Sebastián Gómez

I just had to sign in and give your comment a like. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Hey @Stan` How you doing buddy? "It will however not be as optimized as it could". What does this mean exactly? Will there be any disadvantage compared to a windows PC with similar characteristics? On the other hand, I read somewhere on Reddit that everytime a player lags, it's a Mac user. Is that true?

Will there be any compatibility issue? Would a Windows PC be a better option?

I fully agree.

I once heard about someone winning an AOE game with a villager rush . Actually no one use catapults anymore as @Yekaterina said. They do have been over nerfed to such extent that you can barely kill some soldiers or destroy a building. Anyway, maybe this will be reconsidered at some point.

Agree. Unfortunately, this is happening right now. And to make it worse, the damage caused by catapults/siege ships to the enemy's army is 0. At least in A24 you could destroy soldiers with them. So to sum up: If catapults/siege ships won't cause any damage to organic units as they did in other alphas, there's no point in them being triggered by these units. This really make them ineffective, impossible to control, and at the end, useless.

Situation #2: You have an army made of soldiers and a couple of catapults. Your enemy suddenly attacks with a group of soldiers and a couple of rams. You would expect that your catapults get triggered by the rams and not the soldiers, so they would start shooting at the rams only as they approach. In this alpha, however, you'll get you catapults shooting like crazy to all directions, causing 0 damage to soldiers, and of course to rams since they didn't focus on the latter. Situation #3: Your juggernaut ship is supposed to fight an enemy ship, but once again, it gets triggered by some enemy soldiers on the shore so it starts shooting at them instead on focusing on the unit it is meant to fight, which in this case is the enemy ship. So from my perspective, banning catapults and stone throwing ships from attacking organic units, which they can't hurt anymore, would be the correct behavior. Just like rams.

Let me elaborate again since I think my point was not stated correctly. Catapults are meant to be used against buildings. However, catapults try to shoot at people all the time. This is useless since in this alpha, the damage they can cause to people is almost none. So you end up with a catapult that is always shooting at people even after receiving the order to shoot at a building. To better illustrate, imagine that in alpha 26, rams were given the ability to attack people too. Also imagine that the damage they could cause to people once they catch them was 0. With this setup you'd end up with rams that will be trying to catch people on the battlefield all the time instead of focusing on destroying buildings. Even worse is the fact that once a ram can catch someone, it won't kill it because, as I said, the damage the ram can cause is 0. Well, this is happening to catapults right now. They try to catch people all the time. It doesn't make any sense since people is almost invulnerable to catapults. So, if catapults were meant to be so useless again organic units in this alpha (and almost against buildings too), why didn't you take away the annoying fact that they try to catch people all the time? Why didn't you make them like rams, which only try to attack buildings. They don't waste time trying to catch people just to inflict 0 damage once they get them. It's the same with siege ships which right now suffer from the same problem.

If in this alpha, catapults were meant to be used against buildings only, why didn't you remove their ability to shoot at people? This is really annoying since the damage they can do to people is almost none. So now we can't even attack a single building when there's people around since the catapult will start firing at everyone but the building. Not to mention how slow they are for taking down any structure when you manage to make them focus on the building only.

Thank you. Where could I check some other stats like those?

I know citizen soldiers are better than women for gathering metal/stone. What about wood?

Is there any advantage of using formations in A25, specially with pikemen and spearmen?

@Stan` As you can see in this picture, some metal and stone deposits look the same. This makes it really difficult to find the right deposit, specially in the rush of battle.

The "yellow vein" texture is OK. There's no need to change it. Problem is that not all metal deposits use it. Some of them uses a model/texture that is too similar to the one used for stone deposits. I'll take some screenshots when I have some time.

This is true, unfortunately. I hope it can be fixed in the next alpha.

I would like to congratulate you on the great work done with the graphics in this new alpha. I haven't had a chance to try the new game extensively but I really liked what I got from my first gameplay. The new environments are beautifully crafted. Lot of attention to details. This combined with the new pathfinding improvements is definitely a big step forward for the game.

My point is that is should be stated that these ships can actually damage all kind of units/buildings. Current description can lead users to think these ships are harmless against everything but other ships.

As shown in the attached picture, the Information box says Iberian fire ships can only attack other ships, which is not true at all. After my last night game I can confirm these ships can attack walls, docks, soldiers and even siege weapons. A group of 4 fire ships was able to destroy my partner's entire army and two of my rams on the beach in 1 sec. When we watched the replay, we realized that this happened several times troughout the game without us noticing. We never took any action to protect ground units or buildings until it was too late because we trusted that these ships, as stated in the information box, could only attack other ships.

Here are my two cents. I won't list a bunch of thing I don't like about the game, but rather mention one I do like and that I think should not be changed. I've recently started to choose Mauryans and for the first time I feel I'm playing a civ with some unique mechanics. This is something really desirable in my opinion. People can go for them when looking for a civ with high mobility and the ability to steal resources from the opponent. I'd suggest to leave Mauryans as they are and instead focusing on giving other civs more pronounced characteristics. Why don't we make some civs good at turtling, rushing or booming? That way everybody can choose a civ according to his favorite game style. Regarding archers, let's not just nerf them and take them back to what they were in A23. Instead, let's give people some tools to counter them, like each civ having units capable of crushing archers. That would make gameplay more dynamic! People will be training different units depending on the situation. In short, don't kill the low diversity present in some civilizations like Mauryans. Rather, work so that other civs have the same.

@Langbart It's great you like my proposal. However, I'm not a fan of working on MODs. From my perspective, most people won't ever use them. On the other hand, If you can get the developers interested in this feature for the official version, I'd be more than pleased to provide the graphics.

@Langbart Hey. What do you need exactly?

@Nescio Would you show me a picture that better depicts this pose you suggest? maybe something from another statue on the internet?

Hey guys. This is an update of my current Athena statue project. As you can see, this is not a highly detailed model yet. I've been trying to set proportions and posing right first. Additionally, I'd like to know your opinion on having the goddess using her right hand to hold a spear instead of a nike. I personally find it more appealing with the spear. A nike would probably need an additional column to support her hand as in the Athena Varvakeion statue. As I mentioned in previous post, there's no way to know how exactly how this statue looked like. One of the few things we know is that the tip of the spear and the crest of the helmet were seen from far away. I think the concept presented in the pictures bellow would fit with this description . In any case, It's up to you. I just want to make sure I'm in sync with what you all want.

Fair enough.

Thank you. I've collected many references including Pausanias description and images of ancient coins. At the end all this references only provide a vague understanding of how the statue looked. So I decided to use Athena Varvakeion proportions as reference for sculpting the statue, with a nike in the right hand as suggested in many coins, and an erected spear resting on her shoulder between she and the shield so the tip and the crest of the helmet could both be seen from far away. Bronze, of course, will be the main material of the statue once finished.