hhyloc

I guess it could work that way, but my suggestion is for mainline, which means it'll apply to any scenario and with only one type of Outpost, not custom made ones using the same model.

Yes, roads would be a nice feature to have, both "formal" (can be built) and "unformal" ones (created by frequent travels). And giving bonus to movement speed.

I've noticed some minor glitchs while playing the game (playing with latest svn version). And a suggestion too. - The Roman siege ram take no time to build (build time = zero). A proper <buildtime> tag should fix this I think - This issue has been brought up many times already, but just a reminder: Make the ram able to attack structures only Finally, a suggestion - Rename the Carthaginian champion unit: Sacred Band Pikemen to Sacred Band of Baal, it's more accurate IMHO

Sorry for the double post: I want to bring up one of my earlier Outpost suggestions: Allow the Outpost to be build in own territory. I'm aware that it's not supposed to be that way, but I think the it will fit in some future scenarios/campaigns when the player's base is a temporary one and the Outpost will act as a weak version of the Defense Tower (Think of the Roman settlement with palisade wall and wooden outposts). Maybe we can even change the name so it'll sound more reasonable: Outpost --> Palisade Tower. Comments, ideas, disagree?

Hello Geoffroy! Welcome to the forums Regarding the Mac OS X support of the game, you might want to take a look at these two threads http://www.wildfireg...showtopic=15511 http://www.wildfireg...showtopic=15145

Playing alone is already helping the game I think. Instead of ads we could have a little "donate" button in the main menu that will lead to the Support WFG page. btw, the Support WFG could use some updates, it needs the corresponding buttons for Pledgie and Flattr beside the existing PayPal button.

Too... many... options!... Hmm, my votes go for Cyrus and Hannibal, my two most favorite historical figures.

Nice to hear that

One thing for sure: Testers with feedbacks are always welcomed. No matter it's beta or final version.

You are right, comparing the Outpost to Defense Tower is unwise. But an Outpost in own territory sounds perfectly fine for me, I'm imaging that the Outpost can be useful to reveal fog of war in one's territory when there is a shortage of resource, being cheaper and faster to build. Of course the Outpost is a temporary solution only and Defense Tower is better at defending. As for the Outpost can attack or not, I think it'd be more realistic to have only 1 unit garrison inside to provide a very weak attack because any outposts must actually have men inside to provide vision right? Even though the Outpost can attack in my suggestion, it will still be no match for Defense Tower so I think it won't blur the difference between the two types of tower too much.

Ahem, regarding the new Outpost structure that has just been implemented in recent revision, I have some concerns as well as suggestions. - I know that the Outpost loses health over time is intentional, but why? Is there any particular reason for this? Why the Outpost cannot be built in own territory? It doesn't have much uses there but still. - In my opinion the Outpost is less useful compare to the Scout Tower in many ways Outpost compare to Scout Tower Pros: - Build 3x faster - Can build in neutral territory - Cost only 100 Wood while the Scout Tower costs 100 Stone in addition to 100 Wood Cons: - Inferior armor - Has only 500 Health compare to 1200 of Scout Tower - Units cannot garrison inside (The garrison element was removed recently) - Loses health overtime The Outpost is sure useful to scout neutral territory for enemy's advance (cheap, fast to build) but why build a tower that loses health over time, has no means of self-defense and can be taken down with relatively ease (being inferior in both armor and health). If I want to scout, a cavalry unit is better IMHO, at least he can run around even into hostile territory and fight back when attacked. And finally, I have some suggestions for this structure: Make the building stop losing health or very slow after a period of time, it is already weak and it don't need to be weaker to the point of losing health and self-destruct. Allow only 1 unit to garrison inside, Scout Towers don't need garrison units to attack while the Outpost will need one unit inside to actually attack, that unit is usually it's builder too. What I'm proposing here is to make the Outpost an average, jack of all trades building, it can provide a reliable vision and at the same time hold off a small enemy skirmish for a time. Finally I think female citizens should be able to build it too, so players will have easy access to the Outpost.

Yes, personally I think Sarmatians should be a faction in Part 2 instead of one of the two Roman factions. Their history ranges from 6-5 BC to 4 AD so it'll fit in the scope of both Part 1 and Part 2 too. Don't kill me for this. Edit: My bad, I meant 6-5th BC to 4th AD

I think I've found two Greek names for the Carthaginian Sacred Band Generic name: Sacred Band of Baal (Champion Pikemen in-game with the name Mašal) Specific name: Hieròs Lóchos Baʿal (Hieròs Lóchos means "sacred battalion" in Greek) and Generic name: Sacred Band of Astarte (special unit) Specific name: Hieròs Lóchos Astártē Actually these are not the names that the Carthaginians used to refer to their own Sacred Band but these are what the Greek probably have used to call them. So this wouldn't be included in game but at least it can provide some bases for others to find more appropriate names.

Looks good! May I suggest that you move the cliffs away from the center a little, and scatter more trees around the center so it'll look even more like a forest with occasional hills.

Great!

Agreed! Now we only need the stamp of approval from the devs. Also, I suggest the name "Cothon" (Greek: κώθων) for the Carthaginian Naval Port. The name do not specific the naval port, but it's a term used for inner port such as that of Carthage. Wikipedia articles mentions the Carthage ports and the usage of the word "Cothon" http://fr.wikipedia....ues_de_Carthage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cothon

Can we name the Celtic Fanatics after the Gaesatae ? They match the appearance of the naked celtic warriors. An image to illustrate the Gaesatae

Hi Benjamin385 and welcome to the forums! Hope you'll have a good time here.

People have said many reasons to keep the current resource system, I just want to add that one beautiful thing about an open source game is that you can modify it without any restriction, so if you have coding skills you can make for yourself a customed version of the game with just 3 types of resource. Personally I don't think this suggestion will make it into the mainline game.

I'm not really sure, but most of the time when I send my army to his base, his main army has already en route to my base. So when I'm destroying his defending force with my own soldiers and flatten his buildings with rams, the enemy main army is too busy in a fruitless attempt to take down my fortress. They were all killed before I destroyed his base.

Personally I'd prefer a historical tutorial campaign like the William Wallace campaign of AOE 2. However if story is a problem then I will definitely support the non-historical one.

Nice guide I have a suggestion: Maybe you can playtest with other strategies and post them here so newbies will have a variety of choices should one particular strategy didn't work for them? Mine for example actually involved no forward base, but instead trying to build a fort as soon as possible and build rams from there, then a send them along with all my troops to the enemy base and flatten it.

Not bad.

Thanks for the tip, I will try it out and see if I can outwit the bot.