hollth

Since teams don't need the same number of people wouldn't an average be a better representation than sum? So while of the two I prefer the one Mythos said, I actually wouldn't suggest taking that route. I still think a column to the right would be better but since everybody else wants rows I say pick the other one. It would be good to deconstruct where points come from so its not as ambiguous too. Also, what happens when teams aren't clear cut?

Would it be feasible to group the behaviours into various traits or some such? Different traits are more or less prevalent (controlled via scale or per cent etc) depending on the personality. Adjust the scales of traits and you have a large number of personalities. You could do behaviours directly instead of grouping them for more control but I would imagine the work creating each personality would be more work that way? Edit: didn't see fenuer's post. Already been said, my bad

As i said, not in the best state when writing this and apologies for coming off as arrogant as you obviously found me to be. Even among the RTS that track things like clicks there is a finite number of things that are tracked and they needed to meet some criteria. I've never played Empires DMW but i would assume from the click and keystrokes that the the summary screen had the primary purpose of tracking things people could improve upon. In which case it would be metrics of skill and they would operationalise the most important ones for the summary screen. My point is that tracking things for the sake of tracking them and having only the criterion of 'it would be good to have' is not really the best way to go. There are other, better ways of doing it. It would be beneficial to decide what direction now rather than double handling and having to decide later when its too cramped.

What exactly is the point of the summary screen? Why show it? There are a number of different reasons why and you/design team need to pick one or two and from that build a criteria of what numbers to include. Otherwise the list will end up containing extra unnecessary and pointless things. There shouldn't be things that people ask 'why is this here' and at the moment there kind of is (No offence) Sorry if this comes of as aggressive or ambiguous I can't really think of a better way to word this atm. (Sick tired and 40+ degree heat = brain dead)

With the setup of Score Economy Score | Military Score | Exploration Score | Total Score Exploration seems a bit out place. Better to have something that can be expanded there. Personally I'd like economy and military to be broken into their tabbed parts too. e.g.. Score Units/Buildings | Units | Buildings | Market | Resources | Conquest | Total score That way everything in the main screen may be expanded for more detailed information. If there is enough space units/buildings could probably be taken out as a tab since there are separate tabs for each one. Conquest could probably be taken out and put in buildings. Only problem is where does exploration go then? tbh it doesn't seem to fit into anything. I'd say make a technology tab but there aren't enough important things to track to warrant that. Tack team scores on the end after total score? Depending on how team scores are calculated having another tab for it might not be needed. For grouping having a team number on the left of the player colour might work? Or grouping the players together and have greater spacing between the teams? e.g. player player player player player player player player

In this game you can trade between two markets or a market and dock

I had a similar idea to give a them more of a tribal vs centralised feel that incorporated increasing the max distance for tribal civs. Hadn't thought of introducing a min distance requirement though. Giving docks a small amount of territory would fix the problem of water maps. To exacerbate the feel how about CC's giving the capacity for X number of buildings or houses in the territory aura, where X changes depending on the civ. I do think there could be changes that could further push civs into a tribal or city state feel. I think there are a lot of things that could be done without much disruption to territory. For the 'colonist' do you mean like in Age of empires 3? I'm not to sure what you mean with the market thing. Can you please elaborate on it a bit?

If I'm/we are coming off as aggressive that is not intended. (Unless I've completely missed the mark and misread this situation). I would say that debating is generally necessary and good. So i take it that nobody else agrees with having an economic punishment for half completed buildings being destroyed? On another note how would having palisade walls upgrade into stone walls work do you think? i.e. unlock a tech that lets you change each piece individually(Like gates but not instantaneously)? Would require more time and resources and make it less powerful early on. Anyway I'm just spitballing here

You don't need sight. If its attacked by units or buildings then you know where they are. When the issue with new buildings etc showing in explored places without line of sight is resolved, it will be more noticeable. Right now its more of an accidental scouting tool. I know I've been learnt of where units are many times by accident. Replied to the right one this time XD

I would quote but I don't know how to break it into smaller ones haha I have the computer skills of an 80 year old With regard to the market changes I was talking more about when in teams. If there are three people on a team then the middle person misses out on much of the trade benefit. Having a trade route with the number of teams limiting the number of intermediate stop offs give them something too. (hope that makes a bit more sense) As for the building foundations I don't think having it delayed by such a tiny amount is much of a punishment nor reward for killing it. It should have some risk associated with it. Especially if its a civic centre or fortress. It does require to be attacked so you could also argue that it takes the time spent attacking that instead of units. It can also be used as a scouting tool with no cost.

I guess put another way, does it bring some extra to the table? The strategies would be pretty much the same if it wasn't present. People would still build fortresses to defend new resources to provide the same benefits as without it. So what then, does it bring in its current form? Denying the enemy the ability to place foundations is the only thing. But thats essentially the same effect (just a larger radius) as having defensive buildings in the area. I suppose that is the main point I'm trying to get across here. It seem unnecessary to have unless something is added to it or it is changed in some way.

I suspected that the bots weren't too good but it is only alpha so thats to be expected.

Actually now that I think about it I think a large part is that its easy to achieve max population even with only one CC. Once you hit max population its pretty easy to take out at the very least auxiliary CCs and weaken them since they cost so much and are the linchpin to expansion. Maybe having each CC have a max population limit could work? Then again that might be over complicating it as reducing the resources in the base would make it more difficult to reach max population with once CC or reduce the speed at which it can be done.

I have played against Aegis with one CC and won several times although not with every civ. I play random Civ and random map. Perhaps it is indicative of another problem, namely too many resources in the base. Sometimes there is 2 metal and stone mines. Combined with infinite food from farms and trading i find it very difficult to run out of anything.

Cant say I've played against other people only against bots (Normally 3 on hardest-not sure how that compares to real people). Anyway, there at least I've found little reason to expand. I normally have enough resources within my base or with only one extra civ centre to the side. After that theres no point in contending for things I don't need so its better to attack their base directly instead of stockpiling further. Trading in the centre seems risky to me, although that does seem to be the main perk in expanding to me. Wouldn't it be better to go in an arc along the back than to the centre?

I feel like the concept of territory in this game needs to be expanded a bit. At the moment I don't think there is enough reason or reward to expand and build more than one or two civic centres. I think it would be better if there were more things contingent on territory expansion and vice versa. I haven't thought to much on it yet other than I think it could do with some work so I'll expand with some ideas later. Thoughts, suggestions etc?

Also a small improvement that should be implemented (not urgent though) is that when building foundations are destroyed the player loses some resources instead of gaining them all back. While things are being build they should have reduced armour or otherwise be more vulnerable too. Im not sure if this last one is in or not. When a building is being built and attacked I don't think it requires additional resources to get it to full health so it is essentially repaired for free.

I think it would be good if we could expand the market system a bit. Instead of only being able to traverse between two points make it so that it can travel between multiple docks/markets (and have a small bonus). There would have to be some sort of restrictions in place to prevent abuse cases though. Only able to travel to a certain number of trade points per player perhaps? (2 markets 1 dock per player?) A distance requirement similar to the civic centre might work too. That would also reward people who had larger empires more. I suspect that this one is could still be prone to abuse though so i tend to favour the limiting number of points per player

The Athenians bolt shooter (siege unit) has an error in the projectile animation. The missile shoots straight up into the sky.

I agree with Josh. While I do somewhat doubt the extent to which they would be considered offensive (it is after all, historical depictions), it would seem sensible to me to err on the safe side and abandon any potentially offensive content in the interest of greater exposure.