wowgetoffyourcellphone

Maybe. But I think it more interesting if maybe all unit are only 2 resource cost, but maybe add a resource cost based on a tech effect. So, if you give "Sidearms" (knives, swords, etc.) to infantry, you add attack amount but also add +5 metal cost (so now the spearman also cost 5 metal). Just example.

In my mod I give two docks. A Commercial Dock for fishing and trading, and a Shipyard for military ships. It work well I think, though confuse AI for now.

I think final texture size can be 256x256 like many soldier textures are now. A lot of the old texture are 128x128.

I have talk about how the CS concept do not need to be dropped in favor of battalion. Battalions can still perform like citizen-soldiers.

If you mix concept, it will be watered down and a mess to control. No game I have play has adequately to my satisfaction had a mixed system. It always felt disjointed and unnecessary with added complexity. So, I think the game should either have battalion or not. You can always have match start with extra scouts and hunters or something so you can have your fun microing a unit to spear a boar. I can very easily see each player being able to train individual units like foragers or scouts for those roles, but then that are their only roles. They don't swap into and out of battalions and add steps that make the concept feel tacked on.

The problem is resource management is now watered down a bit. With only 2 resource cost for your mainline unit, you can have strategies focusing on gathering those resources. If unit cost 3 or 4 resources, then your econ just focus all the time at getting all resources equally. The difference on this is difficult for me to describe. I also find it hassle to be denied a sword man because I don't have enough wood. Right now player doesn't just need food and metal, but ALSO wood for a swordman. Why? Why 3 resource for a swordman but only 2 resource for spearman? Food cost should probably be increase, yeah. Also harder to get and more vulnerable.

To pickyback on historic_brutus post: Many AAA games have dozens or even a hundred options. It is not like indie games have too many opton compare to AAA games.

Realkisticallly, a unit should cost dozens of resources. From gameplay perspective, Food for all organic unit make sense, and then 1 more non-food resource to give hint to their primary weapon and usage.

Availability, techs, and stats equal "strength."

I really think unit should not cost mor than 2 different resource. I am baffle why so many unit cost 3 resource. A lot of tech cost are really very strange as well.

I think his roster is quite strong with cAValry.

Plan is to make herding a good option. It is the third Phase-1 food option: Berries -> Hunting -> Herding. With these 3 option, I think it would okay to be only have farming in Phase 2. They can have a extra foraging vs. hunting pair of tech or some bonus of them.

I don't see problem with having cataphract as champion for more than Seleucid civ. In Part 2, the Dominate Romans (Early Byzantines) would have a cataphract as champion (or possible Spear Cav upgrade, making them all but champion). General scheme is to have 1 heavy infantr and 1 heavy cavalry as champions (with some variation on theme of course1). Csn't get much more heavy than a cataphract.

Thr problems with this game are not even remotely related to the number of civilization.

This actually look neat. I remember from AOE from in the 1997! I think Seleucid can look almost exact like this, and then Ptolemies can have same Greek back part (maybe slightly different skin, or same skin, can use same as large prop), but then Egyptian-style walls and statues in the front instead of columnb (or the back part is the "main" actor and the walls and statues are prop for thre Seleucid and Ptolemies versions).

Of course I am not saying a blind merge is a good thing. I only say that if there are thing in my mod the source game can use, it is very easy to get that content. However, it look like there are no one on the team who bother with these things, hence the reason for my mod to begin with.

In Delenda Est, have tech called "Katoikia" that upgrade Military Colony to a Civic Center.

wackyseriousness: I can see morale onlty to work with a battalion style game, because: 1.) Battalions reduce number of entity needed for management, and 2.) See number 1. With individual soldier as entities, we have 300 unit to manage now. With battalion (I'm strong in support of battaluon, this is well-known), this reduce down to maybe 20 or 25. Now you can add thing like morale and directional attack and cool stuff like this. The imagination run wild, but must be temper with a clear vision. Maybe you agree.

Player should use caution when suggesting changes just because current alpha play one way or another. Because everyone in alpha 19 go heavy champion does not mean this will be case in alpha 20, using your suggestions or no. Remember that not all gameplay is complete. It is a hope that formation fighting, charging, tramplling, chasing, etc. will change combat with significance. Until thing like these implemented, it is difficult to say that Persians should get to build more than 1 Apadana so that they can train more Immortals. Why not beef them in another way? Like their archers or other ranged unit. In Delenda Est, Immortals have a train limit of 30, but they are traine supremely fast (4 seconds after all research). Not saying this is solution, but it is alternative you don't mention. Just saying there are many way to balance this stuff but until the gameplay complete it should wait. Obvious to me, the team disagree so "balancing" will continue to take up an unnecessary amount of time better spent on adding feature and squashing of the bugs.

And yet keeping Thorakites Romaio or something like this also reference their possible Roman inspiration. All we know is that thwy were probably not called either of these thing.

What the corps named this way? They certainly did not carry silver sheild. So, I don't think they should be called Silver Shield Swordsman unless their corps was called this. It may depend on your read of the source material, but I do not have it on my hands at this moment.

Then it would be "bonus/penalty" if something can be either/or. I do not know why you take personally. English can be studied after all, so it does not matter where the critique come from, a native or non-native speaker as long as the critique is founded well.

Bonus / Penalty is very simple and "penalty" is something use in other games. I have never ever anywhere in any game see "Malus-Bonus." In fact, in Latin it mean "Bad-Good" which make no sense in the context. In fact, in English the word "Malus" is only ever use in financial matters: The return of performance-related compensation originally paid by an employer to an employee as a result of the discovery of a defect in the performance. - Wiktionary. Trust me, Litmus, "Penalty" is much better. "Malus-Bonus" in fact sound like something someone made up because can't think of the right term (the right term is Penalty).

Some things in game are word very awkward IMHO. First example I can think of is the use of word "malus-bonus." This is silly. Use word "penalty" instead. I am not native English speaker but even I can see "malus-bonus" is awkward. There are other examples too. Anything come to the mind?

All the pop up window in the game need redesign. Use same skins though, they nice.