Jump to content

Mythos_Ruler

WFG Retired
  • Posts

    14.941
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Everything posted by Mythos_Ruler

  1. I don't think it would be hard to implement, it's just that everyone's plates are already quite full. It feels like a "let's just move this feature to Part 2" kinda thing. Though, if someone wants to make a demo, then that would be awesome.
  2. The rocks looks nice, but there are a few problems, namely they do not extend below the terrain grid. This is important, as rocks are not always placed on flat ground. I know the old rocks don't extend into the ground either, but those are old. All new assets need to extend into the ground. The same goes for your Fortress--it needs a foundation that extends into the ground in case someone wants to put one on a hill or something. Most of the newer buildings have this. Also, the normal and spec maps won't work until someone commits a build.
  3. Yeah, I'm talking about an "undermine" or "siege mine" or "sap point." Basically, my idea is thus: Citizen-Soldiers have access to build a structure called a "Sap Point" which just looks like a shed. Like drag-clicking walls, one would then drag-click the length of the desired mine to its terminus. Garrisoned infantry units inside the shed would then start to "dig" the mine tunnel. You would see a dirt texture creep across the ground, kind of like how , from the shed toward the end point. Walls that the tunnel burrows under are then undermined and collapse. The units then eventually emerge at the end point. If the shed is destroyed before the units emerge, then all the units inside the tunnel die. Like all Siege Weapons, the shed is particularly vulnerable to melee cavalry and other siege weapons.Anyway, that was my general idea.
  4. Please no. I like it the way it is. The game is not even finished, so let's can the nerfing talk for now. We don't have capturing and siege weapons are not balanced yet.
  5. Hmm... Ideally we'd come up with a mining feature like we discussed before, but it may be too much for the programmers to implement?
  6. Gotta learn you how to update entities with new actors now.
  7. Um, it's exactly how it looks in AOEO and it looks fine. It won't look "hacky" in practice.
  8. In 500BC-1BC, "catapults" were ballistas. What you think of as a "catapult" is actually the onager, which became prevalent in the 1st century AD. If there is a 0 A.D. Part 2 with the Imperial Romans, then they will definitely get the Onager (and Chaeiroballista and maybe Sambuca or some other cool stuff).
  9. Great ideas Jeru. A button on the post-game statistics screen to post scores and results to Facebook and Twitter. In-game screenshot dialog to post screenshot to Facebook or to their image sharer of choice (Imgur, others?).
  10. Speaking of percentages, the "rising" building could rise as a % of its completion. If it's 25% complete, then it would be 25% risen, etc.
  11. Yep! One or two scaffold meshes for each footprint size should do the trick. Just base them off of the foundation mesh sizes and we're good to go.
  12. It would be an approximation, like what is done in AOEO.... Click button in UI. Place foundation actor. When builder starts building, then scaffolding pops into place. As the building gets more and more complete, it rises up into place through the scaffold and through a bunch of dust. Then boom, it's complete. It's simple and elegant, looks nice, certainly better than what we have now, and is easier on the art department than having them model multiple instances of every single building based on completeness.
  13. I don't think it gives performance data though.
  14. The change in the code should be trivial, actually, since such a thing is already used elsewhere in the UI. Brian (WhiteTreePaladin) should be the man to talk to about that.
  15. It's because the AI can't handle the Mauryans yet, I believe. If you change yourself to play as the Mauryans and the AI as the Gauls, then there is no error.
  16. Perhaps we should gather some meta data first to make a determination. Something similar to the opt-in feedback form in the main menu screen.
  17. On 2nd thought, I agree with everything except the houses part. The game advances to Town Phase plenty fast enough with the houses as expensive as they are now. However, I agree that the Dock should be Village Phase, with the warships becoming available at later phases and the ranged unit accuracy should be adjusted.
  18. Idle 01 sound like a good selection sound (volume adjusted downward of course ).
  19. Let's go ahead and try it your way. I've applied the patch. I'll take a look and if it's all good then I will commit the changes. Things are easily changed back if we don't like the changes.
  20. I've been looking at it, and I think it would make more sense to put the drop downs below the preview image, wedged between it and the map description field. Anyone?
×
×
  • Create New...