Lion.Kanzen

I prefiere the last call it Province.

the community forums don't let upload files without be compressed in.zip extension.

I agree with wowgetoffyourcellphone The first phase i suggest no military soldier only a scout/ minted or dismounted. With some citizen as starting units but you unlock, remember they are settler in the first phase. 4 military infantry mele and 2 ranged and 3 females. Low LOS. We need more tech to give sense to phasing. In second our villager need train the first citizen soldiers and scout. Need a research a tech to unlock cavalry( this way you save make a stable) The wooden tower can be improved individually to stone. Palisades need be cheap but worst. Sp1 you can research many thing like a university. We can have a each phasing with a kind governor in each phase, each phase unlock speciality units And embassies , so all mercenary historical can be trained there. Romans can unlock Marian reform but don't have yet legionaries with Lorica segmentation.( 3 phase) Other faction can perform their reform and evolve to more strong or cheap units ( weak) The factions without reforms evolving to mix with other Civs , example celtiberians and Iberians . Gauls with Germans. Carthage can recruit more mercenary and unlock technologies , by italiotes, Greeks , Iberians and celts. Persians can reform to give more Greek style and have a embassy with Scythians, Frigians, the other special building that they have in scenario editor only. Mauryans can experiment hellenization and have some kind Greek units( need to research in the web about this) Britons can create Druids that can combat and have aura like heroes. Is like Japan in AOE isolated can have Gaulish features may be. Seleucids can have many kind of archer and full roster of mercenaries me included Scythians, Frigians, Thessalians, Myssians, Iranians, Cretan archers , Thracian and ace men from. Asia ( Anatolia ) Spartans can create reform to have pikeman and walls and some Hellenistic mercenaries. The problem are not the phases, are the lack of technoloies.

No. We must only limit the military units per class, and add basic military units. First phase a cavalry explorator male and female basic unit, the citizen soldiers should come in the second phase, but not all classes Skirmisher/ slinger , cavalry spear, cavalry ranged, spearman and hoplites/ swordsman for Romans limited the experience to reach. Third phase the rest of units and add a 4 phase. The first phase units can't build farms without a farmstead. Wooden towers The second phase only give blacksmith , and (barrack?)and market, towers and palisades Third phase give temple fortress and advanced defenses and special buildings 4th phase give the marvel and the second sp building.

Ok, lo imaginé, gracias, i will tested soon. Thank for your time

Ok, are visible en SVN? (Long time without logging into lobby .) may be a will to he next alpha.( release version)

Now we need have in the lobby a protocol to teach to our user how report a user.

i love the idea, the enviroment vs the player, and other handicap. can be used to "break the meta".

Ok, this how works in AoM this we can named as de encyclopedia in game. The counters are linked if you watch careful. http://youtu.be/ZF7dvs6Di4A[\media]

like this

sorry suggest replace not doing it, the other anchor in rally point was made by me. you can register a user in our trac tom open ticket. http://trac.wildfiregames.com/

its good to see this as something planned by the team

yeah, is a place holder. You can open a ticket and substitute for a anchor design.

is needed not only by charge or running, abilities need this, the mods need this (specially Fantasy) because Stamina is mana, energy, rejuvenation, ammo, power, gas. etc represent the energy itself. and yeah the ability from Zealot units is very like/similar to charge.

The Druid is some dark.

Can be nice to see some layout, don't need be great art looking, only let us see how the info will be presented, or structured visually.

The site is under construction, and don't have, a legal stuff. but we and me need preserve the article without alterations.

now you talk about that, we are forget the sound, we need differentiate Gaia animal attack from standard player alert attack.The siege units need sounds when buildings receiving their damage. Even capture needs own alert and sound( my opinion) An different alert when you lost a CC.( this may need an artist to make specifics sound)

Have a encyclopedia to show advanced stats have their inconveniences. -the game need stay on pause. - the screen with this info need a lot of visual space( that is because need pause) May be that why th differences between AOE 3 and Age of Mythology

Nice to see the art forum reactivated, these animation, many these animal will be included in several maps according to their biome.

These people don't know how important is for some people take details in the photos.

take this as opinion from a expert, and get your own conclusions. The Blog is full of review about Modern RTS http://waywardstrategist.com/

Legal I'm not owner by this content, but I share this public content with our community understanding the legal consequences. http://waywardstrategist.com/about/ And We Share the vision from the Owner of this Site, I share this only by educational context or point of view. source: http://waywardstrategist.com/2015/05/04/lets-talk-rts-user-interface-part-1-interview-with-dave-pottinger/ Introduction One of the most crucial aspects of the design of any game is its user interface. This is an incredibly broad topic, ranging from the game’s menu system to its in game graphical user interface or HUD (heads-up display) to its interaction model – keyboard and mouse, joystick, game pad, or what have you. A game’s HUD is one of the most basic and most heavily utilized sources of information to the player in a real-time strategy game – many an RTS has been accused of forcing its players to ‘play the UI’ instead of being more free, as in genres like shooters, to interact mostly with the game’s world and environment. The HUD combined with the game’s control scheme (or mouse and keyboard interactions model) encompass the vast majority of a player’s knowledge of and control over the game space, and it behooves game designers to get these systems just right for players, to reach that age old Platonic goal of allowing the player’s intentions to translate directly into action in-game. Respected RTS game designer Dave Pottinger, now president of indie studio BonusXP, who has worked on storied RTS titles such as all of the Age of Empires games, and Halo Wars, has graciously lent me his ear (metaphorically speaking) and generously lent me his time to answer a couple of questions I had regarding his thoughts as a game designer on this critical facet of the real-time strategy genre. Wayward: It is my opinion, and tell me if you agree (this’d be a great place to throw in a comment if you were so inclined) that by and large the RTS genre is sticking with known quantities: for the most part, RTS interfaces are comparable to those developed at least 10 or 15 years ago Dave Pottinger: I think that’s true. 3 reasons: Part of that is just that there are less RTS games. Less games means less chance to innovate and see new stuff.RTS UI is hard. Improvements for the hardcore are almost always in opposition to improvements for the casual. Just today I decried how we allow you to scroll the camera while drag selecting because it’s terrible for noobs. 3 poeple instantly said “Well, you can’t change that!”. Every genre has those types of tried-and-true assumptions, but few have as much UI as an RTS game. Connecting back to your question, I think it’s harder to innovate when you have so much UI that is established and expected.I think RTS UI is something of a solved beast. Back when I started, there was still a debate about one or two mouse buttons. Thankfully, that’s out of the way. But, by and large, the RTS UIs of old were pretty good.I do fully expect other UI paradigms to come up in RTS games. Absolutely. I can’t wait (and hope to help introduce a few of them). But, I think those need to be accompanied with some game changes. If you have a game that plays like SC or Age, I think you’re going to end up with a UI like SC or Age because that UI works pretty darn well for controlling that type of game. Wayward: At their core, what are your goals regarding real-time strategy interaction models (both with ingame graphical UI and with keyboard/mouse interaction systems) Dave: At the simplest level, we need players to feel like the UI is allowing them to control the game. Well, maybe that’s not the simplest way of looking at it; whether or not they have fun with the game is probably the simplest metric. Nevertheless, IMO, people get most frustrated with UIs when they are unpredictable and/or they don’t know how to make it do what they want. If I have to answer the “How do I do XYZ? question too often during a playtest, then I know that one’s in the crapper. So, at the base level, I want a functional UI. Once you learn something, it should be easy to remember how to do it. I personally want a very consistent UI. The UI should also be responsive. That’s not a hard concept, but it can be hard to execute. Many RTS games run a lockstep, synchronous simulation (to push the unit counts so high). That can create difficult situations because the units may not start moving right away when you command them. That means we need to solve the responsiveness issue some other way. At a higher level, I think an RTS game has a harder-than-average presentation issue… We need to deliver critical info via a split second glance. That’s hard. No one wants to study the gait of a the unit to see if he’s limping when they’re really playing competitively. They need a way to see how much health the unit has at a glance. Hence hitpoint bars. Bumping up even more, if we can solve the functional and presentation issues, then we can start to think about how it does that. Does it look good? Does it fit the mood of the game? Is it fun to navigate? Where can we put the little dashes of love that make someone enjoy a UI? I do know some folks who start with the UI and then work backwards. I don’t think that way, so I have to do it this way Keyboard is similar, but there’s less room/need for excitement and pizzaz. Do I get some response when I hit a hotkey? Does your keymapper work? Great. Move on. Wayward:What do you think are the primary strengths and failings of RTS user interaction design as a whole? If this is too broad, can you comment on the strengths and failings of a representative game (perhaps one you’ve worked on) + comment on what you would’ve liked to see done differently? Dave: Broadly… I’m not sure I’d consider any RTS game to have a great UI. I say that because I think there’s simply too much information that you have to present. I do think there are plenty of RTS and RTS-like games that have good UIs given the gameplay they must serve. SC2 and LOL come to mind. But, I still don’t think either of those games is a good UI. Too much info, too geared towards the hardcore. I also humbly say those things expecting the same critiques to be lobbed at our past work (Age, AOM, Halo Wars) and our current game, Servo. We have a lot of information to show you so that you can make the best informed decision possible. Strategy folks tend to like that. Our job is to present all those things in the best UI possible. I’ll mention two specific fails… The “giant” Age of Empires 3 UI. It wasn’t really *that* big, but once the game was out, it was instantly lampooned. It surprised us. We had spent so much time arguing/debating/redoing that UI; we just never really noticed that it had gained too much size. We burned all of our energy and time trying to make everyone happy; I don’t think we were ever able to step back and evaluate it from a fresh perspective. So, when that reaction hit, the AD for the game (Dave Kubalak) and I sat down and just did the mini version that night without asking anyone’s opinion. Went out shortly after. The SelectAll button from Halo Wars. I hated it then and still hate it now. It was such a cave against the fact that we just couldn’t make the UI work well enough. We couldn’t get control groups to work the way we wanted and we were out of time (being that the studio was getting closed and all). We added it to make the game “as playable as possible”. It instantly had the expected effect. It was so easy to use that it became all anyone ever used. It really un-did a lot of the fine work that went into unit differentiation and special abilities. But, without it, the game wouldn’t have been playable. Wayward:What is the cardinal sin a designer can commit when establishing an interaction model for a strategy game? Dave: I think there are plenty:) A few that come to mind… Assuming everyone will want to “play like you play”. With RTS games having more UI than your typical game, there’s a bigger chance for failure here. You need a UI that can appeal to people who don’t play the same way that you do. In some cases, you may be on the losing end of preference, too. For example, I don’t personally love the QWERTY-style hotkeys that are the rage today. I understand them, though. I can accept that lots of people like them, too. So, we’ll just have an option.Assuming that everyone *wants* to play the way you play. Similar, but importantly different than the previous one. Just because you know the right answer, don’t expect everyone to want the same goal. Everyone has their “limit” in terms of how much energy and effort they will expend in a given game. It’s a huge mistake to assume that everyone will have more fun if they play better. Some folks are okay playing a slower paced game. Let them. Yeah, they won’t win a tournament, but they likely don’t care.Assuming that you are actually any good at the game you are making. You are not. Don’t think you are. Find someone who is and watch them play. That will change everything.Thanks again for your time, Dave! http://waywardstrategist.com/2015/05/04/lets-talk-rts-user-interface-part-1-interview-with-dave-pottinger/