alre

the game, sadly, doesn't have a gameplay manager (Stan's words)

the latter.

both. just make that a building trains whatever unit it's supposed to train regardless of its owner civ. it's cool and it's simple.

I don't think there's any problem here, have you been accused of anything? making more info avaiable is only good. also rated team games would be wonderful.

how so? BAR is still like this, isn't it?

you wouldn't

para hacer eso necesitas un mínimo de familiaridad con las estructuras del software. puedes crear una mod tuya que cambia el valor de la resistencia de los arietes, no es difícil. busca como funcionan las mods que cambian las unidades.

I think the problem is that, if one wanted to follow history strictly, gastraphetes should probably not even exist as independent units, they should just be actors that shoot bolts from walls and siegeworks, because they were never ever employed in the field.

they weren't questions. anyway, in certain real play situations, experienced armies are already very strong as is.

taking good fights and avoiding losses is already rewarded, you don't need to over-reward, that's called snowballing. you'd better just give the victory to whoever takes the edge first at that point. besides, you didn't answer to borg concern at all.

very nice. elephants are not countered by swords though, quite the contrary: ranged damage is best against them.

that would be easy, if you only count ranked. the discord bot records all the lobby chat, which includes all the rating bot messages, which in turn includes all the nicknames that play a ranked game. second accountd ofc would be recorded as separate players.

I wpuld drop the script, too much work. I don't know if it's currently possible to have gameplay information written in the units' info, but I think it should be. at that point it's only a matter of writing them and maintaining them. with fabricator patches I guess.

my ideal would be: - rams are cheaper - rams can be built on the battlefield - rams are much slower - rams are fairly easy to counter with any melee/short range assault this could or could not be integrated with @Darkcity's proposals. I think rethinking the pierce/hack differentiation would help with that, but I guess it's not necessary if they are convertible like Darkcity proposes.

every now and then someone cames up with this concern. it's funny because currently rams are quite out of the meta actually. the problem, I think, resides in the unintuitive counter system based on the pierce/hack differentiation. noone seems interested in rediscussing it though, because of the "small incremental changes" line of action.

can't you see they move at the same speed, and also they don't actually drop the res, they just "hide" them, and take them out again when they stop. ranged infantry units always move faster than melee, irrespective of resources carried. edit: by the way that hotkey works for everyone (I hope) as it's very important for high level play. it's called attack-move.

yeah that's not true

I remember my SP days. I downloaded the game, installed it, tried it one time, uninstalled it shortly after.

yes. and by game settings I mean the one for starting a new game, like the map etc.

also the the game settings reset every time is a bit tedious.

most of the work, for what I get now, is on the engine. modding support is pros-and-cons, but where the game is really lacking for me is spectacularity, among the three points that first video elists. by the way, those were good points, I also liked the videos on game design by the general gentlemen, that were posted by @Lion.Kanzen some time ago.

I agree with the principle that, when trying to make something unique, we should rather risk making it weak than OP.

what about roman siege walls?

what me and my friends did to balance team games back in the time, was to use fgod to access game replays list without exiting the pregame page, and then search for the names of the players we didn't know, if we had any previous encounter with them, and look at games summaries for clues about how they played. that was the best!

it shouldn't be hard. i remember @edoput and friends (ping @Mentula) tried that already maybe a year ago, I could definitely edit the ranking algorithm to include team games (multiplayer is not the correct word btw). we have mainly two problems: - this could multiply the cases of ranking offence claims - everytime a change to the ranking system is discussed, it never gets out the bog of discussions. I'm not sure how or if the lobby code is maintained.