real_tabasco_sauce

Are there any more opinions on this?

Oh interesting. They are actually quite different side by side. When I played xiongnu after playing scythians, the difference wasn't very apparent and I actually thought they were the same (perhaps thats just on my tiny laptop tho). I think it might be good to make the xiongnu yurt texture a little warmer (kind of like in the discussion of gauls vs suebians) Im not sure about the autobuild feature. In general, you usually want to make use of your investments (the foundation) fairly quickly, while not tasking so many units to build that you waste eco. Because of this balance (between delayed return on investment vs building efficiency), it seems like it would either amount to a build rate buff, or it would be OP (just relying on the autobuild while committing everything to eco). I think a middle ground would be to just make the female horse archer basically just a mobile woman with higher build rate and stats for self defense. This way the remaining cavalry would behave as expected compared to the other civs, and the Scythians get a special eco unit.

I would say some color change to the fabric of the yurts would be good. A more beige color vs white. I have not heard of this. What is Auto-build?

I just checked out the Scythians and Xiongnu. They are very cool and I like the nomadic implementation. Building anywhere is good, and the wagon<-> house/storehouse feature is great. @wowgetoffyourcellphone do you plan on adjusting their structures so that they appear a little more distinct? Im not sure how well the cavalry able to build feature would work out. On one hand, I would rather cavalry conform to the rest of the civs as a consistency measure, but on the other hand, I think their ability to build could allow for very fun aggressive gameplay. Perhaps a middle ground would be to just allow the women cavalry units to build. This is quite a lot of differentiation between the nomadic civs and the current ones. I am thinking this level of differentiation would welcome @borg-'s sparta patch, which I have reworked into a git branch for the community mod.

yes, unique techs, civ bonuses, and team bonuses will probably be doing some heavy lifting.

Thanks for making a fresh topic. with regard to your concerns: 1. I agree, the evidence will be a little more obscure, however I think this leads to a justifiable degree of flexibility. There is information, but definitely less when compared to the current civs. There is often a grey area between rulers/heroes and deities. 2. I think going a little over 1AD is fine, Boudica's revolt was well after 1ad. I think up to 100AD could be allowable. 3. rarities, gemstones, and actual metal can be justifiably lumped in with "metal" as a resource for things like technologies and champions, as in these cases I would say it represents pay or wealth. A civ bonus can replace their forge tech's metal costs with stone, they can have a class (1 melee unit, 1 ranged perhaps) of fast infantry to partially take the role as cavalry as well as the ability to train cavalry from captured stables. Overall, I think if the art and civ structure are ready, the we can put together some good solutions that are both balanced for multiplayer as well as at least semi-realistic.

That doesn't matter, as they can still be balanced.

Nobody ever said anything about assuming history. Even if we did, I don't personally see anything wrong with that. This is a videogame, not a historical simulation, which would be very boring and unbalanced. Now here is the situation: In gameplay, a mesoamerican civ is in close proximity to civs with horses. It would be a nice feature that the civ can utilize the horses after capture. What is so unrealistic about this? It is a convenient and interesting gameplay mechanic. Now, if this is deemed inaccurate, there are still means to compensate for the lack of cavalry, but I still see no issue with training cav from captured stables, which would be a rarity in most games. Yes, but it is still metal, and it could be used for trade/currency, which can explain metal costs for things that are not directly made of metal. Alternatively, other precious items like gemstones could be used as more abstract stand-ins for metal costs. The mayans wrote with glyphs, with the earliest known example apparently from 300 bc. I am not familiar with mayan oral history but this also constitutes history, at least for many native American societies.

I would say there is certainly enough historical knowledge, it just has to be researched. We don't need to know exactly how many troops were at X battle at Y time, just that fighting occurred. Weaponry is well understood. I am not sure about the particular civs we are talking about, but it is often the case that real historical events are recorded in folklore Cavalry can be trained with a limit from captured stables. It is a straightforward and logical mechanic. Economy can be fairly simple but strong with less emphasis on metal (on that note, perhaps a civ bonus could be less metal cost for blacksmith techs, but increased research time. Another option would be replace metal costs here with stone). To say they used no metal is wrong, there seems to be plenty of metal usage, just not casting iron swords and the like as seen in Eurasian and African civs.

Not to make this a community mod discussion, but I don't think the community mod should be a balanced version of the game for competitive games. This would solidify the existing division it has created in the community. I think the mod is better off as a testing ground for balance changes and some content additions (ie centurions). In an alternative plan to @Yekaterina's, new civs could be added to a release (hopefully in a fairly well balanced state, Han was an example although their balance is still questioned by some). After release, community mod efforts could include live balance patches for the new civs. In a26, there were no balance patches to Han, only a bugfix, however one was attempted for crossbows.

well it is one globe you are right that it would have been quite a trip. I don't think the historical accuracy of any two civ's realistically fighting each other is fit for a videogame. After all we do want more content right? Plus, if more than one American civ is added, it could be conceivable or even historically verifiable that they fought each other. I think this is a great way to proceed.

I like the overall layout a lot and I think it adopts a more modern style of menu design. Do you know how well the placement of "Learn to play, AI and Lan, Multiplayer" works with the existing backgrounds? Not sure if those buttons would awkwardly block parts of the background or not (i.e. beheading a hoplite in the spartan background). Perhaps there is an optimized location that works well enough with all the backgrounds?

I think Lusitanis, and some American civ(s) should fit with this group. It would be nice to have a civ to go with the Iberians, kind of how the Britons and Gauls are a pair. As for the Maya, the current mayan content (of which there appears to be a lot) could be branched into a pair of similar civs not unlike the greek city-states, or remain one representative civ.

Interesting how similar it is to some of the ideas here.

For the record, I didn't know we could choose more than one option, so I probably would have vote for Agni as well.

yeah I did it manually in game, but you could also do it manually in the user.cfg or maybe local.cfg. If you see hotkeys set in default.cfg that are not in user.cfg or ur local.cfg then you can add the lines to those file with new values.

Great, thank you!

@Mentula are you familiar with a user.cfg option to increase mouse scroll speed (or panning speed)? I know this can be changed in game via a hotkey, but the change does not persist, so it would be nice to set this in the user config.

It shouldn't be all that tedious. I have done a lot of hotkey switching recently and it worked out well. You can just choose one unused key (I chose super, which is command on mac). Alternatively you could boot something like "follow" off of f so it is readily accessible to your left hand.

Yes, and for some civs, like I mentioned earlier, they align so that the upgrade is directly below each corresponding unit.

Yeah thats what I have done here, except they are in the barracks/stable. In the forge, these would be very crowded, while in production buildings, they are less crowded and their association with each unit class is clear.

Yep! It's all working flawlessly. Thanks for making a bundle @Stan`!

I tried this version on mac with moltenVK. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary until I turned texture texture quality to high. At hight texture quality, it does something like this: (the video is from an earlier test I did) ultra_high_shadows.mp4 After lowering textures back to medium/low, the glitched textures remain. There is screen tearing when panning while using default settings. Someone told me it's not possible, but turning on vsync fixes them perfectly and results in very smooth panning. I would say vulcan gives me an average of 10 to 15 more fps, which is impactful, but more importantly I do not get stutters or frame rate drops that I noticed frequently before.

In my opinion, this a little too dumbed down, I appreciate more nuanced prices that we currently have, and I think 3 resources in a technology can be ok, depending. If all siege units were wood metal, it would be a little too easy to quickly switch from using rams to catapults.

you could just copy the first few hundred lines to a file and upload that.