Mythos_Ruler

I like Lion's approach to this, where the stats are "summed up" for the player. We can actually have both. It is difficult to actually see what each player was trying to do and how successful they were at doing it with the current approach. Perhaps a "strategy" tab that gives scores to different kinds of strategies based on the raw numbers. There would be a lot of guessing or opinion on our part, at least at first, on what the raw numbers mean, but that doesn't mean we can't keep tweaking and tweaking as we go and as strategies and playtesting shake out. So, the "Strategy" tab could have columns of various strategies, like "Defensive" "Rushing" "Booming" etc., where we weight all of the stats differently to give each player a score (or percentage) in each of these strategy columns. This would at least give some kind of "context" to all the raw numbers in the other tabs.

I agree that things need a holistic, well-designed approach, that takes into account usefulness. Let's not forget presentation as well. The way stats are presented is almost as important as why we present them. In the end, I think we do things because people request them. People want to see certain statistics for their own reasons. But we also fall into the trap where 3 or 4 people request something and then all of a sudden we think it's an important feature without asking "why." 3 or 4 people requesting something out of tens of thousands of users and a few thousand forum members does not a priority make. Let's answer these questions: Why do we want a statistic screen? If we have a good reason to have one, what statistics are important to how the game is played? Another way of asking this is, which aspects of the game are useful to quantize onto a statistics screen? Right now we have a very shotgun approach. What is the best way to convey these statistics to the players? Graphs? Raw numbers? Some other method? What is the best way to present these statistics in a way that is both aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the visual presentation we want to make for the game?

Having some units only able to use the "aggressive" stance could simulate this. For instance, Thracian Swordsmen and other undisciplined, eager troops could default exclusively to Aggressive, while most other soldiers default to Defensive.

Fighting outside of formation in this time period meant certain death. It meant you had lost cohesion and hence the battle. It's one thing to lose cohesion in the middle of a charge, but it's another thing to have your dudes just mobbing everywhere out of formation. It really shouldn't be that hard to implement a "discipline" factor that makes a formation look a little sloppy. Rome:Total War had it 8 years ago. I believe RTW did it with grayscale PNGs (black specs being slots where soldiers stand in), so it's a bit different than what I propose. I remember talking about this kind of thing with Philip more than once and he always acted like it was reasonable. If anything, soldiers should be using formations even more than they do now. Let's not strip out formations just to solve some buggy behavior. Let's fix the buggy behavior.

Better yet would be to have a "discipline" element in the unit XML templates. The more discipline they have, the more organized they are in formation. Maybe 0.1 - 1.0.

What if the Spartan player receives 1 free Spartiate per house built (houses can be slightly more expensive)? Something like that.

So then, it actually looks like the name should be adjusted. Ethiopian Archers? Kushite Archers?

With Alpha 15 nearly upon us, I started to think recently about ways to differentiate the gameplay for each faction. Not to just give bonuses and techs (although those are important), but to really change how each one plays compared to the others. I have a few ideas I would like to share (and a couple I have already implemented on my local copy of the developers version of the game). During our discussion here, I can add the more interesting and feasible and sensible ideas to the list. Athenians Technologies: Let's really leverage their Gymnasion. I'd like to give them a whole new interesting tech tree just there at the Gymnasion. I start to detail some cool stuff here, and continue adding ideas in this thread: http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16631&p=273189 Ditto goes for their navy. I was thinking of giving their Docks a tech that unlocks ship repair when the ship is near the dock (basically right next to it). That's detailed in the link above as well. Britons War Dogs: I think it would be neat to have 2 different breeds of War Dogs available at the Kennel, Mastiff and Wolfhound. Each one would have different bonuses. Maybe you have to unlock one or the other. And perhaps the Britons start each match with a free Kennel. Carthaginians I think Carthage plays uniquely already, with their ethnic Embassies and their Naval Shipyard. How can we make the Naval Shipyard more interesting? Gauls Ideas? Iberians Implementing some kind of "Ambush" ability is key for these guys. They already get the free set of circuit walls at the start of the match. I think an Ambush ability would round them out nicely. The problem is making it useful and easy to use and not overcomplicating its use. The easiest way would be to just give Iberian units a large attack bonus vs. enemy units in column formation, so that when an enemy column is marching by, the Iberian player can attack its flanks and induce a lot of casualties. Harder would be to give a "real" ambush ability where the Iberian units become invisible to enemy players somehow until the trap is sprung. The key here would be to make it worthwhile for the Iberian player to use this ability at all, because while they are lying in wait for the enemy, they're not doing anything else useful. Also, flaming munitions, like javelins. Would be nice to be able unlock this and have enemy units or structures become engulfed in flames and steadily lose health for a period of time. Macedonians Macedonians could be our "baseline" civ where they're just a pretty good example of default gameplay. Except for the fact that they should get a Siege Workshop for all of their siege engines. Mauryans I think the Mauryans play uniquely already, with their large number of champions and abundance of elephant units, especially the Worker Elephant. Adding the "animal capture" feature as planned will really make these guys interesting (capturing Elephants and Horses to give training bonuses to elephant units and cavalry). Another idea is we can somehow include their caste system in the game. Persians These guys play differently already, with their Stables and Palace. Could maybe reduce their infantry health further and consequently add some more training speed techs to really turn them into the Zerglings originally envisioned. Ptolemies Military Settlements. In my local copy of the game I've made the Ptolemies start with a Civic Center as normal, but instead of building additional Civic Centers to expand, they build their Military Settlements instead. Military Settlements are then the Ptolemies' chief method of expansion. They are weaker than the main Civic Center and cast a smaller territory influence, but are cheaper and build faster. It means they can expand quicker, but their expansions are also more vulnerable. I also moved the Lighthouse to Town Phase to really make its desired bonus (lifting black map off all water) have an impact for the Ptolemy player. Romans They have the Army Camp, which is an interesting structure, as it can be built within enemy territory. Same goes for their Siege Walls. So, how can we make these things more useful and used more by good players? Marian Reforms: Can we include this somehow? Becomes available in City Phase and once researched all infantry turn into Marian Legionnaires (champion infantry)? Could we have the Romans start each map with a free Temple of Vesta and then give it some kind of bonus (like greatly increased unit and building stats around it)? Maybe then it is a game-loser for the Roman player if it is destroyed. Seleucids Hellenistic Reforms: I was thinking of giving the Seleucids a choice once they reach City Phase of unlocking a "Traditional Army" or "Reform Army." Each one would unlock different champions and techs. For instance: Traditional Army Agema PhalangiteScythe ChariotReform Army Romanized SwordsmanGreek CataphractThey also have Stables, like the Persians. So, overall, I think they'll be a nice unique faction. Spartans I think we should keep it simple with the Spartans. But maybe leverage their 3-tier cultural hierarchy (Peers -> Perioikoi -> Helots) somehow.

I liked it better with the 5 stripes.

Make sure to set the actors to cast shadows.

Empires Ascendant is poetic English, but perfectly acceptable.

Josh is right. No self-respecting fisherman would let his catch rot on the deck. Maybe make the baskets bigger so we can see the fish inside. Would be good. Other than that, it's looking good now.

This sounds logical.

I actually had the idea of having fewer AI names (perhaps 3 per civ) and then giving each one a "personality" and "strategy" style. "Personality" can be the way the AI chats and taunts. "Strategies" can be minor tweaks to the AI's strategy and tactics. Both personality and strategy would complement each other. For instance, for Athens, could have: Alcibiades AI Personality: Overconfident, even when defeat is inevitable. Boisterous. Quick. Backstabber. Raider. Expansionist. Strategies: Raids a lot. Attacks often with small to medium forces. Doesn't build walls at all. In team matches, has a 10% chance of switching allegiance on his ally if tributed enough resources. Tries to build his 1st expansion rather quickly, at the 10 minute mark if possible. Builds new expansions often and whenever possible, even if he can't defend them (this guy will probably lose lots of Civic Centers in the course of a match). Pericles AI Personality: Thoughtful. Eloquent. Democratic. Defensive. Turtler. Builder. Strategies: Turler, so builds lots of defenses, walls, towers, etc., around his starting base, while being fairly aggressive with his navy. Tends to build more Temples and other structures, and goes for the Wonder victory more aggressively than other Athenian AIs. Themistocles AI Personality: Quick wit. Humorous. Cunning. Aggressive. Alliance builder. Strategies: This AI is the most aggressive with the navy and builds more docks than the other 2 Athenian AI variations. He goes for the Long Walls upgrade as soon as possible and uses stone walls to section off parts of the map. He is extra aggressive against the opponent in the other team who is playing as the Persians. He also temps other players on the enemy team to join his team with promises of tribute, especially if those enemy players are Greek or Successor factions. He might even send some chats/taunts to individuals in the enemy team to sow dissent, and even lie about other players.

I like this one. It's better organized:

Take a deep breath. This is just how we work and have worked for nearly a decade. We iterate and iterate until we are satisfied. I believe the Greek building set is currently on its 4th incarnation.

Very much agree. I also think there need to be some automatic dynamic volume control, where the volume of each sound decreases as there are more of them being played simultaneously.

Forgot a few things: Farm Field (or just field or just farm)TempleBlacksmithNubian Archer

Thanks for the translations. Maybe "wooden tower" for the outpost. For the Seleucids, I think we'll just go with Koine Greek, as that was the official language of the Empire and the language of the standing army.

I agree with the spy tech. Probably researchable at the Fortress. Reveals the line of sight of all enemy units. Cost of the tech is something like 50 Metal and 50 Food for each enemy unit. Exact cost is up for testing.

I'm starting to feel like the Ptolemaic buildings are getting too cartoony. Certainly, compared to all of the other building sets, the Ptolemies are starting to look like something out of Age of Empires Online. For now, they are fine for this release, but I think some of the buildings will need another pass before beta. About the Military Settlement, it should probably be around the size of a Civic Center, or a little smaller. Bigger than a Barracks, but slightly smaller than a Civic Center. I'm thinking of making the Military Settlement the Ptolemies' expansion building, so instead of the Ptolemies making new Civic Centers, they'd just get the one original Civic Center and would build Military Settlements to expand their territory, like other civs would do with new Civic Centers.

I like your work so far. As far as which stats to show, I think it is more important to show the most relevant stats to the game's gameplay, than to show every stat we can come up with. This should be kept in mind.

I commented on this:

Multiple win conditions would be nice. We are slowly adding Wonders to the game, so a Wonder victory condition would be nice to have in the 'default' gameplay. Perhaps 1 more victory condition, like owning 75% of the map for X number of minutes. Both the Wonder and Territory conditions would have (visible) timers. Both of those are good ideas, and should be implemented for the AI. But what about human players? Should we have something like 'Sudden Death' where there is a timer victory after destroying all of the enemy civic centers? If you can't get a new Civic Center built within 5-10 minutes, then you lose. Either way, there needs to be more victory conditions (and selectable in match setup, perhaps with check boxes). And the AI* needs to know when it should quit. Good thread. *It would be great to make the AI have multiple "personalities," perhaps slightly different play style and willingness to surrender for each of the possible AI names in the civ json list (we would cull this list to make it manageable).