Sapphro

Hello. Would it be possible to review the pull request for the repository? The changes include some texture and mesh edits, at least to ones there was access for. Blender had troubles opening some of them.

Hello. Most non-casual games are healthy in this definition. However, respectfully, I would not say RTS has a lot common with real planning abilities, nor it is beneficial for playing skills, and vice versa. It might keep memory from some kind of degradation, though as games rely on visual-sound perception only, it barely can improve. In term of socializing, it is true, as the game is being an identity agenda and so, is a basis for building a social group (community) around it. The fact of common responsibility within the group, as well as in any other, might help in real-life situations. In my take, the RTS is not a strategy simulation in literal meaning, and there are not any. As for me, I would value the game by it's historicity or a well written lore, because it is a kind of art and retains its qualities.

I agree, it is beyond the period of the game, perhaps not the best example. In Chinese chronicles there was also the state of Chi Tu from 1st century BC, which has more or less accepted archiological sites. By Indo-European I mean rather the region; by language group, I have no questions. But with Gangga Negara it is controversal, the actual kingdom might had existed near Beruas, probably not by that exact name. There were some pottery findings, but since 5st century. Malaysian sources mention Coconagara or Konkonagara as if it was described by Ptolemy, and so, they date it back to 1st (other say, 2st) century. However I could not find the strict evidence other than the name on the map. So, it is considered semi-legendary.

It would be great to see more diverse cultures, as now the game is primarly based on Indo-European civilizations with the addition of Han. I may suggest Malayan kingdom Gangga Negara, for instance, the territory of Malaysia was known to Romans anyway. Which is more interesting, but harder to implement are Finno-Ugric cultures of the Iron Age due to little information on them. Though, their obvious features are the focusing on shamanism and fishing, and civ bonuses based on it. https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/iron-age-finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangga_Negara https://indo-european.eu/2021/05/proto-uralic-homeland-ix-west-caucasian/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland

It is not a question of strengthening the AI, it is about general complexity of the game. Simply, the AI should have access to everything the player is able to use. As an instance, it was not implemented in AOE3 due to technical reasons rather than making the enemy more pragmatic.

Hello. I would ask for reconsideration for how the AI works. It doesnt build walls, though it follows some kind of pattern of building it's structures. If so, what is the barrier for building the walls? It would improve the gameplay quite much. An option for it is to make the "radiant" system of building, by layers around the city center, as it is now for defense towers. E. g. first layer, randomly placed fields, houses, military structures and the last walls. Of course, if AI encounters natural obstacles, it will skip this place for building. Another option is to copy the AI behavior from Strongholds. Also, why it doesn't upgrade old towers to stone ones? At least, in my experience.