantry with a medium attack and range. Good as a standard ranged infantry. Archer: Long ranged support infantry, with low attack but effective against light armoured infantry. Spearman: Standard melee infantry, with a 3x bonus against cavalry. Good as main infantry or defensive line against cavalry. Pikeman: Slow infantry, effective as a shield wall against damage, with a 3x bonus against cavalry. Swordman: All-rounded melee infantry with a fast attack and movement. Effective against other melee and caught ranged infantry Cavalry swordman: Melee cavalry with a fast attack, good against unprotected ranged infantry, spear cavalry and raiding. Cavalry spearman: Shock cavalry with fast movement with piercing armour* that uses a powerful but slow attack. Cavalry skirmisher: Ranged cavalry that combines the strong attack of the javelin and the mobility of the horse. Useful also against all cavalry. Cavalry archer: Ranged infantry that combine the supportive long range of the archer and the mobility of the horse. EDIT: *With this phrase I wanted to empathize that cav spearman have better pierce armour than sword cav, but still a low number.

Cause this game it's heavily influencid by Age of Empires series, and mostly in all games the priests are the healing units.

Is any of the religions depicted in the game still worshipped? I think not.

@stanislas69 That.s enough!

Any specific info on this? I thought that was a pathfinding problem.

Also I would change galvanize (improves, enhances)

Please... @gameboy Rise of the East has been merged with another civs projects and now the project it' called Terra Magna. As Skhorn said, you can download it there.

No no, didn't thought that, just was curious about the track timeline, adding new features, balance changes within a feature freeze.

Hmm my short (but hard) list would be -Motion rewrite (no more sliding) / Better pathfinding -Simple campaign support (aoe 1 level of interface, no need of cutscenes for now) -More triggers (with a scenario editor trigger interface would be better) -Finished animations, and adding stuff already done here (this could make it into a22): BTW, here it says that Feature Freeze started on 31 of may. Track used to be a somehow indicator for new releases, but not now isn't anymore. I started to watch this page, that was more real. What happened? @elexis

Surprising

Now I see the problem: they made it a 14 days kickstarter. I think that they will relaunch a crowdfunding if that one isn't successful.

There is a old wip patch somewhere to show only the generic name as an option.

Civilization meets a city-builder. I would play it, but i feel that they wont make it.

Wouldnt be useful to recollect this info in the multiplayer?

And mods! No need of storage, the page could provide a link.

Well, the only animations that maybe you will need are for gunpowder units

Hmm maybe it could be implemented in this way: slaves in normal mode have a better rates working, but you can use the upgrade component to overwork and exhaust them (losing health but better stats). It could be changed again. Something like your mauryan champ weapon swapping feature. Something like chaos workers in dow1.

What factions belong those two kind of hoplites?

To cool everything down, I think that there's a lot of misunderstanding in this conversation. At first, Wraitii never said to train units individually to form a battalion, just that the engine should support three kinds of behaviours. He specifies that fact later. Then Lion phrase it's very hard to understand. IMHO, cause Lion is in favour of individual units managing, he hasn't wrote a concept that actually the others agree, so the ticket isn't really useful cause the concept is vague and lacks a really good description for someone to implement, being prone to another never-ending discussion about how implement battalions. That's maybe the cause that made Wow write "that his enthusiasm is gone". As Wraitti said, the engine can handle individual units, so no worry about that. Engine supporting "dynamic" battalions, for adding or dividing units should be nice. But the problem is that some wants that game should be based on less or more solid battalions and not mess it up in micromanagement.

If storehouses are free and can be built in neutral territory, losing one isn't a big deal, right? Yeah, you only lose time of the workers.

Sé poco de photoshop y nada de animaciones. Si lo que te refieres es traducir algún texto en concreto, podría. EDIT: No soy un maestro de la ortografía, pero por favor cambiar el título del post (es colaborar, no colavorar)

Sorry I misspelled the sentence. I wouldn't like to portrait them as "savage" people. BTW, a compromise between having and don't having C-S, would be to have only "militia" or "youth warriors" only trainable on the CC, that can work, but that can't be upgraded and have a medium disadvantage against regular barracks soldiers, that step up with the upgrades and the progress of the match.

Just as historic note, animal hunting as never been a big basis of the human diet except some few cultures (like Inuit). We always talk about hunter-gathering tribes, but they really were gathering-hunter tribes, the first performed by usually women.Don't know if Iberian and Celt culture was a heavy hunter society, although I'm for a gameplay>historic realism, I wouldn't like to portray them as barbarians "more on less savage" civs.Of course there was difference between them and the grecoroman culture (for example they had a more individualistic way of fight, in contrast of the Greek and Roman fashion, if my history notions are right)

Why don't add groves to the poll?

Well, don't know if this is the right place, but now that there's a lot of discussion about design, I just found this on reddit. I hadn't read it https://es.scribd.com/document/318886164/AGE-2-Design-Document