av93
-
Posts
975 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by av93
-
-
Structure cost should be unified between civs
-
I dont know much about african politics, but seems that either it comes another dictator or if the politic its a good one, it comes another coup.
I hope the best also
-
Persian voices are done?
Finishing the arab units and jew slinger (last units to finish?)
The RC for pyrogenesis is the engine split?
-
50 minutes ago, Genava55 said:
By the way, mercenaries are paid for their service, however this is oversimplification of the status of foreign troops. Auxiliaries/vassalized/allies are also important supply of foreign troops which are also sometimes considered as "mercenaries" because they got a financial contribution in exchange.
That could be the basis for "mercenaries" for barbarian civs. IDK, maybe celts get some germanic units, Iberians could use roman/greek/carthaginian or celts, britons some caledonians, and so on...
-
1
-
-
I guess it was upgrading the ranks that the C/S are trained, or only the stats?
The first approach it's more AoE like, and you can keep blacksmith tech and create an asymmetrical balance with what tech are available to what civs.The second one give more flavor and distinction to the civs, but lack the visual upgrades. And also blacksmith tech could be kept
-
I didnt read all the forum, but in the mod.io page it says that nomadig civs are in Delenda Est, but didnt found them there ingame. Did I make anything wrong?
-
What about a positive reporting like in LOL? When you finish the game you can qualify the others players if they were friendly, they resigned, etc.. like a karma system.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Feldfeld said:
I think there would be a problem to visually convey that, are we going to make projectiles magically attracted to a unit, or will we have a projectile hitting despite obviously not landing in the game ? (or projectiles at supersonic speed ?)
AoE 3 doesn't have a miss probability, and it looks good. I think that they used fast projectiles solution
-
Possible final solution: ranged attacks should always hit although the objective is moving, but the odds of failing are determined by the attacker template.
-
1
-
-
Any kind of form of opression to humans beings shouldn't be tolerated.
-
4
-
-
24 minutes ago, WhiteTreePaladin said:
I think the original reasoning for the free buildings was that the Ptolemies would have had many ancient structures already built from old Egypt. That's also why the build set was heavily skewed Egyptian rather than Greek. The longer building construction time was a gameplay concession for balance. Doesn't mean it has to stay this way, just that's what I remember in the discussions back when the Ptolemies were first added. (I haven't played AoM. It's possible the effect was inspired by AoM, although I don't remember it being brought up at the time.)
In AoM it's exactly like that, some buildings are not free, but the ones that are need a longer building time.
Seems that the topic have been splitted
-
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:
But why do they have free houses to begin with? It should be removed in my opinion (also in vanilla, especially in vanilla). Cheap houses, sure, no problem... But free houses doesn't make any sense...
Why? Straight AoM copy of the Egyptian bonus.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Sundiata said:
As Alexander said, it's in his horse update. Thanks to him for rigging, animating and actually getting the model in game...
It was intended specifically for the hero Queen Amanirenas (chariotry was still around in the 500 BC - 1 BC timeframe, but not as common as it once was). I guess it could be adapted for a champion unit as well. It was originally decided to drop chariots because the Kushite roster is already so diverse and other factions don't have such a diverse roster.
A new find in the excavation report of the first excavations of Meroë by Garstang himself. A Kushite chariot from a fragmented relief on the 1st century BC Meroitic period temple M 250 in Meroë (in a militaristic context of battles, massacres, marching soldiers, occupied villages etc). Similar to the fragmented reliefs of 2 chariots in the 1st century BC Meroitic period temple of Osiris in Napata, as well as the fragmented reliefs of chariots the 8th century BC, 25th dynasty reliefs of Piye in the Great Amun temple of Napata.
I could also give the "Libyan" chariot a go. Just to be clear, do you mean Libyan, or Garamantian chariot? https://africanrockart.britishmuseum.org/thematic/chariots-in-the-sahara/
Wow, it's gorgeous!
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:
One suggestion or request would be that you stick to one general shape or a shape and its variants per unit type. This is for visual verification of the unit on the battlefield (I admit that realistically they would be mixed, but this is a game and it has its needs).
In the middle of battle you neee to find fast if the enemy cavalry is charging your skirmishers o they are suiciding them against your spearmen
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Glestul said:
I have now played many games in V1.0.3 and still is very similar gameplay to alpha23. In phase three there are still big groups of farmers. Champs should get much stronger in V1.0.4 so that is better to hurry to phase three then get big in phase one. In this version like in alpha 23 is still better to get big in phase one then to go for fast castle. I would like champs be strong so that even with first 5 champs in minute 10 to 15 one could cause big chaos in enemy base in enemy does not have champs as well. 1 champ should kill 20 farmers.
It was like this some alphas ago, and it wasn't fun. Every game was a race to 3 phase and mass champs.
RTS should be about choices and different strategies. If there's only a real option, and the other are suboptimal, there's no fun
-
1
-
-
On 2/26/2019 at 9:49 PM, borg- said:
Guys, what would you like to see in the next version?
@borg- I would like some better design of civs, with gameplay styles, asymmetric balance and synergies. Also I think that instead of plain champions with better stats, would be cooler (and harder to balance) to have unique units, in the AoE sense.
For example, for Iberians. All numbers subjected to change or balance:SpoilerWarfare general design: good heavy infantry (they used phalanx) and light infantry, very good light cavalry (Iberian peninsula as the land of horses). The ambusher and skirmisher trope, more relevant to Lusitanian, could be moved to the Britons.
Bonus:
- Starting bonus: eliminate the starting wall set, for a double capacity of garrison of towers. (they actually have +3, so +5)
- Starting penalty: all controlled structures have a 20% less of loyalty, except CC and defensive buildings.
- Unique building: Sacred monument: like now, give better stats to soldiers. But also gives an 45% of loyalty.
Unique units: change the cav skirmisher to a foot skirmisher (if they ever used flaming javelins, the soldiers that carried them should have been on foot, right?). Swordsmen could have a faster movement but less armour and HP than other melee champs (or other traits), and the skirmishers maintain that extra siege attack. Both units get a better bonus of the sacred monument.
- Unique tech 1: CC gets more capacity of garrisoning and then of shooting capacity. 2 phase
- Unique tech 2: Faster or cheaper cavalry. 3 phase
- Mercenaries*: Iberian could use some systems like the original designed and not implemented for Carthaginians (and they should have another one) They have like 4 civs to ally with them permanently. The alliance could give a minor unique tech for them, and each alliance would help cover one weakness of the civ, but mercenaries should be limited. Some ideas:
- Greeks. Colony guard hoplite: it would give a very limited ability to create some spear champs, to have a better front line. A tech to improve the trade.- Carthaginians: Spearmen and archers (so it would cover the lack of archers in the roster). Ability to train a Carthaginian captain (a limited by one mini hero) that have a small aura.
- Celts: Someheavy cavalry. Don't know about the tech
- Romans: Legionaries and scorpio. Some siege or logistic (loyalty, building bonus or speed movement tech)
Tech tree:
Lack of both archers, elephants and only ram, like now. Maybe they could have restricted the cavalry armour techs.
Intended gameplay
Iberians could have an overall all rounded gameplay, but with a strong defensive flavor, based roughly on the concept that they builded Oppidums and Castros. Also is designed by the "unconquerable land" trop: a small town it's easy to conquer, but a larger population not at all
Although they are more vulnerable with their penalty, at the second phase they have an instant bonus that makes them harder to conquer because the firepowers of towers, and later their CCs. In their third phase they even can improve above the average their loyalty, and also the fighters around the monuments (but only in a limited places, with a good reward to their enemies to destroy the statues).
So, this bonus can be used in a turtle strategy, or also in a traditional expanding strategy to try to chock the enemy with improved CC and tower firepower.
They have a normal army, but their cavalry lack armor, compensated by cheap or faster cavalry, to strike hard and where they want. Alhotugh weak on siege, skirmishers champs help to bring down buildings.
*I like the idea of Delenda Est: the mercenaries could be 0 pop, but metal expensive and limited. Civs that they didn't use mercenaries, could use "allies" with the same function.
*Free building restriction of storehouses could be nice
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, odalman said:
Building placement is frustrating (for me and for people I have watched playing in online videos). The problem is, that as soon as the building preview (which follows the mouse cursor) is moved slightly over an obstacle, it turns red (which means that it is not allowed to place the building there). To fix this, the preview should snap to the closest position next to the obstacle. This should only happen when there is a slight overlap.
Spectcially when building walls
-
With dancing we're not talking about, legit hit and run strategies, right?
-
16 hours ago, Kertit said:
Hello there!
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one
You have units models?
-
I gave a try to the mod, but sadly I need to put a wire to have a good connection to the internet.
It's an huge improvement, want to see how evolve the meta of multiplayer.
-
6 hours ago, Alexandermb said:
Possibly do it when dismount/mount can be acces to, right now is just an instantly transition between cavalry and infantry gathering animation.
Yeah, I know, was me who proposed this "hack". I was proposing the same for the slaughtering animation, although it could look very bad if the animal moves while being killed, and then the cavalry unit have to move
-
That reminds me that the slaughter animation should be done with the cavalry dismounted. @Alexandermb ?
I suppose that the logic behind the current sexual division of labour is because the citizien soldier concept. Then, like mostly males where the soldiers in ancient culture, you have to represent somewhere women. So let's create a women unit. I don't really know, maybe an older member team can explain.
I would say that historically, both genders have worked in every field, specially slaves. Except hunting, specially big animals, that have had a special status, and it have been done mostly by men. But sexual division of labour is a cultural thing
If we keep Citizien soldier concept, my opinion it's that cavalry should be only able to hunt wild animal, and not to gather domestic ones.
-
1
-
-
Another argument against would be that it devalues the importance and uniqueness of the CC
But I haven't strong opinion against or in favor, nor I been playing multiplayer since long time. In gameplay terms, that would make conquering much more difficult in third phase, and that should be balanced.
-
2 hours ago, cloud9 said:
Animals fattening, carcasses rotting, berry bushes regenerating or whatever. And yeah, he is right. It’s the first patch in a while adding a gameplay feature.
How I forget it. Surely my bias waiting for a big gameplay change.
I just hope to see more differences between gauls and britons, and better art for them.
What are you reading?
in General Discussion
Posted
Ecology and peak oil things