Mythos_Ruler

It is my opinion that it isn't necessary that Part 2 civs correlate with Part 1 civs. It stretches things quite a bit to say that the Eastern Romans (Early Byzantines) equate with the Athenians in Part 1. If anything, I would have equated them with the Macedonians, but then now we are arguing over something unnecessary. I say just go with the civs that make the most sense from a gameplay and historical POV. My favored civs right now are: Culture: Roman Imperial Romans of the "5 Good Emperors" era.Struggles with the Germans, Parthians, etc.Rome at its height.Culture: Greek Early Byzantines (Constantine to Justinian, which allows a cool hero like Belisarius)A good foil for the Sassanians if we choose to include them.Some great architecture and unit rosters that will look unique from the Imperial Romans.Can mix many units with Imperial Roman architecture for a "Late Western Rome" civ for Hunnish scenarios. Culture: German As a culture, they have weak, but fast-building structures, so they capture territory quickly, but may lose it just as quickly. FranksMarcomanni or Alemanni? Which would be best?GothsCulture: Steppes Nomad These as a culture have packing buildings and things like ox carts for dropsites. They also have mighty bonuses in looting and plunder. These civs rely more on cavalry than any other culture. HunsSarmatiansCulture: Eastern ParthiansSassanids​War elephants.Palmyrenes​A mix of Roman and Eastern units; Roman, Eastern, and Greek architecture.Culture: Dacian DaciansCulture: Indian Guptas​Not a carbon copy of the Mauryans, the Guptas have strong stone buildings and defenses and no chariots.The above list would give us 12, like in Part 1. Could be convinced to drop the Palmyrenes for another German faction, but that would seem to overbalance civs toward the German culture.

Well, you did say "and it's more flexible gameplay-wise." So I was responding to that and then seeing your screenshot with a blue tower built in the green territory and a blue tower built outside any territory and I'm left wondering what exact gameplay changes are you proposing.

Territory is intended to be a limiter and (relatively) inflexible. If the player can build structures outside his territory, then what the heck is territory for anyway? Right now, from the player's POV, territory has a clear and concise affect on gameplay. Why start to make this ambiguous? To make the code cleaner is not a good answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19cfvbnhuSU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cqV1FOm68U

Right, they pour out like a spigot or faucet, not shooting up like a geyser.

The stomach needs to sway a bit. That's why its so robotic. And his head needs to bounce more I think.

If there's a repair option for the Siege Walls, then that was an oversight. lol. There's no repair for these items for balance purposes. They're meant to be non-permanent.

He didn't say that at all.

This is all true. But having said that, it may make sense for some things to lose loyalty when cut off from home territory (buildings that normally must be built in the player's territory), while other things lose health (things that can be built in enemy territory, like Army Camps). Don't know yet. It'll take some playtesting once we have capturing and loyalty.

Did they have pressurized fountains like this in ancient times? I really have no idea.

What game is this Lion? I am actually pretty impressed. EDIT: Got it. It's Grand Ages: Rome.

I think the approach currently in the game is the best approach right now because of the exact point that there is only so much you can do with low poly wheat. Having said that though, I encourage you to keep experimenting if you wish and including more "detailed" or "varied" farms in the editor is definitely an option and good for hand-crafted scenarios.

Those don't look good. They would seriously clutter up the look of a base.

I like them. Only thing is, I think there is too much dead space at the beginning. Should probably start to hear the drum roll immediately when the tech is completed. Good direction though! It would be nice to have tech notifications. And then extend them to have a standard chat notification for regular techs and a "grand" notification for phase techs that is more dramatic than a simple chat notification and hits you over the head with the fact that you have advanced.

You're gonna hate me, but I don't really like them... They look very cluttered and not beautiful at all, as the title of this thread is supposed to suggest. I really like the uniform nature of the current ones.

Yeah just a typo.

I agree. If we are to have fewer gatherers per field, then a diminishing returns mechanic is pretty pointless and we could probably just strip it out.

How about this. Wall Towers don't show up unless as a joint between two long wall segments. Otherwise, say between two medium wall segments, you just get a connector, not a tower.

Thanks, m8. What is your favorite faction? What is your favorite feature?

The training tooltips give you a quick idea of what units are best against others. Though, it would be nice to also include a detailed stats screen in an encyclopedia-style format. This is something we want, but other things take priority at the moment.

Good thinking. I think the bonus could be tweaked to "A powerful circuit of prefabricated walls or up to 5 defense towers, depending upon the map."

This may look a little more recognizable.Though, it may look more recognizable what weapon-type he is if the sword didn't overlap the body (he held it straight up so it overlapped the darker background instead).

LordGood, can you get me a layer with just the marine, separate from the background? Maybe the image in Photoshop format?