chrstgtr

To be clear, this is the way it worked in old alphas.

Should be able to just say get back to work for them to resume their routes with their res.

You can also do attack move (unit only). It is Control+Q

Reflections on water can look a little weird. As you can see below, part is water/waves and part is the reflection of the trees. It alternated between the two different looks, so the water looked like it was blinking with light

First replay (-03) crashed unexpectedly. Both players in game crashed. No obvious reason why. Second replay (-04) we got an out of synch error in the middle of the game for no apparent reason (it said I was OOS). We were able to continue with no obvious effects. 2021-06-16_0004.zip 2021-06-16_0003.zip

Agree2021-06-14_0008.zip, not a release blocker. I was able to reproduce the difference between stopping when walking to build a destroyed building and continuing to walk to a point where a targeted enemy that was already killed. Garrisoning is harder to replicated because AI doesn't garrison much but I saw it happen before and I just can't find the replay of it.

I noticed the stop in place if the targeted unit is killed no longer occurs in a25. But a similar stop occurs when a building's foundations are destroyed or if the targeted unit garrisions. Is this on purpose? It seems like the three should all be the same. To me, it also doesn't make sense why units would stop walking to an area where a building was planning if its foundations were destroyed beyond the commanded unit's LOS.

There have already been substantial changes to mainland that make it more fair (e.g., https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4148). Resources should be relatively plentiful. Note 100% "fair" is not necessarily more fun because it makes the game more predictable (i.e., if I know you have a lot of hunt then I am more likely to prepare for a cav rush). Completely balanced maps alsp take away some strategy of trying to get the "good" spot that has a cluster of desirable mines. I do agree, though, that it would be nice to have the current balanced maps mod as an official map for those who want it. And, as it has been said elsewhere (e.g., https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/42909-metal-shortages/?do=findComment&comment=434039), it would be nice to have a balanced map option that is fair from a team perspective but not necessarily predictable from an individual player perspective. N.B. Balmaps mod doesn't equalize wood.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4148

My primary concern is that this will make Rome/Mace unable to fight off a camel rush because the chasing spear cav won't be able to do enough damage against fleeing camels. The gif suggests that this patch will be about a 50% nerf in that context. I don't think the patch will be too impactful in other fights. If you don't think that this will render spear cav unable to stop a camel rush then I am fine with the patch.

Comment from patch copied below. For balancing reasons, I prefer the left version, which I understand is the current SVN setup. Right looks like it will be a big nerf to melee cav in cav fights and allow units like archer cav to too easily escape. Also, if this bug was already present in a24 then the fact that we are just now learning about it indicates that it isn't a huge/common/frequent problem. I say just leave it for now and deal with it later. Then again, I don't play with sound, so I'm not a good judge of how problematic the lack of sound currently is. Edit: what would the balancing fix be? Make melee units faster? That seems like it might have unintended consequences against inf.

Yes, it is like a normal game download. It just takes awhile.

Hmmm. I discovered the problem from using rally points. But now that I think of it, could we get around this problem by having units rally to a spot close to the forest and then shift clicking them resource collect the forest? Not ideal. But It would be helpful to avoid orphaning large units of spawning units.

It is a problem because instead of having units walk to the forest where I have a storehouse units will spawn from the CC and walk to the tree that is closest to the CC, which may or may not be close at to other units, storehouses, etc. Instead they should walk to where I ordered them and then find a replacement tree. It appears this has already been fixed, though. https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP25776 This is already implemented. It shows shows idle units in the bottom left. You just have to pay attention and/or constantly press the period button to select idle units. You can use shift to give secondary orders too.

Just played 2.5 games with @ValihrAnt and I just want to say that this is going to be a really nice alpha. Amongst other things, I was really impressed by the art team's work and the the programing's team's improvements to pathfinder/pushing. Good job, all. One bug to note, if units' rally point is assigned to a res that isn't available then the units go to the closest available of the same type of res from where they currently are.

In SP, you can set the difficulty lower. After all, making the game easier to play is setting the difficulty lower even if your AI opponent is still listed as "hard." You are very explicitly taking away skill aspects from the game. That is per se diminishing the amount of skill required to play well. Again, at most, it is 2 clicks every ~10 seconds. This isn't clicking as many times as you can for as long as you can. If you don't want to click, you can just not train units 'all the time' then you can just not train units for awhile. Or you could train larger batches. Or, apparently now, use a very good but not perfectly efficient auto-queue feature. Making the auto-queue perfectly efficient (which was the request that this discussion directly flowed from) is clearly just a way to make the game easier to play by eliminating a large portion of what playing is. It's simply a way to make the game easier to play, which is apparently favored by some people who play SP. SP can simply make the game easier by adjusting difficulty. MP players cannot simply tell their opponents to play worse.

Clicking 2 buttons (to select all barracks and the unit type) every ~10 seconds isn't fast. The game consists of essentially two elements: economy and military. And, the economy is composed of essentially two parts: gathering and spending resources. What you propose is to eliminate roughly 1/4 of the entire game. A large portion of that 1/4 will already be eliminated by allowing units to be auto-trained. But you want more. Equalizing automated gameplay (that could literally be done while you sleep) with the play of someone who puts forth much more effort (which is still just two clicks every ~10 seconds) should not be done. I really don't get the casual vs. MP divide on matters that involve skill like this. Casual players can still play their game as they always have. They just won't be as "good" as they could be, which they purport to not even care about. It's almost like proposals like this seek seek to eliminate any aspects of the game where skill does exist. Meanwhile, changes like this will diminish any "competitive" gameplay that does exist. If casual players don't care about doing micro for efficiency they can easily pick game play settings (such as high starting res) that eliminate the need to be efficient.

Just because it is possible to automate something doesn't mean that is should be automated. For example, someone could write a script that does a perfect eco build. If that script was available to everyone then it wouldn't be a problem by your criteria. However, such a script would fundamentally change the game (for the worse) by eliminating all eco considerations. Players should benefit for doing the effort themselves.

+1

No, I don't know how to do patches and lack any coding skills. Hanni was Hannibal_Barca. He is a moderator in the multiplayer lobby.

This has been a problem for a while, and it can be a big problem because you can't gauge how many units you are being attacked by. Some players, especially Hanni, used to abuse this to conceal the fact that they have many bolts/cata.

Maybe if you consider a "tsunami" to be 1 ram, 2 spears, 2 skirms, and 13 women, "pouring" to be a single wave, and "at minute 5" to mean around minute 7. If you can't defend against that then you bigger problems than how many p1 and p2 buildings are required for your enemy to go p3. If you don't build a proper base then you won't have the benefits that come along with it, including population cap space from houses, men from barracks, military upgrades from blacksmiths, trading ability from markets, etc. Instead the current setup limits player strategy by forcing a specific build order. Just let players decide and the game will become far less predictable than it is now where I know every player builds a lot of houses, storehouses, and farms in p1, a market, blacksmith, and two other buildings in p2, and a siege factory in p3.

I don't believe in unnecessarily limiting player choice. There are pros and cons of constructing each building (and not constructing each building). Let the players decide what they want and what strategy they want to use. And for that matter, I would prefer there be no building requirements at all. If a player wants to go p3 with 20 pop, fine. If a player wants to rush p3 without a market, blacksmith or other p2 buildings, fine. If you want players to make more types of buildings then the buildings themselves should be more worthwhile. Besides there aren't enough buildings to force everyone to build different buildings. If that was required everyone would have 3 of 5 (or however many buildings are available) and everyone's build order/base would look very similar.

No, they're terrible. But there are fixes on the way. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3781

I've always liked how pierce countered ele and hack countered rams. It requires players to have diverse units in order to properly fend off attacks (i.e., having ele and rams be vulnerable to different types of attacks discourages single unit spam).