real_tabasco_sauce

Oh I see, this would stratify the rows. As it is already committed, I'd say we can bookmark that option for later in case the issue comes up again.

@nifa don't get me wrong, its a nice idea, but I think effort here would be better if put towards improving idle animations.

Yeah that was my main concern. There is an amount of flexibility needed on both sides of the wall for different wall lengths to accommodate the wall turrets. This is what I meant by soldiers "in" walls. If there is a truly random assignment, then it's likely you would also see some soldiers "in" other soldiers. A random assignment couldn't (if not, it definitely shouldn't) be done in xml. A separate script or function would be needed. Honestly, I think the neat rows allow an easier guess as to how many soldiers are up there and the random positioning looks kind of chaotic. I would also add that its not that unrealistic that the columns are perfect. Lastly, it would be strange to do this for walls and not formations, which would then open another can of worms.

They do play idle animations, it's just some animations are harder than others to notice. Positioning in the walls is fixed as the turret positions are pre-defined. It's likely that randomizing their positions would result in soldiers inside of soldiers, soldiers inside of walls, and other more unrealistic things XD. If you are looking for a more disorganized appearance, they do take up positions on the wall in a random-appearing order. It looks pretty "random" when there are 10 out of 16 soldiers on the wall. I personally don't mind the neat rows as it looks like they are ready to launch some volleys.

I don't think every civ needs every ship type. For one, Having a missing element of a soft counter system is not a disaster, the player will need to recognize this weakness and take precautions. For two(?), this discrepancies could be made up by unique upgrades, unique "special" ships (ie fireship, we should think of 1 or 2 more), and naval civ bonuses.

This is a great direction to take naval combat.

What do people think of the prices? 100f,w,m for town phase upgrades and 200 f,w,m for city phase? Obviously some will be more valuable than others depending on the civ, but is 300 and 600 resources total too much? My worry is that the price will make them unused by comparison to the blacksmith upgrades. That being said, they shouldn't be so cheap that you can quickly pick them all up, the idea is to "tech into" a certain unit type and afford to switch to another depending on your opponents strategy.

any balancers want to give their two cents on phabricator? https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4914

Ah i see. Well, I think the campfire is not that bad to be honest. Maybe instead I could call it "scouting parties" with the campfire signifying the group resting briefly.

yes, it was rather lazily assembled from my community mod branch. I figured interest would be small and that most would rather wait for possible inclusion in the community mod anyway. I don't recommend using this and the community mod together. Ooo this is nice. Yeah, I would rather use that than the campfire.

I accidentally gave han the sword upgrade, even thought they don't have swordsmen. Let me know if you see something else like this in the mod.

I figured I would make a new zip file for the mod in case anyone wants to give it a try with the new changes. It is just copied from my community mod branch, so there are a lot of extra files in there. UnitSpecUpgrades.zip

it works out very well for persians. Look how the order is the same, so each upgrade is beneath the unit.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone Just reordering works pretty well for civs without mercs and fewer champs:

Haha nice emojis. At the time this was written, I already had a nerf written for swordcav, so this was in anticipation of players that wanted their tankiness back. It has since been reduced to +10% hp Also, the upgrades replace the two generic cavalry upgrades one of which is a 10% buff to all cavalry hp, so technically they do not gain any health with the upgrades.

This would be awesome. Not sure how the placement works, but at the very least, I could order the upgrades to be in the same order as the units.

haha dw, I found it eventually.

Its not all that cluttered tbh. @chrstgtr @Philip the Swaggerless thoughts? I removed civ based restrictions and mercenary restrictions. Now all civs can get them if they have a unit of the corresponding class. It is now simple enough to be described in one sentence. The only remaining risk would be balance concerns. I would say after trying this in community mod, I could just remove upgrades from civs as needed. most cluttered: Macedonians (kushites similar) Average: Romans Least cluttered: spartans

I thought user.cfg would have a couple of options to change scroll speed. The reason I say "default" is because you can change scroll speed with hotkeys, but the change does not persist.

The main feedback I got from hesitant players was that these upgrades are complicated. So, in an effort to simplify the overall system of upgrades proposed, the upgrades now affect mercenaries as well. In addition, projectile velocity modifications have been removed since this information is not very accessible to the player and its kind of obscure. I plan on proposing these upgrades again for trial in the community mod for a27, but this will likely not be for a while. I received a suggestion to allow all civs to access all the upgrades if they have the corresponding units. advantages: simplify the system further community mod playtesters would have access to more of the available upgrades at any given time. more content in general disadvantages: possibly OP units (ex. infantry sword upgrades + iber champ swords + speed hero = very fast fellas) too many upgrades in the GUI (clutter)

Hi all, I mean for this topic to be a place to share items for the config file that might be useful for gameplay. For instance, if you find the new map icons too large, you can change their size with the followng: gui.session.minimap.icons.sizescale = "0.6" I'd like to know what variable sets the default mouse scroll (or panning) speed.

This is true, the real solution is to completely silence the hate speech, but my point is it would be nice to allow players some control. Just something like the opposite of "mark as buddy" A blocklist is better here, because one would have to "allow" a lot of players, while you might only need to block one or two bad actors. Also we should encourage inclusion of new players to team games and 1v1s, and I'm afraid that an "allow" list for game setup would exclude new players.

I meant mute an offending player for the user. Ideally setting them to blocked pretty much eliminates them from your experience, except for when the blocked player joins a TG that you are not hosting. In this case there could instead be a warning flag: “a blocked user “bad guy” has joined the game”

I did this pretty fast, could be an error or two. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4914 @Freagarach They all look great, but there is a slight bit of clipping for britons, which has a very narrow garrison space.

I'd say it doesn't have to be all or nothing. For instance, if we are ok with changes after the feature freeze, I could just submit the wall doubling patch for the release candidate, and further changes can be done in the community mod.