[Newbie issues]

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?

[Terrain bonuses (and debuffs) on units]

When you play simulation games in Atlas, you can change the terrain while playing. Also, even in regular games, you can harvest wood, so forests disappear. So caching isn't that easy.

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

[Newbie issues]

You can still run Atlas, but you won't be able to modify it unless you follow the other steps (building wxWidgets, etc.)

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)

[Newbie issues]

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?

[Terrain bonuses (and debuffs) on units]

Some of these are easy, like just take the height difference between target and source, apply some formula and use that in the damage calculation. Other ones are more difficult, like determining the "flatness" of a terrain. That's normally comparing the height of n tiles around the unit. If you have to continuously do this for 200 units fighting, you end up with big lag probably. The same for detecting forests.

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?

[Idea: ability to mine Rubble]

The way rubble is implemented now, it can't be more than a visual effect. That could be changed, but personally I am glad not to have to worry about mining rubble, even though I can see how it might appeal to some people

But I would say it's hard to notice looting, so it's not surprising that people don't know about it. There's no looting animation and it's not indicated in the UI. What if we added some visual indicator when looting happens (we could do the same for XP gain), maybe a brief particle appearing above the rubble or some kind of overlay, showing the amount and type of loot? Like: "+10"

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.

that happens when you destroy a castle and the Ai build them immediately over it the rubble. illogical XD or a farm. i agree with this guy

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...

[Newbie issues]

Hi, are you following these build instructions?

If you have already checked out the game from SVN and installed VC++ 2010, you're most of the way there Maybe you can explain a bit more which part you don't understand or what is going wrong?

Hi. Yes, I am following that. My doubts begin here:

The Visual Studio project/solution files are automatically generated from the source files:

• Run build/workspaces/update-workspaces.bat.
  
• Open build/workspaces/vc2010/pyrogenesis.sln. (Use the vc2008 directory for VC++ 2008; use the vc2010 solution for VC++ 2012 and choose to upgrade the projects.)
  

Build configuration

Make sure to select the "Release" configuration to build an optimised, more playable version of the game (the target will be pyrogenesis.exe). The "Debug" configuration can be more useful for debugging but has significantly reduced performance (the target will be pyrogenesis_dbg.exe). Both "Release" and "Debug" builds include debug symbols, see Debugging on Windows for more details on debugging.

Now you should be able to build the code from within Visual Studio, using "Build Solution" (F7).

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?

[Newbie issues]

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).

[Terrain bonuses (and debuffs) on units]

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?

[Idea: ability to mine Rubble]

To clarify what Loki1950 said a bit: each time a building is destroyed (or a unit killed) the one destroying it automatically gets a small amount of resources (representing the resources which could be mined/looted from the building/unit) in return.

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.

A portion of the rubble is already mined by default it is just not shown ATM to avoid that micro-management issue.

Enjoy the Choice

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.

[Missile units in melee]

http://trac.wildfire.../GettingStarted

Thanks

[Idea: ability to mine Rubble]

A portion of the rubble is already mined by default it is just not shown ATM to avoid that micro-management issue.

Enjoy the Choice

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

[Missile units in melee]

Some ranged units could have defensive attacks (like Immortals or other ranged champion and hero units), but I think citizen-soldier ranged units should have a minimum range and run away. The reason we removed this for now is that it'll take some amount of thinking and coding to get the attacks upon a fleeing unit to follow through and register a hit. Right now, a pursuing melee unit will initiate its attack upon the fleeing unit, but the fleeing unit will flee from its pursuer's melee attack range, disrupting the attack before it can register. Rinse. Repeat until you have units chasing each other all over the map. What is needed, like I said, is for the pursuing melee unit to have its melee attack "follow through" and register a hit upon the fleeing skirmisher or archer even if they move out of range of the melee attack. An even more elegant solution would be to allow units to attack while moving, so that a pursuing melee cavalryman can swing his sword and attack the fleeing unit while chasing him.

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).

[Idea: ability to mine Rubble]

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.

[Missile units in melee]

This isn't a minor issue, it's a major usability issue that requires a lot of thinking.

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...

[Missile units in melee]

We did not want to remove the minimum range. It's just because it caused problems. When a melee unit got into the minimum range of an archer, the archer ran some meters from the melee unit, then turned around, prepared to shoot, and by that time, the melee unit already caught up with him, so the archer had to run again. What we really need is doing better distance calculations that are based on the speed of both units. And better decisions about when to chase and when not depending on the speed difference.

We do want mixed units (ranged and melee), but more like the roman kind: throw one pilum, and attack by sword afterwards. So it would only count for some units, while a big part would stay purely melee or purely ranged.

I there is a chance it's going to cause too much micro. If archers will certainly loose when fighting in melee, they should run for themselves. The player shouldn't continuously command them to run.

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.

[Missile units in melee]

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...