real_tabasco_sauce

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.

This is a touchy subject at the moment, but I have a suggestion (in addition to player mute) that might help. In the settings, one can select "only buddies" are allowed to join a game late to spectate. There could be another player status called "blocked" which both mutes the player for you in the lobby but also forbids them from joining games you host.

I would think the only difference would be players might want to put units up there more frequently, making the feature more used. The units on the walls already are stronger with more armor and vision range. I predict the only type of player that would play with more units because of this would be someone trying to build some kind of mega city, with a lot of units up in the walls. I think a flat attack range increase of 5 or 10 meters could be interesting, much more impactful for skirms which are usually not garrisoned. I would say between doubling garrison space, decreasing build time, decreasing wall turret costs, and adding a range bonus to garrisoned troops, we have a lot of options on the table for potential improvements. I will think of an appropriate and balanced combination and we could try it out in the CM.

an additional row of soldiers looks great on walls: This was just a quick test, so I only did it for the Athens long wall, but I think it would work for all the other walls too. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D4914

What do you all think? I'd say it looks like a proper garrison force. We could try this out in the community mod along with faster build time. perhaps this is off topic, as the discussion is really on AI. I will post a pic in the community mod discussion.

yeah, my point was it would be nice if they could be better used to bide precious time to gather a defensive response. Ideally, the defender can benefit from the time the attacker wasted by pathing around or having to take down the walls (ie more time for a technology to complete researching before starting to fight). I agree, they should also be a significant advantage for a defending army, but I think this should come from adding another row to turret space, rather than giving wall turrets arrows again.