Ryze

Ok. I followed the Build Instructuions but I can't open Java files. Do I need to download a specific software or did I screw something over while following the instructions?

Yes, I should have remembered that... On the other hand, it's only an issue with forests (in regular games). What would the performance hit be if you added the 'aura' to all trees instead of adding it to terrain itself? As for simulation games, I have no idea xD

Map changing doesn't appeal to me that much... I've been semi-randomly opening files and... Jesus... It's overwhelming! So many files, and big files at that! The amount of work is awe-inspiring! I bow before all those that worked in this game, the level of dedication must be fenomenal... Even though C and C++ are the languages I have worked with, I barely understand any file at all! True, my knowlegde of C and C++ is laughable, but... so many functions, so many libraries... I am rambling right now, I need to stop writing P.S.: What file(s) contain AI behavior? I've been searching, but the ones I opened were the 'managers', I think. Nothing specific... (then again, I barely understood them, I'm might be mistaken)

Thanks for the explanation. I managed to do all that. The last steps are optional, aren't they ('Building Atlas', 'Running')? Only needed if I want to mess with the map or test my changes in-game, right?

Would it not be better to determine 'flatness' of the terrain while loading the game and add the flag 'hills' or 'forest' to the terrain itself (I have no idea if the engine allows that, by the way...)? That flag would in turn create an "aura" that would apply to all units in the area. It's better that calculating that for each and every unit... Did I misunderstood what you said?

Liking my idea depends on how you think the gameplay should be, so I understand that some people don't like it that much. That being said, when you say that you like to not "worry about mining rubble", what kind of game scenario are you imagining? You're the attacker or the defender? Because I think that, as a defender, it is a godsend. After all, I did say that the defender should have the option to 'rebuild' in addition to simply 'mine' the rubble. The attacker, on the other hand, would have to mine the rubble before building in that place. That would add to his micromanagement, indeed. But, given that it would be a gameplay decision, I think that it would be a FUN micromanagement. I'm glad you like it xD P.S.: I agree with the addition of a looting animation. I would have never noticed that 'looting' exists if you hadn't told me...

Hi. Yes, I am following that. My doubts begin here: That .bat file I have to run: what is it and where is it? Where do I select those "Release" and "Debug" configurations? Where and what is "Build Solution?

Hi everyone. I want to access the game files and I have this issue: I have done everything until the install of ​Visual C++ 2010 Express Edition and, following that, I don't understand the instructions very well... And for the record, my knowledge of programming and necessary softwares is rather limited (some C and C++). I'm doing this because I like the game and what it can potentially achieve. It's also a way to learn more programming (I usually learn better if I like the subject and/or its uses).

My idea is: the terrain where you fight matters. - Cavalry fighting in a terrain that is 'flat' should be at its strongest. - Archers on top of 'hills' should have bigger range (already in-game, I think). - All units fighting 'uphill' should be weaker (both in attack, defense and mobility). - Cavalry and archers in 'forests' should be weaker (cavalry should have lower mobility, attack and defense; archers should have reduced accuracy). - Cavalry in 'swamps' and 'hills' should be very weak (again, lower mobility, attack and defense). - etc... How feasible is this?

I see. It is, essencially, 'looting'. While it IS a nice ideia, you could use both ideas: yours could represent the soldiers that gather all precious goods available (gold and food, with the amounts dependent of the building type) and mine would represent what I said above. Both ideas can complement each other rather well. Besides, I disagree with the micromanagement issue: it would only force the invader to dedicate more resources to the resettlement of new cities. Basically, it is a gameplay issue: the invader has to properly secure the region in order to take advantage of the resources. It also gives the defender time to recapture the region if he's able to (and the abilty to more easily rebuild it). I think the gameplay choices it offers counters the few micromanagement issues that it causes.

Thanks

Wow. Really? How does it work? What are the condition for it to happen and how does the game determine who gets the resources? P.S.: I still think there should be some 'physical' rubble

I hope you manage to solve those issues... Is it possible to access the files in question? I have some (very basic) knowledge of programming and learning how to improve this game would be an interesting challenge (whenever I have some free-time).

My idea is this: when a building is destroyed, its rubble should not be just a temporary "eye candy", it should be a "mine" of sorts... Imagine: - An enemy attacks a city (not his opponent's only city, for the sake of argument..) and manages to completely destroy it and "dominate" the surrounding region. He should be able to utilise the materials that can be found in the former city's rubble to construct the new one. The resources that one could "mine" from a rubble should be a fraction 'X' of the destroyed building's cost 'Y'. - An enemy attacks a city and manages to destroy a few buildings before being defeated. The defender should be able to rebuild those buildings or reutilise its resources... What do you think? Interesting or unnecessarily complicated? I think that it would reduce the frustation of defender if he knew that he didn't have to micromanage the reconstruction of his city after an attack (the reconstruction of towers and walls in particular come to mind...). On the other hand, it would reward the attacker if he managed to completely destroy the city, allowing him to build a new city at cheaper cost. The downside would be the fact that he would have to literally "clear the rubble before rebuilding", granting the former owner some time to recapture the lost city.

Wow. I'm glad you think that way. Most people get annoyed when I begin this sort of discussion, so I usually try not to make too much noise xD That being said, what solution do you think would be best? I like AoE3's, but balancing would be rather complicated, depending on what people think about how well should archers be able to fare in close-quarters combat and how competent the AI would be in supporting its own archers...

Perhaps I emphasized the supposed weakness of archers in melee a bit too much... On the other hand, it is like the minimum range issue: if the someone gets in melee range and is faster than the archer, then the only logical decision is to stand ground and deal the most damage possible before diying. However, the issue arises when a very good melee unit vulnerable to missiles (e.g. light infantry) gets close enough: if the archer can keep shooting, the light infantryman's advantage is nullified, making an artificial tactic like "light infantry should avoid archers at all costs" imperative. If that happened, when would you use light infantry??? I agree that melee should be a last resort for archers and that they should run away whenever possible. However, if they cannot flee they should not have an unfair advantage. Besides, they might have hurt the enemy enough so that they win the melee (which is a quite possible scenario). This is a minor issue, of course, but it relates to 'army composition' and 'how strong should archers be', so I think it is an interesting issue (if minor) issue.

Hi everyone. First of all, I want to say I saw this game today and I think the whole concept is awesome. Having played 2 short games, I wanted to sugest something that is in Age of Empires 3: missile units that are in melee should have to fight with a sidearm instead of shooting their opponents at point blank range. I'm not saying that they should have a minimum range (I saw that was in-game and later removed)... What I'm saying is, if an infantryman/light cavalryman (with low armor, imagine) runs towards an archer, the archer should do what they do best and keep shooting them in the face UNTIL the guy reaches him. At that point, it is irrealistic that the archer can keep shooting him while getting hacked to pieces. He should have to pull out a knife/sword/whatever and fight for his life. Else, the infantryman's/cavalryman's natural advantage, a close-quarter fight, is denied... My view is that this idea would improve gameplay: the archer is a support unit and, therefore, he should have be supported. If he isn't, he should die most of the time he is forced to fight in melee. This would encourage "combined arms" tactics and, therefore, in my opinion, a better gameplay. What do you guys think? P.S.: It would also help with archer variety. You could have a very good archer that sucks in melee and, on the other hand, a mediocre archer that fights rather well, or something in between...