av93

Roster? - Currently having evidence for: Spearman, Skirmisher, Pikeman (barbarian pikes, cool!) The source of pikes (Not the best): http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?640460-PREVIEW-The-Suebi - Probably Swordsman (maybe only champ), Archer, Cav Swordman (for balance’s sake, like all civs), Slinger, Ram, Berserker. - No Elephant nor Bolt/Stone Thrower, Cav Archer and Cav Spearman.

Take care everybody of own mental health. Don't get mad with things that're simple. Enjoy life, and such things.

Yeah, of course! But I was answering to Genava55.

So Athenians keep the original greek textures?

The problem is that maybe all civs should be review and have some vision behind

This decision was made because in the original design every civilization have only 2 champions. Mauryians had 4 as a special bonus, but in the design process of Seleucids, they were make 4 champs, and later the tech was made as an special feature to follow the design. As you can see, some civs have gotten more than 2 champs

Now this is offtopic, how it's going with pathfinding upgrade? D13 it's near? I don't know nothing about design and programming, but for me it makes sense that: Switching weapon (or others stats) - ability Active and passive special attack - ability Multiple attacks - turret component thing? (Tank) / proper multiple attack component

Abilities are relevant to make unique units instead of regular units with just better stats (champions) https://code.wildfiregames.com/D281 "would include self-destruct, damage around yourself, all the current cheats, transforming entities into other entities, activating spells, locking/unlocking gates, choosing seeds for farms, mounting/dismounting" Weapon switch is one of the example in the given patch.

@wraitii worked on a patch for abilities. But now is working in pathfinding and performance, so don't bother him! Thx btw

@Lion.Kanzen please, can you try to not "triple post" and tag the videos under spoilers? I said that without acrimony. That would help to follow the debate, thx If we talk about characterization of the unit, slingers could have less HP and less range (although some slingers were better regarding reach than some archers) because as you said, they need to be in a wide formation, thus fewer ranks could shoot, and also would be killed easily by melee charges. But if we speak about realism, they should punch more than arrows. But my main concern should be that the 3 roles should be differentiated and used.

What is your take in differentiating archers and slingers?

Translated to heavy (melee) and light (ranged) units Spearman - pikeman > All cavalry and elephants; Archer - slinger > Heavy Infantry Javelinist infantry - Light infantry and archer cavalry Swordman infantry > All Round Spearman cavalry > All cavalry and elephants; Archer cavalry > Heavy Infantry Javelinist cavalry > Light infantry and archer cavalry If we left apart the Darc Raven thing about that design should come first and then balancing, I think that a real problem in this game is the 3 ranged units. Possibly roles: - Ranged infantry with bonus against melee (classical ranged) - Ranged infantry with bonus against ranged (classical skirmisher) - Ranged infantry with bonus against cavalry (rare unit in RTS, usually unique units) - Ranged/melee hybrid Tanky ranged usually goes to cavalry, but specially to elephant archers. My proposal given the archetypes would be: Ranged 1: generic high attack, fast movement, lower range , worse than other specialist ranged infantry, beaten by the range of other ranged infantry (but if they caught other light infantry, they would punch), and have the better outpout against cav (but cav should be able to kill them, so the game isn't focused on massing ranged) -> Javelin Ranged 2: Anti infantry (both heavy and light) medium range. -> slinger Ranged 3: Anti light, better range. Classical skirmisher -> archer The thing is that I would make javelins available to all and early, only primary resources (food and wood, sorta trash), and archers and slingers prizey and available later. Mercenaries maybe are an idea to try to balance and cover incomplete rosters, but in a limited and expensive way, so there's an asymmetrical balance.

Hmm, at first glance I see Borg mod more interesting. Animal pets besides war dogs seems too much fantasy for me, but different starting units for civs could be a interesting concept to play with.

Building on neutral territory would overlap with roman camps

What are the plans? Write down everything that is made in the game, and then start changes?

I feel lately there have been some work on new features rather than polishing or solving bugs, and that's nice. Some questions now that we're asking... Finally what will happen to persian voices? Wraitii is working in the improvement and implementation on big changes on pathfinding? (or was only a small fix)

Yeah, I was talking abou what I seen in videogames, except the pikemen, that I think that I saw it in a historical video

It's nice! Although some kind of basic roster should be made. Somewhat this system was proposed to Carthaginians, but IMHO they just should have access to all mercenaries, and this feature could be kept to Germans if confederations were a common thing. IRC from other mods and games, Germanic warfare had as a special quirks maces, bows (more used than celts), pikes (as you said) and women warriors (although seems that Scythian also used them) As other European central/north "barbarians" they used naked units and noble heavy infantry, and relied a lot in ambushes with skirmishers. They used lighter cavalry than Gauls. I don't know nothing about cultural or economical aspects. But they guy that uses a lot of good sources are you! I'm just writing all of this because I like to learn.

Historically wise, IRC correctly a stone is deadlier than an arrow, because momentum. The stone can crush bones under armor. But every class should be usueful.

As I said, this is my personal taste. If the art work it's done, there's no problem to someone to arrange factions like he wants. The real plan for the main distribution, is to not add more civilizations. what would be the specials features of a Germanic civ? (Marcomanni confederation, if you want to be more specific?) Just wondering, what would be the uniqueness of their social/cultural, economic and specially warfare traits? What would made stand different to other Celts in army composition?

Yes, of course. While I'm an social anthropologist and I agree full on that, from a gameplay POV, including so much tribes, that shouldn't be so different in terms of gameplay, could be in detriment of including other more distinct civs. I also think that it's better to depict only civs in the roughly same epoch (in my taste). No goths against carthaginians. But if German isnt a right word, lets choose one of the tribes as a representative of the diverse protogermans?

Sorry, my fault. The packing stuff, as you said. AoE3 Sioux feels enough nomad with their concept: weak buildings, not defenses at all, fast and hard hitting mobile units.

I think that is the kind of features that sounds great on paper, but in terms on gameplay doesn't work at all. Interesting topic Lion. Never thought that some "germanic" people fought Rome so early. What about a generic "Germanic" civ that represents the Cimbri/ Teutones/Ambrones alliance? 

Would love to have Garamantes for more African factions. Numidians are half covered with Carthaginians

Okey, I checked the buildings costs and seems that they were almost unified. If I remember well, towers, fortress and barracks had different cost of stone and wood between civs (@wowgetoffyourcellphone, I'm right?). I think that now only barracks (except Iberian towers, that are special) have random values in their prices: - "Standard" price: 150 wood 150 stone, athens, carthaginians, spartans, kushites, macedonians, seleucids - "Wood" price: 300 wood, gauls, britons, mauryans, persians - "More stone" price: 100 wood 200 stone: romans, ptolemies, iberians Then we have the small/large houses: iberians, celts, britons, mauryans and ptolomies have small and cheaper houses of 5 pop, while others have large ones with 10. Disadvantages and advantages should follow a civilization design, and right now it's pretty random. Ptolomies have free buildings because a straight copy of AoM, not because some heavy design. Of course I agree on asymmetric balance (I have written in the forums for years!), but with some idea behind.