Danny

Can someone in the loop summarize the major contributions of Alpha 20 to give us fodder for choosing names? Alpha 19 was obviously going to reflect either capturing or the new pathfinder. What do we have to celebrate in A20? Thermopylae was a stinkin awesome battle by the way, fought in the right time period between 2 of 0 A.D.'s factions on the land owned by a third and in order to protect a fourth. And it starts with a T

This is the bugs subforum. So my job is done Thanks

Of all the proposals in this thread, the one that strikes me as having the most potential is upgrading individual buildings, and making the upgrades of the civ center very significant, so that they have the feel of advancing to a new phase/age. One of the main reasons I like this proposal is that it increases strategic diversity. For the game to be strategically interesting, there should never be just one right answer. So we should not think of building upgrades as "leveling up" but rather as choosing a direction for research/development. This would provide for a kind of tech tree for buildings. Some examples to illustrate the possibilities: Civ center starts as "village center" and can be upgraded to "town center", then "city center". Barracks start as generic "barracks" which can train basic but poor units (spearman, archer, mounted scout), but once the player has at least one "town center", they can upgrade the "barracks" to either an "infantry barracks" or "archery barracks" or "cavalry barracks", each of which can only produce it's particular style of units, but the units are much better quality than units created at a generic "barracks". This is the generalist -> specialist progression. The player of course has the option to not upgrade a barracks, so as to retain the diversity of the original building, but will have to make do with poor units. Or he can upgrade all his barracks to infantry barracks if he wants to do an infantry-heavy strategy, or he can build several barracks and upgrade some to infantry barracks, some to archery barracks, some to cavalry barracks for a combined-arms approach. "Farmstead" can be a generalist structure that can serve as dropsite for hunting or gathering (but not farming), but once a player has a "town center", the farmstead can also be upgraded to either a "mill", which can only receive berries and farming, or a "corral", which can produce herds and receive meat of any kind. If the player wants both, they will need to make more than one farmstead and upgrade them individually to different things. Historically, the market can be thought of a crossroads where both goods and ideas are traded. "Marketplace" can only be built once a player has a "town center" and can do basic goods trading (as currently implemented). But once a player has at least one "city center", the "marketplace" can be upgraded to either an "emporium" (trade center which specializes economically, giving better exchange rates, available techs for traders, etc.) or to a "debate school" (which specializes in academic knowledge, giving research bonuses across the board, allowing cross-cultural advancements like the Carthaginian embassies, etc.). Building tech tree options can be mutually dependent. For example, the basic generalist "blacksmith" (which can do a little of everything) can be upgraded to a "forge workshop" (which allows even better armor, etc), but only if a player also has an upgraded barracks. If they only have an infantry barracks, the forge workshop will only be able to do infantry upgrades. If they also have an archery barracks, the forge workshop will also be able to do archer upgrades, etc. Or instead of upgrading to a forge workshop, the player can choose to upgrade the "blacksmith" to a "siege workshop" (which can build/upgrade siege weapons), but only if they have at least one "debate school" (the idea being that academic knowledge allows for the math and science knowledge necessary for building siege weapons). The phase/age idea can also be diversified by forking the upgrade tree of the civ center. For example, the "town center" can be upgraded to either a "city center" (which focuses economically and academically, allowing buildings like the debate school and giving increased productivity to villagers working within its radius of influence) or to a "citadel" (which focuses militarily, giving defensive bonuses to nearby villagers and soldiers, but not unlocking key economic/academic techs and buildings). Again, this would provide strategic choices for the player. They can go all military (but their military won't have great diversity and sophistication) or all economic (but with some military disadvantage), or probably develop one town center into a city center and develop forward town centers into citadels, thus benefiting from both sides of the tech tree but at increased cost in time and resources. Obviously all these ideas are just brainstorms and the names and details need great refinement. But the examples illustrate the diversity and interest-factor that could be added to the game. It also opens the door for a more interesting economy side to the game, which several people have noted is a bit lacking. Is this idea worth pursuing? If so, I might work on a basic tech tree proposal. Feedback?

I'm not sure how bug reports work. Do I need to make a ticket for something like this, or will someone else do that?

We're making some progress. On further consideration, I think Lion.Kanzen is correct that fortresses in particular need to be able to be captured (though it should be difficult). There may be less important buildings which can only be destroyed, not captured. But in keeping with historical accuracy, there should be significant downsides to capturing. The best case in point is the civ center. A civ center is theoretically much more than just blocks and mortar. It represents population, heritage, pride, culture, ideas, patriotism, industry, literature... Simply waltzing your soldiers in and militarily capturing the center shouldn't make it effectively yours. In real life, the native population would only tolerate the conquerors while there was overwhelming force present. At the slightest chance the population would rebel, trying to throw off the oppressors. Or if rebellion was untenable, they would work at greatly reduced productions rates so as not to "help" the "enemy". Military occupation (think Paris in WWII) ≠ adding a fully productive civ center. So in terms of game mechanics, perhaps buildings should "remember" who their original owner is, and always be at risk of reverting to the original owner if 1) original owner troops are nearby or 2) conquering troops are not garrisoned in the building in sufficient numbers. Even while the building has not reverted to original ownership, it should work at reduced speed (i.e., train units at half speed) or more interestingly, occasionally produce units that owe allegiance (belong) to the original owner instead of the conquering oppressor. In these or other ways, the conquered civ center should be a bit of a thorn in the side of its conquerors. However, the longer the new conquerors maintain control of the civ center, the more the memory of the former owner fades and the more it becomes fully "yours". So the "thorn in the side" characteristics decline with time until they finally vanish altogether and the civ center is just like one you built yourself. Adding these historical elements will give more nuance to capturing and thus more diversity to the strategy of the game. For the game to be strategically interesting, there should never just be one right answer. The player should have to decide wisely whether he/she will 1) capture a civ center, devote a bunch of troops to the garrison, endure the reprisals of the local population, and hope to hold on to the center for long enough for it to be useful, or 2) just destroy it and not have to deal with it, but also not get a civ center out of the deal. Similar dynamics might be applied to other buildings, but perhaps to a lesser scale. Fortresses, for example, are mostly block and mortar, and so capturing one is much more strategically advantageous than capturing a civ center. And a fortress has less "memory" of its former owner.

Also looking forward to this. The timeline at the end of AoE was always a favorite.

In general, I agree with Hitman, but the issue is broader than just what he mentioned. Here are some aspects that need balancing: Roman entrenched army camp defects immediately in enemy territory, as I noted in another thread. Garrisoned buildings can still be captured, as noted by Hitman here. Buildings are easier to capture than destroy, and capture is the default option. So what often happens is I send a contingent of soldiers to destroy a building, but my other nearby soldiers (whom I haven't explicitly tasked) decide to capture it, and inevitably I end up capturing an almost dead building that I didn't want in the first place. Why, you ask, would I not want a captured building? Because once you capture it and move on, it will very often revert to enemy control by virtue of territory, or else be recaptured by enemy troops. So you end up with a see-saw of building ownership that does no one any good. I often delete buildings that I capture "by accident" just so they won't fall back into enemy hands. But there shouldn't be a need for silly hacks like that. The see-saw is worse with siege weapons. Even with a large ground army to protect the siege weapons, it only takes a small handful of enemy soldiers to sneak through and capture your siege weapons. I've played a couple of games where it was almost impossible to prevent. So the best way to deal with the situation is to recapture your own siege weapons, and so on ad nauseam. But the whole situation is absurd. Since capturing is the default action, it leads to some highly improbable situations from a realistic/historic perspective. I just finished a game in the Gallic Fields where the gaia Roman soldiers captured one of my towers instead of fighting my nearby soldiers (which is fine, if that's what they choose). My nearby soldiers, then, instead of attacking the Romans, went and stood shoulder to shoulder with them trying to recapture the tower. But they were quite evenly matched, so they all just stood there for quite a long time, shoulder to shoulder. They could have been enjoying a nice spot of tea, or maybe singing Christmas carols together. In real life, someone would have realized the absurdity of it all, swung a sword at their neighbor, and ended it. I fully realize that all of this is simply a matter of balancing out a very new feature. And it is a valuable feature, no doubt. Some scale-back in A20 and beyond will bring capturing to it's full potential. Ideas to consider: Make capturing slower than destroying Make attacking (not capturing) the default option Limit capturing abilities to only certain types of units Make certain types of buildings (cc, fortress) immune to capture Make garrisoned units resist capture even more strongly than they do currently. Develop techs that prevent/retard capture Especially for siege weapons, make it so that nearby friendly soldiers provide an "aura" of resistance to capture. Ie., if a siege weapon is alone, it is easy to capture, but if it is close to its army, it is very difficult to capture. Thanks to all who take these rough brainstorms and do the hard work of polishing them into something useful!

Very simple math error in the stats at the end of the game. We just finished a team game, and one team member had a 75% barter efficiency, the other team member had an 80% efficiency. The team total said 155%, which is bogus. Instead of adding the percentages, it should average them to give a team total efficiency of (in this case) 77.5%. This is a phenomenal game, by the way. Thanks to all who work hard to make it happen.

Not so much a bug as an unintended consequence to the Alpha 19 addition of capturing. The Roman ability to build entrenched army camps in enemy territory ends up being a negative thing, since the camp almost immediately defects to the enemy, and then you spend your whole army trying to recapture the awesome barracks you just gave to your enemy. Should be a fairly simple fix by giving the building a resistance to capture.