wowgetoffyourcellphone

Correct, "shallows." The water just needs to be deeper on that map though to prevent, weird, effects like Andy's screenshot.

May I suggest a slight change to Line-of-sight aggression range in UnitAI.js? This helps reduce unit zerging and improves player control of his or her units: UnitAI.prototype.GetQueryRange = function(iid) { let ret = { "min": 0, "max": 0 }; let cmpVision = Engine.QueryInterface(this.entity, IID_Vision); if (!cmpVision) return ret; let visionRange = cmpVision.GetRange(); if (iid === IID_Vision) { ret.max = visionRange; return ret; } if (this.GetStance().respondStandGround) { let range = this.GetRange(iid); if (!range) return ret; ret.min = range.min; ret.max = Math.min(range.max, visionRange); } else if (this.GetStance().respondChase) ret.max = visionRange * 0.85; // << This has changed. else if (this.GetStance().respondHoldGround) { let range = this.GetRange(iid); if (!range) return ret; ret.max = Math.min(range.max + visionRange / 2, visionRange); } // We probably have stance 'passive' and we wouldn't have a range, // but as it is the default for healers we need to set it to something sane. else if (iid === IID_Heal) ret.max = visionRange; return ret; }; And then also, stop units from automatically zerging any dangerous animal within range: UnitAI.prototype.AttackEntitiesByPreference = function(ents) { if (!ents.length) return false; let cmpAttack = Engine.QueryInterface(this.entity, IID_Attack); if (!cmpAttack) return false; let attackfilter = function(e) { if (!cmpAttack.CanAttack(e)) return false; let cmpOwnership = Engine.QueryInterface(e, IID_Ownership); if (cmpOwnership && cmpOwnership.GetOwner() > 0) return true; let cmpUnitAI = Engine.QueryInterface(e, IID_UnitAI); return cmpUnitAI && (!cmpUnitAI.IsAnimal()); // << This has changed. }; let entsByPreferences = {}; let preferences = []; let entsWithoutPref = []; for (let ent of ents) { if (!attackfilter(ent)) continue; let pref = cmpAttack.GetPreference(ent); if (pref === null || pref === undefined) entsWithoutPref.push(ent); else if (!entsByPreferences[pref]) { preferences.push(pref); entsByPreferences[pref] = [ent]; } else entsByPreferences[pref].push(ent); } if (preferences.length) { preferences.sort((a, b) => a - b); for (let pref of preferences) if (this.RespondToTargetedEntities(entsByPreferences[pref])) return true; } return this.RespondToTargetedEntities(entsWithoutPref); }; Honestly, both changes should be added to the base game, but in the meantime, could go into your mod (they're already in DE).

Thanks, Mr. Bart. It's a feature I think would benefit the base game as well as mods (I could imagine Hyrule Conquest making custom minimap icons, for sure). And with your larger minimap, the icons won't be as odious as they would be with the current smaller minimap.

I wouldn't say nobody takes the minimap seriously. There is a lot to do after all. @Langbart is who made the larger minimap patch for Delenda Est, and uses it in his own spectator mod. He does good work.

Could add a rolling cost multiplier (better name, please) to the game, per unit/structure (similar to farming and construction diminishing returns). So, every War Elephant you queue up costs more than the last. Could be linear, could be exponential, or a compound percentage (however you want to look at it or do it). Fewer elephants trained/queued, the less expensive they are; the more elephants trained/queued, the more expensive they are. Could give a slightly lower cost multiplier to historically "Elephant Civs" like Carthage and Maurya as a civ bonus or give them a tech for it. Right now this is possible with auras (Delenda Est does this for Cult Statues, for instance), but using auras there's a flaw that it doesn't affect items in the queue (for units) or that are unbuilt (for structures), so I have to limit the Statues to one at a time, which is awkward. A cost multiplier feature for the cost component could fix that up nicely and give more capabilities for balancing.

Are there Trac and Phab tickets for something like this? Perhaps a <MiniMapIcon>*.png</MiniMapIcon> tag in the <Identity> component?

In Delenda Est, the Kushite pyramids are used as Phase tech requirements. So, X number of Small Pyramids required to move to Phase II, and Y number of Large Pyramids required to move to Phase III. Perhaps a point for discussion? Once you build the required number of pyramids, then the Phase techs research instantly. As far as Kushite economics go, I would focus on Metal (Iron Smelting) and raising animals (Extensive Husbandry), for historically-based solutions. I personally wouldn't want their pyramids to have an econ aura, since they really didn't represent anything economic. I feel like they're a religious or social thing, so made sense to me they'd bring about the advancement of your settlement. Just some thoughts.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7e8db/navy-facebook-account-hacked-to-stream-age-of-empires LMAO^

"Bite my fingers." "Uh, why?" "Just Astros stuff."

It is clean in that the waste is localized instead of spread across hundreds of thousands of square miles like coal (which is also radioactive). If you count @#&#036;%ushima against nuclear (which was a disaster, not standard waste removal procedure, surely), then you must count the hundreds of coal ash spills which have poisoned dozens of watersheds over the years. Modern reactor designs are also very safe. @#&#036;%ushima was not a modern reactor design. That is simply down to (lack of) political will and public pressure. NIMBY, etc.

@Itms

I think the hand actually looks good.

This is done in DE already. Check it out!

How would you know without the stats?

In my "All civs are my favorite" thread, I suggested promotion techs for all units, up to advanced, with 1 unit getting an elite rank tech and 1 unit not receiving a rank tech at all. I'd say the either the Roman spear cav or the jav cav would be the troop type not getting any rank tech, and neither would be the one to get an elite tech.

There is "battalion-ish" support now committed. It's rough, but I have ideas on how to improve it for EA's purposes.

I'll look at the footprint sizes. I've often thought that palisade gates need to be wider, even in the base game.

I think there could be a distinction between Attack Ground (where you target a specific point or area on the ground terrain) and Attack Group (drag-selecting a bunch of enemy units to tag them as preferred targets).

Towers are ridiculously easy to capture if they are ungarrisoned, but then if they are garrisoned they are ridiculously difficult to capture and ridiculously difficult to destroy without siege. But your troops default to capturing behavior so they get massacred needlessly. The implementation of the capturing mechanic in the game is supremely frustrating and it's one of my chief criticisms of the "game design", such as it is.

Healthiest first