hollth

Are then any gameplay reasons to have the repair option other than consistency?

I dislike the idea from an expectancy and communication perspective, however, it does seem to be the best way to tackle it. An another note, I think the embassies need a little more differentiation. The Italic and Gallic are almost identical

The building restriction is the only purpose territory serves. Am I understanding correctly that you then wish for that to be removed? Also I think the reason for 'rule' is more likely the opposite of what you stated. i.e. Not to protect the player building, but rather the player being built near. It would be incredibly annoying to have an essentially permanent enemy fortress in your lands with no downtime or windows of opportunity. Forcing it to be temporary brings some counter play by providing these Following on from the preceding point, the camp should most definitely deteriorate if there are units in it. A building with incredibly high effective HP and dozens of arrows shooting out that can be constructed and repaired anywhere. That would be nigh uncounterable. It would likely result in a large locus of control around the building with very little counter play. The other player would have to avoid that area at all costs with no opportunity to break back. Lastly, if the army camp is to be made more difficult to destroy via hack attacks then it needs a serious nerd to the crush armour. (IIRC the army camp has the highest crush armour of any building, including walls)

I don't quite understand the first point. The middle section of between the towers needs to be a certain length before walls may be placed?

Make wall towers less powerful imo. They're superior to normal towers with way way way more effective HP and the same attack. I would think reducing the attack and or garrison number would be a good place to start as it pushes it more towards a movement inhibiter and separates them from towers more. Alternatively towers could be buffed, but defensive buildings are already on the stronger side so nerfing wall-towers/walls seems more sensible to me.

Forgetting my own suggestion was a sign for bed haha Anyway, I agree that way is a relatively simpler way to achieve the same thing (even suggested it myself ). There main advantage to wratiis way of implementing it, in my tired mind last night ,was that it automatically removes diminishing returns, which I disagree with in this instance. I imagine that is is a relatively trivial do change in the current form though. Back to diminishing returns. It isn't something that I see adding anything to the game, if anything I would argue it takes from it. It becomes a 'noob trap' because it causes sub optimal gameplay with no way to know that it is sub optimal. It has inherent difficulties with communicating in this instance. It doesn't add any depth gameplay wise either. Theres a restriction on the number of workers already so I can't see why it's in place? If it were to reduce the early power of farms there are other ways of achieving that without the nuanced issues that diminishing returns introduces. (requiring a farmstead, increased build time, cost, lower rate + more techs, fewer workers per field (potentially another tech to increase this)) Thought this would be a good time to bring it up since we are talking about farms.

Since walls themselves aren't always possible would having some wall-towers (4?) around the CC be an acceptable compromise to retain the starting defensive bonus of the iberians?

Isn't the argument that farming takes too little room? Having one person per smaller field is still an increase in size of farmland needed to produce the same amount of food. That itself makes it more difficult to keep them in your base. Having them stay the same allows for people to do the same as before at their base, which is what people wanted to change. ( I think?) I think the different types of field was for cosmetic differences only btw.

I'm probably missing something (Wratii's link doesn't work for me if theres something that pertains to this there) but if theres a problem with the current system, how does adding a terrain yield bonus change anything? Wont any issue wiith the old translate to the new?

I'm not a huge fan of the diminishing returns. Its not intuitive at all and there isn't really any effective way to communicate that farms are subject to diminishing returns. Nor do I think farms viability late game needs to be reduced. Other food sources are usually depleted so I would say that its good to have farms not reduced in impact late game. If farms were less effective than there would be less to do late game and larger periods of waiting for resources to amass. Having said that I could envision more alternative food sources such that farms become more of a late game and fall back pattern thing. Out of curiosity is making them more raid-prone the primary objective?

Keeping them the same size and reducing the number of workers seems like a simpler way to achieve the same thing?

I also think the sword is too hard to make out on the smaller one. If the pose was slightly altered so that the sword is held over the background, rather than himself, I think it would make it more prominent and recognisable as a sword unit. It still is recognisable, but I think it could be more recognisable by bringing out the weapon. To go on a bit more with the less is more bit I think that applies to more than the background. I think there is a less detail needed on the units in future portraits. To be perfectly honest I actually think an almost cartoon look works best at the smallest size. (More solid colours, exaggerating the important things slightly etc) The pattern on the shirt, the shield being worn with arrows embedded, the thing hanging off the shield are all things that I feel would serve the smaller pictures better if removed. They cause a bit to much clutter, cause blurring and detract from the main elements. Having said that I really like the portrait and do think it looks cool. Good job

I've run into something similar to this a few times. They're even built in my own territory ( I covered the entire map). From what I observed the AI tried to build something continuously. Archers would even fire and attack at the invisible foundation. However, they game still ended when I find (finally) the last unit. I have no idea how to reproduce it unfortunately.

I completely agree with this. It might not be the most realistic, but I would argue that it is still a good mechanic to have. Other than just the rate of trading there is also the rate at which prices change from trading that could be adjusted. Making it steeper would punish players for trading one resource heavily much more.

So these are to be placed on a mine?

I didn't take a screen shot. Still getting used to mac commands etc. Just then I was able to reproduce it with Carthaginians as well. So it doesn't seem to be related to civilisation. Both civilian soldiers and champion soldiers are getting the +2 attack from the 'Heroism' tech

I hope this isn't too basic. If you select 'random maps' you are able to change the difficulty of the computer player and the number of players. I suggest changing it to easiest with one player and focus first on your economy first if you have not had experience playing a game like this before. Having a strong economy makes it easier to build a large army. As you become better you can add more players and raise the difficulty. One other thing that might help. Women have bonus gathering for berries and farms. Civilian soldiers have bonus gather rates for hunting, wood, stone and metal.

In a game I just played I noticed that with the attack upgrade for champion units my civilian bowmen were upgraded too. Didn't notice if it applied to all soldiers or only the bowmen. I was playing as the Mauryans on Oasis. I'll try to test again next time I play to see if I can reproduce it and if it works with other civs.

I don't think a pop out window is a good method to have. Its very intrusive to have a pop out in a game like this. If a building is the way to go then I think having the interactive GUI where you would normally train units would be best. Basically like the market. It may be that expanding the current diplomacy window is the best option, but if it can be avoided it should. Despite the realism of having emissaries I suspect they will cause too much hassle to have. They will normally be killed before reaching the destination by towers etc, preventing a treaty.

No, I'm saying that melee should stay as they are. Some people were saying that only ranged should and I was saying that unless its communicated effectively I don't think it would be a good idea. I should have quoted one of the previous posts to make it more clear.

You would some way to communicate to the player that ranged units are the only ones that add to the attack. Even though it makes sense when thought about, you still need some way of making it so clear that somebody playing for the first time can realise it easily. Unless that can be done I'd be against having ranged as the ones to contribute to the attack.

That was the original concept I had in mind. I felt like there were too many inherent problems to that approach and not enough difference between vassals and allies (particularly when there is no AI). I do agree that it might be more suited to a different game type, but I still think it would be worth investigating to see if it can work in this game. I agree that there is the risk of becoming to micro intensive so there needs to be restrictions of some sort on it. Theres a lot that can be done here so thats not a major concern for me. To me the biggest issue for the way I'm suggesting is one of communication and UI. How does the player know about and act out these actions etc. Is there some kind of chancery/embassy building? Emissary units? Expansion of the diplomacy window? How is the player notified of a request or accept it?

I really like it with the bronze horses

That could be done through what I'm suggesting. I liked Prodigal Son's continual tribute idea of X% of resources gathered. So far I'm thinking these treaties would cover everything Resources (once off / x% gathered)Pop/units (Not sure this would work tbh)Support/trade units not attackable (till ended/ for X amount of time)No units/buildings attackableTerritory agreements (No territory takeover- Possibly others? )I think as long as both parties offer at least one thing it would work. You can still bully people/AI into accepting treaties that are unfavourable to them like vassal or tribute states.

I'm not a programmer so I'll try to focus on the concept design and having it balance-able. I'm mainly considering how it would work in a setting with many human players since if it works in that situation it should work in all others. Unfortunately I have a feeling that we won't be able to come up with ways to differentiate vassals from allies enough to warrant having two separate them but its still worth a try. More than likely it'll end up being in a completely different form. Apparently I didn't click send. Lo and behold I came up with a completely different form lol Might it be a better route to expand diplomacy to include several types of treaties (all mutually beneficial)? That way vassalage can be imposed without actually having a vassal option. i.e. you can almost destroy somebody then offer them a treaty that gives you something you want (territory,units,resources,pop, etc) in exchange for something else.