Grautvornix

Indeed, and unfortunately you cannot pre-calculate all possible paths. That could be possibly an acceleration factor.

Unfrotunately i cannot give two hearts

I believe I remember to have read it somewhere in this forum but cannot find it. Was that feature removed at some stage or was it more like a misudnerstanding from my side? The case I though I understood is really: I build a warehouse or a tower or whatever building. This cost x amount of resources. when I don't need that building anymore I can destroy it and get x/2 (or some other fraction) of the original resources back. Does anyone remember if this used to be the case and it was removed?

Oops! Need to check - I always thought that destroying a building (like a storehouse) that I don't need anymore would give me a bit of resources back!

When asking a player for neutrality and he refuses, my own setting automatically returns to "enemy". But when I am being attacked by that player later in game, my troops consider him as being neutral (while my indication in diplomacy menu still shows "enemy"). When the other player accepted neutrality, my own setting still automatically returns to "enemy". Have I overlooked some setting or change in game play mechanics? Thanks for any advice! Edit: Apologies as this is a duplicate to this...

Superb! Looking forward to seeing all this in game!

Interesting idea - but isn't destroying you ship/house returining a fraction of its build costs already? (not a nice option though, of course)

This is super nice! Is your plan to replace all icons according to the civ?

Maybe I am overlooking something, or have wrong expectations: This is about SVN nightly built version XXIX build August 12, main 1c2db pot using any mods. When using the diplomacy menu, I can trigger the request for neutrality in SP and get a response from the particular Petra player. OK so far. My own relation indication however stays in "enemy" even if the player agreed to become neutral. Worse, when my neutrality offer was rejected by the Petra player, my indication stays enemy (correct), but when I am being attacked by that player, my forces cannot fight against him most likely as the internal indication is my preference to be neutral which is not indicated. Can anyone please confirm or am I doing something wrong? Thanks alot!!!

@Dakara Right, possibly there needs to be a distinction between attack speed reduction and movement speed reduction - and for both suitable values need to be evaluated hence sugested to implement as a mod for testing.

There was a recent proposal to use an area as target instead of focussing on one target (the closest one) only which may lead to an overkill. Possibly the two changes could work hand in hand?

Good points! Sound more realistic. From my perspective, a minimum attack speed needs to be available though (until exitus). Would that also affect movement speed? (for hunted animals as well as for advancing/feeling troops) Indeed this feature would remove the need to micromanage (focus your "fire" on reducing enemy forces by quantity i.e. kill them individually one-by-one) but rather damage them across the board. This could however affect gameplay to quite some extent. Should that be tested with a separate mode first?

@Obelix Ah! Cool - was not aware - thanks a lot!

Oops! You are certainly right! Sorry for the confusion!

Flags are shown on my own buildings. In order to see how many units are actually garrisonned I have to directly select that building. If flags are not historically accurate there could possibly be a different visual indicator for the game's sake. For my own ships and siege engines, I have to select each of them to see what is actually on board, i.e. no flag or other visual indicator. For adversary buildings (and ships, siege engines) I have no information at all (which is ok as part of the game I believe).

Isn't that like in real life? Neutrality is not guaranteed , especially not if you harmed the other country. The AI consistently replying "not interested" seems strange to me. In SP, I often use neutrality which works in many cases (could not find out why or why not) and in a second step also an alliance which sometimes can be established. often there is a tribute to pay (1000 wood or the like) for one or the other.

Good question! I just don't know . Similar to enemy towers, fortresses, garrisons etc. as well as siege engines. Own Buildings have a flag on top - select it to find out how many are garrisoned. Own siege engines don't have a flag and - like ships - you would have to select the unit in order to see if and how it is garrisoned. For enemy structures this is always a surprise IIRC.

Hi and welcome to the forum! Unfortunately, the only way I am aware is to actually select the ship and see the garrisoned number of people. There has been multiple suggestions to modify that so it will be addressed.

@Nicolaus_von_Kues If the pathfinding issue could only be solved - which appears to be quite complex - then we can define these features: bridges, that block ships, allow passage of any civilians or troops, can be built up to a limited length, but also destroyed, e.g. by ships (also by whales?) ramps (iirc there might exist historical evidences of this being used in siege tech) - can be built up to a limited height and destroyed tunnels/portals/secret passageways (you discover an entrance and when entering it, reappear at another place on the map, must work in both directions, could start somewhere in a mountaineous area but never ends in or under a building). This needs to be defined when creating a map. Alternatively short passageways could be built by the player himself with a limited radius from his CC or fortress.transfer capacity shouold be limited though (cannot send a whole army through). roads that have an accelerating aura for everyone, inlcuding enemies - pathfinding being particularly complex here as roads can be entered and left anywhere, as opposed to the other structures that have an entry point and an exit point. Still brainstorming...

More academic question: As Petra is fully map-aware, it would certainly also see where the scouting camps are placed so they can be easily attacked. (I do aknowledge that this map awareness cannot be simply changed) Only in reality, I believe, these camps should only be found by accident or by observing/following a scout you encountered.

While I am a supporter of more graphical overviews hence preferring the previous version, this one has its beenfits in more details of course. What if there was a button "Details" in the graphical representation (with the very nice icons) and that button would open the text represntaiton with the enhanced details?

Thanks wzyas! I particularly like your proposal #2 and #3: #2: temporarily enlarge the minimap, e.g. double click on the minimap could open a window showing exclusively the map (enlarged), doule clicking again closes the sparate map windwo. #3: workes do not deplete berry bushes completely but leave a bit so they can re-generate. The same would apply to fishing boats.

Never saw this before. Is this rwoing or "staking" forward so it can even be used in water ? Reminds me of the robot in the movie "Interstellar".... Or is it used to stabilize when moving against a hard target?

I am certainly not an expert by any means, but I believe, the Germans are potentially a good candidate (if we refer to their migration). Not so sure about Gauls or Brittons though.

Well, they may be initially nomads. Also hunting could have a little bonus (they might therefore have two or three scout cavalry at the beginning instead of one) and farming could be available only later after technologies have been researched? Not sure this woudl be changing much in the long run but it could nudge players towards a little different initial strategy.