wowgetoffyourcellphone

DE will be creating a progression for rams. First, it's a log carried by soldiers, then with an upgrade it becomes a covered ram. Perhaps EA can do something similar.

I believe this would be negated somewhat if template values were used for these things instead of "cleaner" auto-researched techs.

I think if we went to a minimum resolution of 720p then you'd have 200+ more horizontal pixels to work with. Anyway, here are a couple simple ideas for GUI changes:

Indeed. @badosu do u even play bro?

SHOOT ME NOW

<object size="50%-512 100%-200 50%-312 100%"> Very confusing. I think it means the object starts 512 pixels from center, then goes to 312 pixels from center (making it 200 pixels wide), then it goes 200 pixels up from the bottom? The percentages trip me up too.

You think it would be a narrow valley no man's land in the middle with two open areas on the end? Players have to fight through the vale to get to the enemy's side.

Old School Cool

Took another stab at Lorraine Plain:

A typical stone mine:

What now?

I'll edit my post with references when I have time.

Seven Hills The 7 hills of Rome and the Tiber River before the city was founded. The Fields of Mars (Campus Martius) and the area of the Forum should be marshy. The Tiber should have an island in it.

Just apply a default to all, then adjust those few by hand that need it.

<Bonuses> <BonusCavMelee> <Classes>Cavalry</Classes> <Multiplier>3.0</Multiplier> </BonusCavMelee> </Bonuses>

(emphasis mine) Neither of those 2 weird unit behaviors has anything to do with using Hack/Pierce/Crush instead of Melee/Ranged/Siege for attack terminology. It's just terminology. In my mod, spearmen don't have any Pierce attack and slingers don't have any Crush attack, so they don't have those bad behaviors. Nothing inherent to the current terminology says spearmen and slingers have to be that way, it's just a conscious choice. lol But to ram the point home, I definitely can support changing their names to Melee/Ranged/Siege, but then someone in WFG might say, "Spears are looong, lol, so we give them Ranged attack too, mkay, lulz."

Improved the Republican Roman heroes a little bit in DE: Replaced their old low quality "Imperial Attic" helmets with more appropriate helmets for the time period. Made infantry variants for all 3. Gave Marcellus a better body texture. EDIT: Romans really need new Parma shields.

Yes, I could see this as adding an interesting dynamic to, say, a 6-player skirmish map with 2 human players and 4 "unassigned" players. The 4 unassigned players can be "taken over" by the human players. And then you'd have the "Removed" option for those players (probably the majority) who don't want that dynamic.

Hack/Melee, Pierce/Ranged, Crush/Siege attack types are plenty enough to balance most units. How many units will use "other" types of attacks?

Right. If it's a simple change in terminology then I'm okay with doing it if it's more intuitive. The change from Armor to "Resistance" made things less intuitive IMHO. But I think changing Hack, Pierce, and Crush to Melee, Ranged, and Siege can be okay, if that makes WFG fix spearmen. lmao

hack, pierce, crush already do this, it's just WFG stubbornly does not want to fix spearmen attack to align with this.

Yeah, this has been desired since skirmish maps became a thing. Player options need to be: Yourself/Other Human Player AI: Petra Bot Unassigned Removed "Removed" takes away the skirmish templates for that player so that they are completely removed from the map.

Spartans Victorious

Ptolemaic Goodness