wowgetoffyourcellphone

Right, "Greeks" is a civilization, while "Athenians" is a faction within that civilization. You can even say that about the Mauryans, they are a faction within the "Indians" civilization. But that's semantics. It may be useful to just use civilization because that's the term players are used to, semantics aside.

The current functionality of corrals is not up to their spec. So don't judge corrals based on their current status. I agree, it's own thread.

It's true that perhaps the game should choose one or the other. Civilization sounds broader, like "Western Civilization" while Faction sounds smaller or more specific. One thing that "Civilization" can boast is that it's been the standard term for historical rts, while faction has been used in non-historical rts, at least in my experience.

It's just, I have played rts games with "soft" battalions and rts games with "hard" battalions, and the games with soft battalions made me wonder why they even tried. The combat and behavior of hard battalions in games like Battle for Middle Earth 2 just plain worked, and was very straight forward. That's where I am come from in my views. Maybe others, like Yves, have other experience and have gained a different perspective. Fair.

I like simple solutions sometimes. 1 market per cc, 5 trader per market. Slow traders down by 50% and adjust the gain a bit higher. I think traders should be less numerous but higher gain that make them high value targets. Exact values subject to change. Trading with self is okay imho since cities in an empire traded between themselves. But the profit for self trade can be lowered. Give a max distance between markets and CCs (markets cant too far from a cc) so the markets are tethered to the center of each city.

Well, I like trading because it bring another historical aspect to the game, plus improve teamwork, etc.

Maybe make trader cost more for each new trader. I already do this with cult statue. Works fine. But I think by the end of a long game you want trading to replace gathering by a large amount, maybe 50%.

Including children units is too much, guys. When things like this come shooting out, I think it's time to step back and reevaluate. I don't like "provinces" as talked about here. I'd prefer something more dynamic as it is now, but I grow tired of talking about this stuff ad nauseum. Just play DE to see what I would do with territory and expansion. To make a long story short, I'd prefer to see the player building cities, rather than grabbing huge sections of land. In reality, empires had no real "borders" like we have today. The "border" was a mountain range or a river or a valley, and even then enemy armies easily penetrate and live off the land for weeks or months. That's why I refocused "territory" to be more about city boundaries than empire boundaries. Empires are the control of cities, IMHO, and their surrounding lands. You only "own" the land that you can defend. And the world at this time was something like 2% as populous as it is now. Large swathes of land were uninhabited or untapped, certainly undeveloped, and "control" from the capitol was nominal at best, hence strong core/weak countryside concept in DE. But, as long as the game remains moddable and I can have my way in my mod, then do what you want with hard "provinces." As usual, lots of reinventing the wheel here, for example about farms. Already good farming concepts available on the forum and in Trac last time I look. Check those out. Directionality: If it can make things simpler, perhaps directionality can be on a per battalion basis, rather than per soldier. Just throwing that out there.

Can have stoa be special start structure for Greek civs. The stoa is what gives them their hellenic architecture bonus.

A very clever music video!

Dacia is for sequel. For Empires Ascendant I think Kushites, Scythians, and Thracians are best bets.

I like the building dependency concept, especially requiring more than one type of parent, like corral + farmstead = market. Just have to make sure the tree makes sense, but the concept is good. Allow me to introduce the technology dependency web. In this case, for the blacksmith: In the above example, since the player has build 2 blacksmiths, he can have up to 2 techs researching at one time.

They make the game more vibrant. Not sure why there is resistance against this.

But for real though: Food: Harvest from Animals, Berry Bushes, Fish, or Farms Wood: Lumber from Trees Stone: Mine from Rocks or Stone quarries Metal: Mine from Metal Mines

If you split the metal resource into iron and silver, then please make gathering them different ways. I have detailed some ideas on this elsewhere.

Capture your mom? I'm all out of ideas. Maybe "Steal Alexander."

Hi guy. I add text to the resources name, so that the player can get a little tooltip when hover over the icons in the top left. Can someone extend the resource code to allow the resource jsons to have a tooltip line like the technologies have? The reason for this extension is so that the gui at the bottom does not get screwed up. See, the editing I did made it work for the top ribbon, but screw up the bottom gui. Current modded json: { "code": "food", "name": "Food - Harvest from Animals, Berry Bushes, Fish, or Farms", "order": 1, "subtypes": { "fish": "Fish", "fruit": "Fruit", "grain": "Grain", "meat": "Meat" }, "truePrice": 100, "aiAnalysisInfluenceGroup": "ignore" } Desired json possibility: { "code": "food", "name": "Food", "order": 1, "subtypes": { "fish": "Fish", "fruit": "Fruit", "grain": "Grain", "meat": "Meat" }, "tooltip": "Harvest from Animals, Berry Bushes, Fish, or Farms.", "truePrice": 100, "aiAnalysisInfluenceGroup": "ignore" }

Good luck. Seriously, good effing luck on that one, m8.

Game setup need a "Random" team option, not just - 1 2 3 4.

If you make any headway, I look forward to modding your changes to be better.

With everything else in the game, I think it should be a simple decision.

Looks like a hack n slash where no one will actually use any real formations or cooperate like they should.

I think a thought. What if this is something to do with entity classes. I've had weird behavior in past when I didn't have the right entity classes in the templates -- in that case, it was that I split "Worker" into "Builder" and "Gatherer", so units stopped working right. I fixed that by putting "Worker" back into the classes -- Builder and Gatherer I put in visible classes. Could the problem be class related then?