wowgetoffyourcellphone
-
Posts
10.211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
491
Posts posted by wowgetoffyourcellphone
-
-
The Part 1 Republican Romans represent the 2nd Punic War era, give or take a few decades. Representing the Principate era Romans would be a whole other ball o' wax. I think the "0" a.d. cutoff is just a handy guideline, not a hard cutoff. Look at Boudicca and the Britons. They're more of a Part 2 faction, IMHO, but are included in Part 1 because they were part of the Celts faction originally. But as far as a long-lived faction as the Romans, you have to pick a timeframe by which you're depicting them. Segmentata Legions, Imperial Gallic G helmets, and standard Auxilia aren't really a Punic Wars era thing.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Baskom Welford said:
Only one problem with a rupee based economy. Mid-late game the mines are all used up for the non-renewable resources such as ore. Without the ability to get it via trade, ore heavy factions such as the Gorons will run out of resources.
You use the rupees to buy more ore at the market. And this problem is a problem for every RTS with non-renewable resources.
I can see a Market ability to "tax" for a resource trickle -- any number of ways around this limitation. Relics, etc.
-
1
-
-
On 12/22/2017 at 6:46 AM, Sundiata said:
I think Roman legionaries deserve a more unique stance, no? They're so iconic, just like their military rigour and discipline. Plus they're easily the most identifiable unit anyway, I think.
Sure, but this guy isn't even a trainable unit. Lol. And rightly so, he's out of the time frame.
-
1
-
-
Question. Is there one resource that every faction uses? Rupees? if so then trade and tribute can be all done with just that one resource. A rupee based international economy. Can solve some of the issues with having a dozen different resources. Maybe this was alrdy suggested.
-
Incredible work.
-
2 hours ago, Alexandermb said:
the problem with the ready animation is that every faction use it
That is the point. The point is to easily identify the unit type at a glance, and semi-uniform animations are supposed to help that happen.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Nescio said:
this negative resource trickle rate can result in getting a negative food stockpile (I think it's interesting enough to try it out, although I might change it later)
I tried this once with making unit consume food, and when it goes negative you can afford everything. It's like infinite resources or something.*
*It was a long while ago, so this may have changed.
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, Alexandermb said:
We have MainzI think he could be a little more hunched, his knees a little more bent, looking a little more "ready" for action, if that's what you're trying to convey.
-
A better ready stance
-
2
-
-
Actually, @Alexandermb, I think Testudo animations would be good to work on too. They currently have none.
And then some intrepid programmer can code formation bonuses.
Right now, all formations can do is alter movement rates. Not sure why whoever it was stopped there.
-
1
-
-
-
With increased training times you disincentivize the spam training method. Either increase the batch train bonus or add techs which improve it can incentivize batchtraining.
-
1
-
-
Reduce food gathering rates and increase unit train time. Slow down the start of the match.
For the barracks problem, if anything you want the batch training bonus to be high, so you don't need to build so many barracks to spam train.
You can also make military buildings cost more for each one you build. I do this in DE with Cult Statues, tho I do it with auras, kinda hacky.
-
3
-
-
Just now, Nescio said:
Both hares and rabbits are rodents with long ears, but other than that, they're are quite different, simply reusing actors seems like a very bad idea.
I suggested it as temporary, bruh.
-
About building over trees, this is viable if you take DE's route and have straggler trees and tree groves. Groves would not be buildable/destructible, while stragglers would be. This would make building walls easier for player and AI methinks. Groves also have the advantage of possibly doing cool ambush/garrisoning things, like allowing barbarian/guerilla civs the ability to garrison soldiers "inside" groves for ambuscade.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Sundiata said:
Logical, no, that you can't start construction on a building with an enemy army standing right there. Something like an aura that disallows units from starting construction near enemy units or buildings.
Hmm, almost everything you've said I can agree with except this one. Forward-building is a viable real-world tactic. See how the Romans would invest a town: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Investment_(military)
I agree with these principle problems brought up in this thread:
1. Building masses of farms around the CC.A dumb AOE holdover. Farmlands, people.
2. Dozens of Barracks, etc. Just another dumb AOE holdover.
3. Dozens of corrals = lulz. Just tie their number to the number of Farmsteads. This essentially doubles their price and construction micro. And, IMHO corrals should work a lot differently than they do now. I've already talked about this. It's nearly useless trying to convince anybody of anything.
4. Using CCs as the primary dropsite. Move the starting resources away from the CC! We've been screaming this for months or years now.
I'm not too jazzed about:
1. Resource storage. This was also in the game Command & Conquer and some of its sequels. It could be interesting or an unnecessary detail. Perhaps abstract it a bit to where you drop resources off at a storehouse and farmstead per usual, and then when it "fills up" to max amount you get the resources automatically dumped into the player's treasury. If the storehouse or farmstead gets destroyed by the enemy, they get whatever has been stored up in the dropsite as loot.
I don't agree with:
1. Preventing players from constructing buildings just because there are enemy units within vision range. If "action range" was implemented, then I could mayyyyyybe using action range as the construction constriction. But vision range is way too much. The public mod has insanely large vision ranges and would be a frustration for players.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, The Undying Nephalim said:
Awesome, that works perfectly.
Also set costs to zero. I forgot that part. In DE's case, the "cost" for the Empire Phase has already been paid by building an expensive Wonder.
-
47 minutes ago, The Undying Nephalim said:
Awesome that worked.
Last-last question, is there a way to make it so a technology is instantly researched when a building is finished being constructed?
Yes, I do this in DE for the Empire Phase. It auto-researches when the player builds a Wonder.
Just make that building be a requirement object for the tech. Then set the tech to auto-research. Lastly, set the research time and costs to zero. Here is my Empire Phase tech for an example:
{ "genericName": "Empire Phase", "specificName": { "athen": "Autokratoría" }, "description": "Moves your civilization from urbanism to imperialism, unlocking powerful technologies and abilities not available in earlier phases of expansion. This is the Athenian imperial phase, where metal gathering rates are boosted because of the Silver Owls bonus.", "cost": {"food": 0, "wood": 0, "stone": 0, "metal": 0}, "requirements": {"entity": {"class": "Wonder", "number": 1}}, "autoResearch": true, "requirementsTooltip": "Requires 1 Wonder to be built.", "supersedes": "phase_city_athen", "replaces": ["phase_imperial"], "icon": "phase_imperial.png", "researchTime": 0, "tooltip": "Advance to Empire Phase, which unlocks powerful technologies and abilities. Territory radius for Civic Centers and vision range for units increased by a final +25%. 'Silver Owls' bonus gives +10% metal gathering rates.", "modifications": [ {"value": "TerritoryInfluence/Radius", "multiply": 1.25, "affects": "CivCentre"}, {"value": "Vision/Range", "multiply": 1.25, "affects": "CivCentre"}, {"value": "Vision/Range", "multiply": 1.25, "affects": "Unit"}, {"value": "ResourceGatherer/Rates/metal.ore", "multiply": 1.1, "affects": "Gatherer"} ], "soundComplete": "interface/alarm/alarm_phase.xml" }
-
For how small these are, you could literally make a Hare template and just use the rabbit actor for now until the hare model is done.
-
40 minutes ago, The Undying Nephalim said:
Last question, how exactly does the game detect and use Team Bonuses? I've found them floating around in simulation\data\auras\teambonuses and I've made them, but I have a feeling I need to do something more then just have a civ_ prefix because none of them are working.
Give those auras to the player.xml file for that civ. Auras need to be attached to an object in the game, so for team bonuses they are attached to the ephemeral player object.
-
19 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
I'm not sure destroying tree is a good idea. That looks like a good multiplayer exploit where you spam enemy territory trees with buildings to destroy resources.
Surely that's your own territory you are spoiling since you can't build buildings in enemy territory.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Alexandermb said:
Horse
Looks perfect now man. Nice.
-
3 hours ago, stanislas69 said:
@wowgetoffyourcellphone But he said that breaks elsewhere. See his previous post.
I thought he was talking about the chest area.
-
29 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:
What about the UV @wowgetoffyourcellphone
Maybe this will help illustrate what I mean?
-
2
-
Rome Legionary
in Art dev
Posted · Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
Having said that, I think heroic poses and whatnot are very cool, and would work fantastically if the game had Battalions. With mosh pit combat, you lose sight of your soldiers easily and their animations are crucial in picking out, say, your swordsmen from your spearmen, etc. so you can proper micro them. In that case, standard animations for different classes of unit are essential. But with a Battalion system in place you don't have that problem of having to pick your units out of a jumbled crowd. Their animations can be more unique and interesting, rather than standardized.
There are so many plus sides to battalions, like letting @Alexandermb run wild with animations, formations, more tactical combat, battalion upgrades, army formations, set piece battles, etc.