Jump to content

Grapjas

Community Members
  • Posts

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Grapjas

  1. Shouldn't be that hard to implement this feature, code wise. I would do it like alre suggests, a button you can click when you select your men. With the code you would get all entities of the e.g. Barracks class and store it to a variable. Calculate in a loop which one is closest and order them to garrison to it or just stand near it (which they automatically do if the building is full). You can also send them to the next barrack if full but that might work out against you if you don't pay attention and have multiple bases. wHy NoT Do iT YoUrSeLf?! Because i don't necessarily want this feature I'd say go to phab and make a patch for it and if you don't know how to this wiki is a start. In regards to unreachable terrain, i'm not sure if there is a function in place already to check that. IIRC theres not and units will go back and forth trying to reach that terrain. Haven't played in a bit though.
  2. There are corrupt human beings, but not all human beings are corrupt, is my point. But we're getting off topic i guess ( my fault ) and i honestly have nothing to add.
  3. I disagree, but you should be wary, sure. If you always assume the worst thats prejudice, and with prejudice you will bring out the worst surely. I wholeheartedly hate generalisation.
  4. I think being open sourced is both a blessing and a curse. In the end you need someONE (or at least a very small group like 3 ppl, this way you always have either min 2 opposed or in favor) taking the lead and put down the hammer on what gets into the game. The more people that will join the discussions, the harder it will be to agree to something and it will develop into endless debates (just look at politcs, lol). But it's a difficult task indeed for one person to carry that weight. And you will lose and gain people along the way regardless. I agree with @azayrahmad that a proper design document needs to be in place and enforced, for people that are willing to contribute. But when it comes new ideas, it's best to have one person (or the small team) in the lead making those final calls imo.
  5. I think the way the roles are divided are pretty good and logical and is something that makes 0AD more unique imo. It takes some time to learn the differences for new players but learning is not a bad thing. You wouldn't hire a mercenary to collect wood, they are hired to fight. Champions are proper combat units, surely you wouldn't send your best trained men to work in a mine. You would send lower class citizens to do that job. Not saying it's perfect though but i think the role dividing for units should stay.
  6. I personally much prefer AOE3 over 2, mainly because 2 is really chaotic and the isometric view is horrible imo. The combat feels much nicer in 3 aswell. But yes, it was a small ripple compared to AOE2.
  7. Here's my input on the subject with cheap ass photoshop skills- The flags should be like i explained in the first picture but it's just a quick mock-up before i go to bed.
  8. Never heard about this game, seems really cool. (and i just realised it was quite an old post)
  9. I mean it's not impossible just hasn't been done yet. IIRC there was work on it, just need animators to beautify it. Just because something isn't in the game doesn't mean you need to throw every realistic or logical thing out the window. It also just shows that not a whole lot of people are actually coding/contributing to the game. There are a number of ways to balance this, e.g. limit the max number of targets it can splash hit to something like 3, and lower the damage against the units that were indirectly hit (maybe 1/2 of the direct damage).
  10. Those are them lion king trees bruh (im jk tho idk what im talking about)
  11. Not great imo. Maybe a bonus against gates but thats it. They should be shock unit, not a siege unit.
  12. I see. But I said promoted into centurions anyway though. Obviously would need a critical eye from the historians team but I'm sure each civ could get a champion promotion out of some soldier types for that civ. Would be disappointing if only Romans got this feature imo, wether its the one from Grapejuice or the one from DE.
  13. How so? Wasn't it normal to climb the military rank ladder?
  14. Well teamgames are a thing too. Just requires you to play differently if your goal is to have your units promote to champions. If competitive won't be able to achieve units getting to 4th rank (seriously doubt it though)- no loss no gain i guess. Skiritai won't get to champions because spartans don't have champion swordsman type unit. And there are also ranged units that would be able to promote to champions if that type of unit exists for the civ. Kushite archers to noble archers for example.
  15. How about letting soldiers promote to champions (4th rank) the normal way if the civ has the same type for it in the roster? (grapejuiceTM) So swordsman to centurion, Spartan spearmen to spartiates etc. It makes sense for experienced soldiers to become champions. It wouldn't be that easy to achieve either, depending on the game ofc. Gives more incentive to be savvy with your soldiers.
  16. This discussion is pretty interesting. it is noted that romans typically wore their sword on the right side seemingly regardless of what hand you are fighting with. However it's also noted that centurions wore it on the left side, of which the image i quoted is about.
  17. Small nitpick, but i think the sheaths are on the wrong side of the hip. They were generally worn on the opposite side of the dominant hand.
  18. I'm gonna be honest, i don't play my own mod (only tests). There are a couple of reasons for it. 1. Bots are no challenge 2. I made this mod for others, not for myself. 3. I'm using it as a learning experience. I haven't experienced a teamgame with players with the mod either, so it's hard to judge. You also can't really isolate and judge the ammo mechanic from the rest that's new in the mod though. e.g. Ranged have much more damage because they now have ammo, and they are generally lightweight so can manoeuvre fast but die easily. And they also have secondary weapons in case they run out of ammo. I think it's best to leave ammo as an optional thing because i think there is a great divide with people that are against it and in favor for it. It could be fun though if it was a game option you could check, but imo you at least would need to buff their damage and give them secondary weapons too to actually pay off that they have ammo.
  19. It could be but I think doing it via a button or formation might be better, otherwise you'd need to make a workaround for melee units if you do it via stances.
  20. Nice work on the wiki to everyone who contributed, very helpful ^^
  21. I personally like the way it is tbh. Capturing can be- and often is- done faster then just bashing your melee weapon against a building. Which means you need to have a little more awareness and have some troops ready to garrison your important buildings. But the capture and instant delete mechanic is pretty awful. There at least needs to be a timer before the user can delete the building after capturing e.g. 1 minute.
  22. Alternatively, there could be made a button to reverse the targetting behavior when enabled. When the button is enabled, they target units furthest first, when it's disabled they target closest first.
  23. 3.1.6 update Added statistics for ammo and energy when multiple units are selected. Contributed by @beryll1um on github. Updated original post download links (and once approved on mod.io).
  24. Yeah in templates > special > player.xml
×
×
  • Create New...