AIEND

My suggestion is that if you want to create a template, it should be called the poleaxe.

Yes, I mean the ge is a weapon that is similar to an axe, both long and short, and is often used to hit the head and shoulders of enemies, even if they are protected by a shield. There is a Shang Dynasty tomb in China. The owner of the tomb was a warrior, and the Tianling cover of his body was left with fragments of Ge, which proves that it is very common for such weapons to be used to attack the top of the enemy's head.

This documentary is not well done, in fact this weapon can be made into a short handle like a battle axe and can be used with one hand, the soldier is equipped with a shield, it is often used to attack the head and shoulders of the enemy, just like the battle axe.

This weapon, we call it 戈Ge.

I have a version of this book with English annotations.

1.25X

I think there is a question that must be addressed, is that do we think of metals as intermediaries for the exchange of various resources, that is, can metals be regarded as money? Because now in the market, it is not like in the age of empires that one resource is first exchanged for currency, and then currency is exchanged for other resources, but a state of barter in which each resource can be exchanged for other resources, which makes the role of the market. If it is too large, it interferes with the collection rule of resources.

I think there is also a fundamental resource - prisoners of war, and in classical times prisoners of war were the main source of slaves.

How do you think this should change?

It's more of a matter of luck whether you're hit by a catapult-fired rock, in fact, these rocks are flying from above your head and are hard to spot until they hit the ground, and may roll over after hitting the ground, crushing someone's head at random. Feet, these stones are difficult to avoid consciously, so I don't agree with the idea that the lighter the equipment, the higher the resistance to crush damage. As for dodging, the projectiles in the game may not hit the target. If a unit happens to be in motion, it may avoid flying stones. Since the melee infantry runs slower in the game, the long-range infantry and cavalry run faster. It is enough to reflect this, and there is no need to distinguish on the armor.

Whether or not to add new damage types doesn't hinder balancing, which was discussed a few months ago.

Generally speaking, it is "luxury goods", whether it is gems, spices, silk, tea, coffee, tobacco.

https://github.com/Aimerik/Mirror

If you have this idea, I think we can talk about it.

I agree, because a unit has two types of damage, which makes the current damage calculation method too complicated and difficult to balance.

This question should be discussed in conjunction with this topic, first of all we should give soldiers the ability to fully destroy buildings without relying on siege machinery, whether this ability is with torches, pickaxes, sledgehammers, axes.

A further idea would be to add two new tags to buildings - wooden and stone buildings - and then add a new sapper unit (trained from the barracks) to P2, allowing the sapper to switch between pickaxe/sledgehammer or axe when demolishing these two types of buildings, which might not be as fast as normal infantry arson when demolishing wooden buildings, but would be more effective against stone walls that barely burn.

In reality, there are combat engineers who use these tools to demolish various fortifications and obstacles, but I don't know why there are few games to reflect. I think it's possible to distinguish between different types of soldiers' siege methods, such as having melee infantry use sledgehammers, pickaxes and axes, archers firing flaming arrows, and slingers, javelinmen, and cavalry throwing torches.

Capture-delete is just a helpless compensation for the soldier not having an effective means of siege, which is why I think arson should be added, even if someone feels that the torch is not good enough, then I think it is better to let all soldiers take pickaxes, sledgehammers, logging axes and other tools to demolish buildings than now.

The introduction of the concept of arson can make the means of siege more flexible and diverse, and solve the positioning problems of some of the units at the moment. For example, most players use the siege tower as a field battle as if it were a BMP loaded with assault riflemen, which is not unrelated to the weak damage of bows against buildings, but if we make the siege tower fire incendiary arrows and specify that it can only attack buildings, we can turn the tower into an effective siege weapon. And naval warships could also fire incendiary arrows at other ships and buildings and normal arrows at soldiers, which would reduce our reliance on catapult warships (which many civilizations don't have) and also allow naval battles to remain intense enough while not allowing the navy to do too much damage to land-based soldiers by distinguishing between the normal/incendiary arrows used by warships. The torch can smooth out the damage gap between different kinds of infantry and cavalry (both melee and ranged) against buildings, and also narrow the gap between soldiers and siege mechanics, thus speaking, we no longer need extremely powerful siege hammers. It also means that buildings can be further refined, for example we can differentiate between stone and wooden buildings in terms of resistance to fire, instead of only in terms of HP. I tested the arson mechanic a few months ago in an older version of the "Mirror" mod, and it made for a pretty good game experience, I thought.

China's Middle Ages was an era of re-order, basically the Sui Dynasty and the Tang Dynasty first had to restore the past international status of the Han Dynasty, and strike at the new forces that arose after the Han Dynasty, such as Goguryeo, Turkic, and Tuguhun, which was not difficult at first, but more new civilizations began to rise, such as Tubo, Silla, Uighurs, etc., so this stage was always unstable, even if China eliminated the main opponent for a while, there would be new challengers. Therefore, by the middle and late Tang Dynasty and the Song Dynasty, China had abandoned the idea of eliminating all enemies and paid more attention to the internal social and people's livelihood construction.

I think what you want to add is more like an abstract "confidence", "morale", "authority" kind of resource to visualize, so I don't think it should be limited to religion, victory in war and the majesty of the king and the development of culture and economy should be related to this, and I should even say that I think the latter is more important than religion, killing enemies and building grand palaces, colosseums and other facilities are the main source of providing such resources.

Whether this resource is called "Glory" or "Faith", just don't let the game look like a wizarding world. In addition, the way this resource is obtained, the temple (and the priests stationed), the trickle of statues, and the spoils of war to kill the enemy are preferred, and the way in AoM that the commoners worship the temple is too complicated.

I think this will be the reason for the future success of this game, those classic game design are very attractive, I played Command & Conquer Remastered Collection two years ago, which feels great.

This game reminds me of when I played Command & Conquer fifteen years ago.