alre

they are just not active anymore. their rating is not updated either.

also cavalry moves pretty slow. strange. no @#$%

I'm so pissed because I had one try and managed to make 8:15 with everyone trained fully (touched 100 pop at 7:29), but it didn't store the replay. EDIT: oh wait, I found it, for some reason it was in the MP replays. 2021-11-14_0001.zip

I like the combination of these two ideas, sadly, they would need very big changes to the engine. not that big I think. tweaking the values for sword and spear cav is sufficient, easy peasy. Anyway, mercenary cost should be fixed. Unit overlapping also could be reduced.

I named skirmishers. for the damage archers make, it wouldn't make much of a difference anyways.

why would a unit have its attack lowered when in a close fight? right now skirmishers deal a higher damage than spearmen.

they just didn't consider it a priority. for how AoE4 is designed visually, unit variations seem unnecessary to me. you don't have unit variations in chess websites either, and no one complains.

makes sense. new or uninformed players have formations enabled by default, and don't know about the to-be-set keystroke that makes it possible to select units as it's always been instead of including all the other units in each formation involved.

@Freagarach how further battallions are going to be implemented? current changes, for what I remember seeing, were only motivated by supposed micromanagement advantages, is there anything more to it?

Actually, it seems pretty bad to me, it reminds me of aoe1 when there were small to big flames sticked on top of damaged buildings with no apparent relation to the structure behind.

this actually sounds like a very good program. the end result is not the logical conclusion of such premises. quite the opposite I would say. It seems to me like the marketing guys took all the decisions and the players/gamers had no part in it, except maybe for the brainstorming. for instance the limited zoom out was not decided in favour of either the competitive players or the casual ones, it pissed out everyone. same goes with the GUI: visually appealing at first, but impractical and poorly designed overall.

Just today I canceled my first batch of 6 women in a rated 1v1, right before it was completed. On another 1v1 some time ago, I destroyed my own CC not unlike you did with the elephant stable. I was trying to get rid of some women.

the animation of buildings being destroyed looks worse on aoe4 than in aoe2... of course it was a hard standard to beat.

very good, you can see 3d artists are in great demand .

I stand by what I already said about carthaginian sword cav rush.

I see one of the roads always passes trough a mountain. maybe the roads should follow a bitmap like altitude.

logically, to avoid people shooting missiles at you, you would go hide, or just attack them. It doesn't sound to me like a fun game one where people has to attack ground instead of targeting enemy units, and they can just move to avoid your fire because your men are too dumb to keep targeting them. It sounds lame and mechanical.

I don't see how that's true. you would just delay by some seconds the production of houses in your build order and you would still risk being blocked.

I'd like the E key retreat, it would be especially useful when being invaded, as the best way to save men is usually to garrison them in barracks and temples and buildings, so those are also safe from capture. On the other hand, it would be nice if the "call to arms" button would also ungarrison all the men who retreated, so they can all come out and push back at once. @Huffman3829 in your case a newly added key stroke won't save your men, it seems like you wait too much before calling them back anyway. If they are hugely outnumbered a retreat may prove pointless anyway, as your men will be slaughtered anyway on their way back. Call back your men as soon as the battle shift away from your favour, don't wait any longer. This is a critical skill. Never commit to a losing position. The success of a retreat also clearly depends on the speed of your men compared to the speed of those chasing them.

nope. that doesn't work with changes to the engine, like this one. c++ needs to be complied, mods need to be not.

I don't have strong feelings about it, it could be good but maybe other solutions could be better. also I don't have much hope that the proposed implementation (bare attack-ground uninformed on where possible targets are) would be any good in practice.

- archers are good for provoking a fight from a distance, but they are not actually good for fighting, never commit to a fight with archers alone - when fighting against pikes, it's worth using swordsmen instead of spearmen, in any case, you need a share of your army to be melee fighters. If you don't have good ranged units (archers are the worst ones in this alpha) just use melee. - everybody give me a like if @BreakfastBurrito_007 comes here proposing to add attack ground to the game

that is not really an aura, I forced into one because I couldn't put it into the engine. I originally designed it to be into the engine aside unit pushing.

the aura can be integrated into unit pushing, for a minimal computational expense overall.

While formations may have a great potential for changing the game, I still think that first of all, we should avoid units overlapping like breezes. I'm very convinced that the pathfinder can work perfectly without units passing trough each other all the time. I attach here a simple mod I made that tweaks the parameters of unit pushing to limit what I think are the shortcomings of this new pathfinder: wild unit overlapping and irrelevance of chokepoints. From the video below you can see that the number of units is always easy enough to guess from the size of the mob, and that cavalry slows down a bit when it has to pass trough a chockepoint. Remember that this is just a demonstration made trough the simple tweaking of some parameters, one can achieve much better results by changing the c++ script that defines unit pushing. Atlas - Scenario Editor - maps_scenarios_prova.xml 2021-10-27 09-56-42.mp4 Atlas - Scenario Editor - maps_scenarios_prova.xml 2021-10-27 09-56-42.mp4 For instance, the aura that I gave to cavalry to enforce friction between units next to each others (not the same as in Res gestae mod, although I invite you to try that as well), could be integrated into the unit pushing system whitout much problem. Also I tried giving it to infantry as well, but the game wouldn't allow me because of limitations on the rendering of auras, which would not be a problem if that was made with c++. In general, it could be possible to change the game in a finer and also more effective way by tweaking the engine instead of just trough a mod, I can try it, I just don't know how to compile the engine (and my VS try license expired). Please let me know what do you think. I believe there is no reason for not trying to change this, and I hope I convince you as well. As always, I claim no right on the mod attached, which isn't really that creative so... you can add it to the game and whatever. stronger_pushing.pyromod