BreakfastBurrito_007

Its already possible to do this, but I think the key difference would be the cases where the answer the spec has to give is very simple answer such as "champions" or even "yes/no" in response to a more pointed question. guess it comes down to a choice: specs accessing global chat and not reading team's chat, or specs being able to read team chat but not write to global chat. I am not sure which is better/ which people would want. I just think the entertainment value of spectating games would be a lot more if specs could see what teams are planning/discussing.

I always thought it would be fun if specs could read ally chat from teams during a game. Is this something that can be added in the community mod?

There are certainly better solutions.

In either case I would like to see melee units die faster to towers and ranged units slower to towers.

well to take his point literally is to miss the point.

excuse my foul language here, but it is incessant from this guy. every other word he writes has something to do with hate.

I wonder if Nazism is something we can moderate within hosted games? I am quite tired of seeing it as it brings down the fun of a game. I wish more hosts would ban adequately when it is in chat but it seems not to happen except for 1 or two hosts I know.

If you independently target units, you can avoid being distracted by heroes. In other situations killing the hero is extremely valuable. Hero raids in your base is just something you need to notice. Another thing that helps thwart hero raids is loom which prevents hero from killing women in 1 hit.

Wow! That is amazingly OP. I have observed Han players being losing massive fights and staying at 200 pop. This alongside the crossbow training tech is probably why.

Wow I did not know that! OP @real_tabasco_sauce

You don't always need to commit everything to a fight, if you start fighting and you realize you are losing you can retreat. An extremely common way to reinforce an army when playing infantry versus infantry is to retreat toward your production buildings as your units trickle forward from them. This way each step you take toward your base you are increasing your army size and you can eventually take a fight versus your enemy who is chasing you. I hope this helps! I definitely agree that briton chariots do far too much damage and skirmisher cavalry should have their damaged reduced from 18 to 16 as they usually wind up being the all-around best unit in every game.

Nope, micro, uprades, unit choices, heros, civ bonuses also matter. If your team works well together this shouldn't happen so this in particular is not a fault of game design.

I am not sure how I feel about battle tactic game mechanics that just rely on the player to choose "wedge" or some other tactic to execute. My worry is that some of these pre-made tactic options could take away from the player-controlled battle tactics that organically exist. I think there is a number of ways to design such mechanics, so it certainly doesn't have to detract from organic battle tactics.

we miss you @king reza the great!

My piece of advice: do not listen to DoctorOrgans about anything. He gathers chickens with women after all.

ranged units need to be able to miss, otherwise they are melee units. *edit: ok well there is also spread so they would still not be as bad as AoE 4. my bad for forgetting that. In the past 100 games I have watched and played I can not remember 1 instance of 'dancing'

I also think the spear throwing with a cooldown is something fundamentally different to simply switching between two weapons. That is also a champion ability so I think if the romans had something with the pilums--> sword, then it would need to be for a champion and use a different mechanic.

I enjoy the hills. We have feldmap in case we want 0 randomness, but I think the base version should have a lower standard deviation in resource amounts.

Infinite arrow speed makes ranged units into melee units with different armor and damage types and a long, long pike. I think we can do better.

Barracks, houses, and every other building also has its own territory influence, but not a territory root. I don't see how territories can remain circular when civic centers from different players are close together.

The non-circular shapes have a lot to do with capturing buildings. Perfect circles would stop working when buildings get captured.

Acceleration is an astonishingly simple calculation compared to the pathfinding and ranged combat. One major improvement acceleration has made for the game is making the movement advantage of cavalry less than total. In alpha 25 cavalry were so fast and agile that it was too easy to mitigate losses by selecting when and where to fight. In a26 if you make a mistake with cavalry you will lose many more units as you run away, and this is due to acceleration. This is why cavalry have slower acceleration than infantry. Other changes could be made to improve how infantry accelerate as well and perhaps considerations can be put in for ranged versus melee units.

Acceleration can be improved rather than removed. It also does not cause lag or alter pathfinding. Turn rates are fast enough already, with the exception of rams. About the chariots, you are right that they are not quite the same, but it is more of a unit design effort than quick fix.

I disagree with the proposition.

The game plays differently to starcraft and C and C in a variety of ways. One of these is that land can't be shared by allies.