Mythos_Ruler

That shadow could be some Celtic dude's limed hair. Good graphic design for readability would probably have that text as white with a 2px black stroke or other similar effect.

Please remember, that those contributors who know graphics programming don't necessarily know how to do gameplay scripting and vice versa. Nor may they be interested in one or the other.

Not necessarily. What you can do is tag the building you want to capture and tag the buildings you want to destroy, then the units do the rest. This feels like less micromanagement to me than changing the behavior of potentially 100+ offensive units. You can just change the tag on a dozen or so enemy structures or enemies and let your soldiers do the rest. Less micro.

True, but something that looks good at both resolutions is a different requirement than something that looks good at just 1800x2720 resolution.

Sure, but I don't like differing behavior for different targets in this instance. And I think heroes will already be lightning rods for arrows once we reenable them.

I think you should be able to target individual units with a tower or other building, and at least one of its arrows per volley will target that unit (while the other arrows are randomly targeted).

Some more thoughts on this subject I came up with while at work the other night: The original idea was to have soldiers only capture buildings, not attack them. To attack and destroy them you'd need siege. But other folks still want the ability for soldiers to attack and destroy a building without the need for siege. I have come to sympathize with this line of thought. So, what if capturing buildings was just a soldier's default behavior and then you could change this behavior somehow if you wished, similar to a stance? I think there are two ways to do this, in the player's unit UI and in the enemy target's UI. In the player's unit UI, there could be a toggle button that toggles between Destroy and Capture, Capture being the default. Select your units and choose their behavior. This is still micro-heavy, however, and the UI for the player's units is already rather full, so I prefer the 2nd option. Also, you'd run into instances where you could have half your soldiers trying to destroy a building and the other half trying to capture it. Option #2, below, solves quite a few of these issues: Select the target (a building in this case), and since enemy entities have blank panels in their selection UIs, a toggle button between capture and destroy can easily fit. Kind of like "tagging" an enemy object for capturing or destruction. A quick, easy example would be if you scouted the enemy base, you could select their barracks, then choose one or the other, capture or destroy. Then, when your soldiers are in their base, their behavior is affected by how the building has been tagged. They would destroy the barracks if it was tagged for destruction, then move on to the next target and try to capture it (since 'capture' is toggled by default). The concept of 'Loyalty' would still be the currency used in capturing, instead of Health.

"Box art" at 180x272 resolution would not need to be very detailed at all.

I'm only talking about in Atlas. In-game, in normal play, I agree that zoom limits are preferable. But in Atlas, the zoom should be uncapped, for screenshot purposes or general overview for the designer. And right now, if you zoom out too far you get the black sky artifacts in the water, and then eventually the whole map is occluded by the sky box.

A few things... Any way we can get rid of the "black sky" thing happening to water when zoomed out "too far" in Atlas or the game? And also the black shroud of doom that overtakes the whole map when zooming extremely far out. One could say, "Just don't zoom out that far..." but we need to take whole-map screenshots and these issues are a hindrance.

I actually agree with you, and it's not a difficult change to make.

Dismounting cavalry troopers, if more than just a visual effect, add unnecessary and not necessarily-fun micromanagement in a game with 300 units per player.

Not too messy at all. It looks great, actually.

Game is an alpha. Gather rates and such were arbitrarily decided at a time when we did not have technologies.

You get 100% return on investment with sheep. The slow train time is necessary, imho. I could see a technology to make it faster though.

No screenshot? I cannot confirm.

I like how it currently works at the moment. Right now the rubble sits there for about 10 seconds, then slowly sinks into the ground for about 10 seconds, leaving the decal for another 10 seconds. Just destroy a Greek house to see this in action with a placeholder rubble mesh.

Looks really awesome, actually. Very unique and distinguishable from other factions. Perhaps some balconies on the sides as well, for "archers" to fire from. Unless anyone else has any objections, I'd say stick with this direction for the Fortress.

There are tons of grass and stone and plant objects in Atlas. Take a looksee.

The Athenian civ profile is a good example of one that is mostly complete. The other civ profiles are listed here.

Need help now filling in the gaps, here: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Mauryans

You are correct. However, we could just as well make the Bactrian Lancer use the bow as a secondary too.

A cooling pad would work for short amounts of time.

Siege engines could turn in place, they'd just be slow at doing it instead of snapping around 45 degrees (or whatever angle) instantly. Same for any other unit.

We could make scouting more important by making such notifications dependent upon an enemy Civ Centre being within vision range of a scout?