Grautvornix

Great idea! In order not to overcomplicate things this should be initially only a pop cap for predefined teams. Later on, we might extend this so that whatever the team size of an ad-hoc alliance, the pop cap remains, i.e. if I play without allies then the whole pop is for me, while if I have an ally then we share the same pop cap. This still has to mature not sure about the consequences ...

Good Idea - just, when I imagine myself in game I rather tend not to check invidual unit's statistics (basically similar to the experience level). Too much micro management for me. But that's iust me in my relaxed and inefficient playing style (plus only SP). So while I like the idea as such it would be not very helpful for me. Personal opinion of a guy not fond of too much statistics in the game.

Ah! That's cool!

I do like this idea - but it sounds complicated to implement, unfortunately.

What about Pushyamitra Shunga , a general who assassinated Brihadratha ? (sorry my poor knowledge is bluntly copied from Wikipedia) Edit: of course this is not a Mauryan emperor anymore as he started the ensuing line of Shunga emperors, but at least part of the same epoch and linked to the Mauryans.

I do agree that historical leaders are preferred. Just in case we cannot come up with enough famous names we should not restrict ourselves and instead add additional "normal" names of that civ/period.

Just another thought: do we need actually famous names only? I think the answer might be obvious : "no, as long as the name is typical for the respective civ."

Congratulations @SciGuy42! This is a phantastic start - love it when you have to struggle with scarce resources initially trying to cope. And for the right atmonsphere, you are also telling a good background story. Looking very much forward to your new campaign!

Ok, but how many should be hardcoded? (I'll vote for 12 so that probability of repttition in an 8-party match is largely reduced). I also believe that more than 12 parties of the same civ would not be a very frequent setup. Additionally, the selection algorithm itself may need modification so that it not just picks a random list entry every time (and counting up the roman numerals if that name was already taken) but only use the remaining set of each civ for random selection. With an increase set and a better randomization this issue should be an extremely rare observation. Noob opinion

Welcome back! Looking forward to your updated missions!

Indeed @Vantha and @ShadowOfHassen your encyclopedia is a superb contribution creating an even deeper game experience! Thanks for all your effort! Much appreciated!

OK, point taken. If there are good ideas how to guarantee hosted tournaments/multiplayer games remain fair and there is no cheating or the like (without moderator intervention), we should implement these features first - and all MP games would benefit immediately. We will see much less complaints then. Next we can discuss / carefully introduce playing for money features for some games. I believe the entire process would need to be carefully defined. Potentially we can learn from other platfroms that already offer this feature. Just, in my view, as long as we cannot avoid people complaining about unfair behaviour in rated MP games, playing for money would only increase tensions.

In combination, that is.

Frankly, I am afraig that we might get more, and more serious, complaints about cheating or users leaving a game that they are about to loose. We are barely managing now even it is "only" about individual ratings. As soon as money is involved I am afraid we will see more issues. Just my twocents (as a noob single player only, of course).

But.. there is another mod that adds something similar - it is called "modiomod". It shows which mods of the ones you already have were updated on mod.io. Would love to have this function embedded into the main game! See also discussion here: