hollth

Im with you Lion in having it in all modes. Im normally against having mechanics solely for playing against AI. So then another question. Are vassals and allies enough to warrant two different diplomacy settings? If so, how would allies and vassals be different?

So you only want to be able to do this for single player against AI?

I'm just trying to get my head around how vassalage would work and be any different from alliances so I'm thinking on the fly. Its a more complex idea than it seems at first and begs many questions. I certainly think its worth a discussion to try and work out the details and see if it could possibly work in the game in some way.

Don't you want that for all allies? Is the only difference that a vassal must perform what is asked? How would you get a vassal? The way I was envisioning it, to gain a vassal you would need to be much stronger than the enemy and they would submit in some form. However, having it like this creates inherent issues like snowballing, the vassal being unable to win (assuming it extends beyond AI) and having the win conditions more murky.

That makes sense. I was wondering if there might be some reason why random wasn't the first. In hindsight I suppose there is the argument that a smaller number of static maps is better for new players too. Having the settings save like LionKanzen suggested would probably be the best way to go then, although id imagine thats a long long way down the track if its ever done

How would you gain or lose loyalty? Or is it pre-determined? I'd like to see a few more options for diplomacy non AI related too, like unit gifting or territory treaties. Vassalage is an interesting one. Might it cause a snowball effect though? And how is the vassal meant to win assuming they're far less powerful? Or is it only meant for AI?

It is somewhat odd that they are the default map type imo

You want spies only for this game type? I'm not following how spies add anything more to this particular game type? I see those as arguments towards having a spy unit in general more than for the herocide/regicide victory condition.

How would a spy unit work?

Weren't horses much smaller back then anyway? As in pony size small?

Any chance of having a FPS cap added? I'm getting 300-500 fps for all out of game menus/screens, which is pretty overkill haha

I do think we need more game modes. Maybe king of the hill too?

With regard to terrain bonuses if they were don't I think it would be good to give them direct combat stats. If it were done i'd think things like celts move faster in trees than other civs(maybe ignore collision) would be a better way. That gives more of a strategic advantage than a number/stat advantage. Could also do things like particular civs can't use X formation in trees or something. I'm not entirely sold on civ specific terrain advantages tbh unless it was only for one or two civs. (Gauls I'd imagine?) I do think more could be done with terrain but I don't think it needs to be civ specific.

Sorry misread the original post as units died along with the building. I still feel that it would make it much more difficult (-800 hp with high armour vs 50hp with no armour), but to be fair it can be balanced through other means, so I don't think that it shouldn't be tested or added. In isolation it would most likely push early raids away, which I don't think is where the game should be heading, but as I said, I do actually like the concept.

The tower wood one is my favourite one too

Personally if this was implemented I'd prefer it to have only supports units in houses. I don't think having them die is a good idea. That seems like its breaking the trend for no gain. Healing could easily go either way, but I'd put it in since all garrisoning either adds to building attack or heals units (I could be wrong here). My concern with having it is that you achieve exactly what you want. All support units garrisoned and protected. That would make raids, particularly early raids, ineffective. I do actually like the idea though.

I like the one that isn't cropped more. Is it possible to have it posted in the size it will appear in-game? I'm wondering if the spear works in a smaller image better than the large one. By that i mean i think it would be better to have an out of proportion spear that can be recognised easily than one that is in proportion and disappears because it is too small. Then again I'm not on the art team so take my opinion with a grain of salt

Few more. Settings save and don't need to be redone every time the game restarts. Not sure about the option in the main menu, but the in game settings do not save. Priests heal after doing an action with soldiers. Currently they're idle if they are grouped with soldiers and all move, attack etc. Have a 'check for updates' button thingy in the main menu. I can't imagine many people check the website often, if ever.

Heres a few very minor things. Workers search for resource after arriving at rally point. e.g. if a tree is set as the rally point and is gone by the time workers are created the workers will be idle at the rally point. Increases resource search for workers in general. Hunting and mining are ones I've noticed workers can't find another source as easily. Units change colour on mini map when selected.

I really really like the idea of tying in stats to some form of external motivator like achievements. Even better if that can be linked to 'unlocking' or 'buying' new civs. Many benefits with something like that. Thats somewhat off topic so back to the summary screen. I suspect having peoples play style are summed us as turtler etc, will be one of those things that looks good on paper but not in practice. Is it feasible to have the summary sent as a means of determining balance? If so, I would add trackers to help determine balance but not have all of tracked things visible to the player. (hope that makes sense) I'm still sitting on the fence about if scores are for better or worse. Although I personally am in favour of having a score, I feel like not having a score would be better for what people want.

I disagree that it is an achievement because of the implementation of score. On the implementation of score. As it is, score is not an indication of playing well. It may as well be random numbers. It doesn't mean that you didn't horde resources of had an army that counted theirs better. It doesn't for because there is no way of knowing that. Score is so ambiguous it may as well be random. Nobody who doesn't work on the code would have any idea how its calculated. I could acquire more points for never fighting and I'd never know. If you need/want points then un-obfuscate it. A point system relies on being unambiguous. If I want to get more points I need to know how. But point/score systems have a deeper purpose too. What that purpose is depends on the game itself. That goes back design cohesiveness and purpose. There is all this visual emphasis on score and team score. Its the first, most obvious thing you see on the summary screen.And yet it serves no purpose and is completely meaningless. There is nothing in the game that links to it. Even if you made it so that people understood where those points came from. It is still has no point. So why have score? Why have the summary screen at all? Tradition is not a good answer. You don't retain things from preceding games without understanding why they were in those games first. Each of those games were different and had different things in the summary screens because they met different purposes for each game. Even if they were similar, they were still distinct. So it this game. It's not AoE. It's not Starcraft, Civ V. It's 0 A.D. An utterly disparate game. At the moment the summary screen has no purpose. It achieves nothing. It's a random collection of stats and numbers. I am by no means saying take out the summary screen, but it kind of needs a more holistic approach.

I personally think it would be better to explore differentiating them through leveraging mechanics other than tech buildings and units. That more than anything else would change the feel of the civilisation. I think this would also be a good opportunity to work in some of the mechanics that are a little lacking if it can be done. Having only Celts utilise the loot mechanic or something like that, for example, alters the feel more. There's only so many differences in (sub)type from you can add from the the same group before they feel like differences in size. Eventually you need a different, different type. I don't know enough about the history of these civilisations to know what is quintessential about each one so I don't actually have anything to offer beyond that advice. Edit: I should've explained what I mean by difference in type and size. Difference in size is when something gets bigger/stronger or more numerous etc. E.g an arcade game has more monster to kill with each level. Differences in type is just that. Something new. A new monster to kill. Unique techs buildings units etc are all differences in type. However, when you put so many in they become closer to the feel of a difference in size because they ARE, just of a higher up type. They're still differences in type but of a more subtle flavour. I'm saying define what is characteristic of each civilisation in a few words and try to bring it alive through other avenues than units etc. What makes Sparta ? Elite warriors? Make Sparta the only ones to gain xp. What about Persia? Trade? Give them a trading system that nobody else has.

I don't see you point regarding not having a team score victory condition. Is it that different from an individual team score victory condition?

My concern was that there would probably be a victory condition attributed to team score. Even an unexperienced player is a huge boost to score. That seems a bit unfair. How would this work with multiplayer/lobby? Can teams be build in uneven ways there? Maybe it would be better to restrict it to scenarios etc

I agree with Mythos. Its more difficult to see what team/colour it belongs too with only one stripe. Is there an iteration with the stripe(s) near the person removed?