Gurken Khan

I think pop is fine and wouldn't like slower production of units.

One thing I'd like to be included in the info screens are the building limits, like "you can build 2 of these, 6 of those...".

What do you want them to do? Speaking of them: I think they could spawn with aggressive stance; they're strong swordsmen...

Thx. Everyone except me got that right away? What I particularly dislike is the text jumping to the very beginning of the line after the line break. So maybe format it so that each subsequent line starts at the position of its (sub)header? But maybe that could lead to space problems (with translations) or it's just me anyway. I'm puzzled. The enemy horsy takes 10 damage from a hit from my tower, except for the first hit where it takes only 9? And I think it's consistent, that's not the first horsy where I watch that happen. Is there an explanation?

I think the "Attack" block looks horrible with those three different indents. "Poisoned" attack tells me it's poisonous; do we really need that sentence telling us that the unit causes poison damage? What's that "(extends)"?

Might be my lack of imagination, but I can't think of a way to present that info where it would be useful. "Built by": every building can be built by all pedestrians that aren't hero or champ; once one has gotten that concept one wouldn't go through any of these walls of text. The "TRAINS:" section is useless for me, because I always go to the structure tree via the emblem; I find it much easier to see the info there. Maybe it could be useful, but if for example one doesn't know what a "Warrior" is, one doesn't learn that neither from the tooltip nor from the info panel for that building.

I don't know if it would be a problem if "same-y" units had different names and art (e.g. Thracian Peltasts and Noba Skirmishers).

I always assumed if Rome trained "ptol" sling they'd be Roman for all intents and purposes, so this building stuff never seemed an issue for me.

Doesn't it? You are aware that he has selected units from two civs?

Reminds me of the credits where some names are still not displayed properly.

I thought before that if we allow this we should drop duplicates with same stats. No use for two buildings or units that only differ in name.

Now I finally understand what's up with the funky Han CC footprint, lol. I don't think it's visually clear and confusing at the first encounter, but at some point you gonna see the line for the footprint/realize you can't build too close to the CC. Maybe the stairs help a bit, but personally I think a basic CC with the same optical footprint as the upgrade would be better, and the latter then gains height/bling.

Yeah, I didn't get everything. I just saw a lot of "show damage" stuff highlighted in green...

Would I? Because it would clutter the tooltip for every type of damage?

Nobody proposed that "assimilated" units should be able to build structures from their "ancient" culture. I don't think champs from former owner (builder) civ should be available for production. The UI could be a problem as @Darkcity stated, maybe so much so that we have to scrap the whole idea or severely limit it.

It can be argued either way: "A civ can only train their own units, duh." "When a civ gets access to new units, they can train them themselves." There were no elephants native to Italy, still the Romans utilized them when they had access to them. And if mercs were only sellswords I guess they'd offer their services to a new buyer if the old was out of business [historical citation needed]. If my Britons invade Africa, why shouldn't they use elephants? I believe it's more a gameplay then a logical decision.

What are generic buildings (CCs, barracks, stables) supposed to build? My civ's units or the units from the civ I captured it from?

I would want to be able to train my civ's units but wouldn't mind access to other units as well; as @wowgetoffyourcellphone put it, "neat!". But that's from a single player's perspective. I don't know if from a MP/balancing POV that would be different.

LOL If I may, shouldn't maybe the team figure out what they want?

Since we still have overlapping footprints causing whatnot I'm gonna be blunt and say the placement logic sucks.

On Fortress we now have p2 buildings instead of houses? Not too happy with building placement, because the middle of my fortress is completely blocked. Don't think it's Han only, although their CC has an especially "special" footprint.

@maroder I agree. Although I don't really feel distracted, it's so big I ignore altogether. Those generic status effects on the other hand...

mkay, I see. So buildings can't be poisoned, and it's worth mentioning and not clutter, because?

How does the Ice House block poison when it can't be garrisoned nor has an aura?

Interesting, although some research regarding modern times is wrong; let's hope they got the ancient parts with better accuracy. The Vienna tourism promo was weird, but the English yt CC for the Austrian professor is hilarious.