real_tabasco_sauce

@LetswaveaBook I will soon make a branch for cc territory/territory expansion and cost. I think if you wanted to test anyone's branch, you could just clone it to ur computer and then copy the community-mod directory into your mods folder. at least, this is possible with mine at the moment.

@LetswaveaBook if you make ur own fork of the mod, then each change you think of can be a branch of that fork. You can then submit merge requests for whatever branch u want. https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades for example, that is my fork with the a unit_upgrades branch already completed.

@alre any ideas for cavalry skirmisher? I could do something like the above, but I was thinking you might have other ideas. Also for archer 2 and crossbow 2. I now have a branch in the community mod for this system of upgrades: https://gitlab.com/real_tabasco_sauce/0-a-d-community-mod-unit-specific-upgrades Would adding this to the community mod interest anyone? I am thinking that after some play-testing using the mod, we would have a good idea of how favorable these upgrades are for gameplay, and then I would know if I need to make 26 icons or not.

@borg- have you used gitlab before? Thoughts on making a branch for your sparta patch? I think it should be ready to go if you don't include the 2 hero bonus. Is this outside the scope of the mod @wraitii?

addresses

it would be wise to also have brief instructions on how to find this in game, something like: "the mod can also be accessed via the in-game mod downloader: settings -> mod selection -> Download mods."

You could say: "community mod, among other minor changes." the message could just be edited for each successive update to the community mod. If it is also mentioned in the download screen, then you could link the full patch notes compared to a26 there. I like where this is going, it could basically be an optional live service mod.

they don't quite have the glory they used to XD, but they are still very good.

Honestly, I really dislike the sacred sites part of the game. It feels so forced being on every map, and since the game was in part designed with this in mind, victories using the sites feel gimmicky. It takes away from the typical flow of conquest gameplay. So much of AOE4 feels like that tho, gimmicky.

u should sign up

icon ideas: level 1 have 'I' in the top right, level two have 'II' in the top right. archer1 — a bicep archer2 — cavalry_archer1 — an eye, or maybe cavalry_archer2 — also a bicep, with something related to horses cavalry_axeman1 — a big axe cavalry_axeman2 — perhaps the running cavalry symbol from cavalry_movement_speed.json cavalry_skirmisher1 — a saddle perhaps, idk cavalry_spearman1 — two different looking horses (kinda like) cavalry_spearman2 — cavalry holding big spear forward cavalry_swordsman1 — perhaps the icon from cavalry_health.json cavalry_swordsman2 — something similar to nissean war horses, drawn chamfron club_axe1 — a big sheild club_axe1 — sprinting warrior, or cloth armor crossbow1 — crossbow bolts with fletching pike1 — picture of sarissa pike2 — shaft with large counterweight on the end. skirmisher1 — spear shaft with a grip skirmisher2 — atlatl or amentum slinger1 — a big rock sitting in a sling slinger2 — longer sling spear1 — spear2 — sprinting spearman, or two legs in running position sword1 — same running legs, or perhaps a march. sword2 — a set of greaves with sword in hand.

some other things that could easily go in the community mod: seleucid civ bonus, updated team bonuses. agis aura (other heroes too), CC territory, cost changes.

yes, i removed the fire damage upgrade. Any idea for a replacement? I can do an update later to add/adjust upgrades (hopefully in the community mod). @Lion.Kanzen, how did you make those AI icons? I was thinking I could use that tool to make some basic icons. I could then just mask them into the typical technology background. Where can I find that grey shadowy background?

should i fix this up (remove archer2) and request to add it to the community mod? I think we will find out quickly if these are balanced or not.

I think this is a fairly intricate gameplay issue. (i wouldn't really even consider it an issue, more of an area for improvement). I think we have tried to add more phase 2 and village phase options for attacking, but the "boom meta" remains. the community mod can address the issue, but there will need to be agreement from plenty of us in order to add things, so we may as well discuss here: 1. Firstly, I think we should continue to add interesting strategies for p2 attacks. @borg- has already written a large patch for Sparta, this could possibly be added to the community mod, although I am not sure how much content is too much for the mod. On this note, I made a set of unit specific upgrades that give certain advantages over your opponents, this would undoubtedly add offensive options in p2. 2. @ValihrAnt is mostly correct about booming = turtling, mainly that a boom using citizen-soldiers puts you in a good defensive and offensive position. I think we could adjust women's gather rate stats to equal citizen soldiers for certain resources, but another option could be to add a new economic unit to all (maybe not all) civs: some sort of worker, peon, slave, serf type unit. I imagine this unit would have a slightly different cost to women, maybe 50 food and some other resource (maybe 10 metal, wood). the important thing would be to make it as weak as women, but with a different set of gather rates, perhaps more emphasis on wood, metal, and stone. (1.00 wood, .75 stone, .75 metal) what are your thoughts? personally, I am unsure about the serf unit, I am not sure if the complication to gameplay is worth the potential benefit.

yes, I think this should be an entirely separate discussion from formations. I remember a bug that allowed something similar to a charge, and that it played surprisingly well according to some. unit charging has many balance and gameplay questions involved: Should only melee units charge? Cavalry? What about slow units like pikemen? lastly, how far should the charge distance be? How would we prevent stacking charge attacks? Should the user be able to "call off" the charge? One potential mechanic would be decreasing line of sight during the charge to be equal to the allowed charge range. honestly, we should open a new topic for this alone, since I think it could be a great feature.

perhaps formation benefits could be something to test out in the community mod? I would prefer these be very slight benefits, rather than something like increased armor for the whole formation. I think more powerful formation bonuses should in theory come with some tradeoffs

I see, so we could start to address the han swordcav rush in this mod? (honestly in this case, i think swordcav in general are just a little too tanky, -1 pierce armor seems fine to me) Would something like my proposed unit specific upgrades (https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4788) be to large a change for the community mod? I guess this would be done once there is some agreement on the upgrades (and first whether or not to add them).

yes, I would say the column for long distance travel is unnecessary. From the user's perspective i could imagine it might be annoying why the units do not stay in requested formation. Instead, one could just have "marching column" as another formation perhaps. I guess the main point against would be the realism of not marching a long distance in testudo for instance. However, I would consider this a weak point.

which mechanics?

no, only in the files unfortunately.

Definitely play on medium or normal for a better experience, performance wise. (and gameplay for that matter)

I thought accuracy improved as well.

i just set batch size to 1 and click until i am at 4, 5, 6 etc.

hmm i could ask and see if they could add it here. I noticed that once, nobody was OOS in the warning it just said "out of sync: , "