AIEND

This is obvious. That's why I don't recommend nerfing the stats of Japanese units even a little bit, even if it's more realistic, but in the future we won't be able to balance Native Americans with stone weapons.

The animation itself is not important, the important thing is that the soldier should have a "siege" attack that specifically targets buildings in addition to the main attack, and it should be the same for all types of soldiers, for example, the power of the torch will not be because it is a Whether the swordsman is still a slinger or a cavalryman to throw it changes.

So I don't actually recommend adding pre-colonial America to the base game, because I already experienced the awkward feeling of Native Americans using stone tools against cannons in AoE3.

If a building is entirely made of stone, it will not catch fire at all. You can refer to the data of the mirror mod I gave you earlier. Stone walls can block burning, and fortresses are extremely resistant to flames. Buildings such as fortresses or towers will not be damaged by thrown torches or flaming arrows due to the stone surface, but their interior wooden structure is not guaranteed, this is combined with a suggestion made by others before. , when you choose to delete the building, the building will not disappear directly, but will be slowly ignited from the inside. At this time, if the personnel are not evacuated in time, they will burn to death together with the building.

It's actually harder to balance a civilization that doesn't even have leather armor and iron weapons, and if we weaken Japanese units for that, what about a civilization like Kush.

Any building that catches fire will endanger its members, and it would be interesting if we could do that in the game.

If it is a cast bronze mirror, it is very possible, which was one of the logo products exported from China at that time, so I used it as the logo of the mod.

No, it's not like a sickle. I've been to more than a dozen museums, and I've seen all kinds of stone and bronze ge from the Shang Dynasty to the Spring and Autumn Period. I have a general understanding of the evolution of this weapon. The dagger was mounted on a short handle and used to chisel into the opponent's body, until it evolved to look like a scythe. Similar to some early Chinese bronze battle axes, the blade is so narrow that it looks like a chisel mounted on a short handle.

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.