wowgetoffyourcellphone

I think the Carth embassies can be a distinct outlier, but in general I vote to have captured buildings only build the new owner's units. To do otherwise will take a lot more discussion and design work and balancing.

Why isn't the reaction, "Neat! I can train new units from this captured thing!"?

An edge case I never considered. I agree. Revealed Map should also apply Cartography's effects and remove it from the Researcher panel.

The backend is fine, but we can present it anyway we want to right?

C'mon. I'm talking about how it's presented to the end user, who likely knows nothing (and does not care) about how the files are organized on the backend.

It should be: Name Version Description Dependencies Website <mod icon> Delenda Est 0.0.26 An overhaul mod...blah blah 0ad>=0.0.26 http://

Yeah, the path could maybe show up in a tooltip or something.

Yep, this would indeed be nice. Definitely a strong "want", along with Target Flash (when you right-click something it flashes white as visual feedback) and Actor Erasure (when foundation construction begins, it erases actors beneath it, such as grass).

The term is misused then. You still need the real "Name" of the mod, not just its description and folder name. lol

Right, the "Name" has to be identical to the folder name, else it won't work in multiplayer. @Freagarach and I ran into that trying to test Delenda Est one time. It's just unintuitive. To any normie, the "Name" of the mod should be Delenda Est, not delenda_est_a26 (which is identical to the folder name, also listed). Some attention needs to be given to such things, but of course I know manpower is always short. Just noting the odd incongruencies for end-users.

There are several improvements I'd like to see with the general UI, akin to your suggestion. I find the mod.io download screen and the mod list screen in general to be kind of confusing. There are a lot of not-obvious things like the difference between a mod "Name" and a mod "Label" and why mod names can't have spaces.

I don't think that happens in A26, the 3 second invulnerability. But my point is at some point I hate training level 1 nub units after 20+ mins of play.

I wish the team would look into Promotion Techs. Constantly training Level 0 n00b units, even in late-game, only for them to die before they reach cool-looking elite status is kind of meh. We have these awesome actors and units and 90% of soldiers never get there.

Now we have gone back in time to daddy Wow's original conception.

It does. Example: <Upgrade> <Tower> <Entity>structures/{civ}/defense_tower_stone</Entity> <Tooltip>Stone Towers have +100% health, +20% territory influence, +20% vision, +20% attack range, and additional technologies.</Tooltip> <RequiredTechnology>phase_town</RequiredTechnology> <Cost> <stone>100</stone> <wood>0</wood> </Cost> <Time>20</Time> <Variant>upgrading</Variant> </Tower> </Upgrade> Does that what you mean?

Sure, but it's irrelevant FUD when decisions need to be made quickly.

Part of the problem in this conversation is that you keep mentioning other dynasties and eras. It has induced a lot of confusion. Please stick to the Han period to prevent confusion.

Yeah, Gastraphetes were largely relegated to siege operations (because they are quite unwieldy), not used so much in field battles. My stat suggestions were just spit balling, to rustle up some conversation.

I think the problem is that the Mace "crossbow" is supposed to be conceptualized as more of a siege weapon. I suggest perhaps champion crossbows get a bit of a range boost closer to the old range and maybe +5 crush damage. That way they feel more special. Something different from a champion archer.

20k total unique players in a week. How many on the lobby in that week? Can we determine how many multiplayer people "stick around" and aren't just trying out the game? Play 1 or 2 matches, get smurfed or otherwise massacred, then rage quit?

vs. maybe 1K in multiplayer lobby?

The minimap is too small. Make it larger.

A generic "Scout" Cavalry, as seen in DE, could work.