SMST
-
Posts
536 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SMST
-
-
There seem to be some textures missing. The map currently looks like this and I get errors "Can't find texture x". I have the recent public SVN version of the game. (updated 2 mins ago)
-
Try to use temperate biome assets (for instance, no palm trees or walruses).
Ah, reading carefully indeed is an art.
So ... I'll have plenty of time today to do this, but it looks quite bleak next week. If you could send me the map today, I could get something done right away.
-
2 days are awfully short, but I think I'll give it a try. I think i'd like to do the yellow part of the map.
This is what biome? Mediterranean, temperate, steppe ... ?
-
Or we can try it with the idea that gives the most freedom first, then take freedom away if it's a problem.
I don't like freedom. See my signature.
As you wish, it is not my game anyway, I just wanted to make a point.^^
-
You won't be able to build Civic Centres until the last age.
By that time, players should be well-established.I can't? Was that always the concept?
Then I would say that the game becomes too slow paced indeed. Maybe from the second phase (phase, not age
) onwards, but with the restrictions I suggested? -
I just tested that myself. Proves me wrong.
It just seemed to me that Legionaries have the upper hand in most battles.
-
I think you overestimate the effect.
I don't think I do.
-
You're pretty much wrong.
Colonies, for one, ruin your argument.True, but colonies could be handled differentely. Let's say a player could build civic centres on an island only if he holds the adjacent shore on the other side.
And except colonies, where else would you find cut off cities? (that were meant to be cut off, not cut off by enemy conquest, natural disasters and other stuff)
I just do not want civic centres randomly popping up everywhere on the map. I want my empire to expand in a organic way, by gradually pushing the borders. This would also restrict premature rushes a bit.
-
This way of territory ownership and the previous one are both interesting. Each of them have their advantages and disadvantages too. How about implementing both in the game? For example, if we want a constant number of civic centers be present in the map (And thus making them strategic points which all players would like to capture) we would choose the first option. And if we don't want this, we would choose the second one.
I'd like to have a more "freestyle" map. The old territory system always seemed a bit restrictive to me. My main argument for the "fragmented map" are really nice possibilities with accurately named provinces on historical maps. (see my screenshot earlier in this thread)
-
Spartans, according to my experience, win against most everything - except Imperial Legionaries who win against TOTALLY everything.
EDIT:
Oh, and I just found this funny quote about the Spartan black soup on Wiki:
According to legend, a man from Sybaris, a city in southern Italy infamous for its luxury and gluttony, after tasting the Spartans' black soup said he understood why they were so willing to die. -
I think it would be interesting, from a strategic standpoint, to build a 2nd Civ Centre all the way across the map in neutral territory and then attempt to link up the two territories. Also, trade between the unlinked territories could get interesting due to the added danger.
Stuff like this would really hurt immersion. How would anyone in their right mind build a Civ Centre all across the map, completely cut off from the rest of their territorry? (I'm speaking about real life here)
Nah, I want gradual expansion which is imo much more satisfying. I would opt for civic centres just to be built on player's territory. This adds a new strategic dimension to the game just how close to build it to the border to get the best influence on the
Maybe your proposed scenario could be in a campaign or something (I am thinking about Prussia, which had its territory split similary until the mid 19th century), but I definitely don't want it in regular gameplay.
-
Looks good. I think there is no need for a gaia border, though, since all land outside the player's territory is under gaias ownership and you don't need to distingusish between specific territory borders anymore. Plus it looks a bit weird.
Also, please keep this in mind:
Why should civic centres be buildable on neutral territorry? Could they not just be built close to the borders of the current territory of the player and push the borders from there, like RoN did it? -
Ah, now I understand what you are saying. So yea, no fixed territories, territories are dynamic.
Well, they are not territories for me anymore, then. "Just" borders of player's spheres of influences.
What would be lost, of course, would be historical flavour added through historical provinces (accurately named and stuff). But I'm fine with both concepts.
-
Huh? Where you reading that?
You seem to be planning to abandon territories for dynamic borders.
-
Suppose I control two adjacent territories. May I construct a building directly on top of the border?
I think so.
Though it appears the territory concept is about to be scrapped as soon as it was beginning to be implemented.^^
-
Why should civic centres be buildable on neutral territorry? Could they not just be built close to the borders of the current territory of the player and push the borders from there, like RoN did it?
-
All hail to the new terriorries. They really make nice borders, suprisingly historically accurate, too, if settlements are placed on the Peloponnese Map.
Mythos' new border graphics look amazing, too!
EDIT: Oh, we are having dynamic borders now? Even better, 'cause more immersive, in my opinion!
-
because the environment around there is called "the sudan"
It is? I associate Sudan with the Northeast African Country (the one whose southern part broke away recently). I had seriously no idea that the whole region was referred to as Sudan. (it's called "Sahel" in German literature, I think.)
-
I'd say this one, but I'd like to see how big exactly the semi-transparent parts are. They seem a bit too thick on this screenshot, but that might just seem to me because of zoom level.
-
Do they have to have those shields? I know they are historically accurate, but despite of that, they somehow feel completely out of place.
Nice straw hats, though.=)
-
Just throwing this in. I know this is an ancient version, but I liked how the borders were made, perhaps a tad bit thicker:
-
Carthaginians
-
Heightmaps - yes! This was something possible in the editor of Empire Earth, which was the single best editor I've ever worked with. It would be absolutely awesome to have that in Atlas.
-
If this is supposed to be Sudan, why are there Western African Empires?
Community project
in Scenario Design/Map making
Posted
WIP