Some combat enhancement ideas (& suggestions)

[Unarmed]

This thread is dedicated to ideas (and suggestions, but manly ideas; ideas meaning something that could be implemented, suggestion meaning I want it to be implemented). Note: this is not to pressure the developers, but just me wanting to improve this beautiful game, better said, work of art.

I did look at the tickets to see if it was there, but I could not find anything.

Here they go:

VISUAL

-Units use torches when attacking building, except for non-archer elephants.

Why: it looks more authentic. Sure, you could argue "where do they get those torches?", but I think if you choose between torches and regular attacking buildings I think you'll prefer torches. I think it's more silly seeing how a building is destroyed by tiny arrows and swords than it is seeing torches coming out of nowhere.

________________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: Hmmm. It is kind of problematic since you have the Iberians with their flaming spears. But I got a better idea!

-Certain units can attack buildings, others can't. Those that can use torches. Some factions can upgrade flaming spears or flaming arrows that allows other units to attack buildings.

________________________________________________________________________________________

One thing that bothers me a bit, is soldiers with rescources. I thought "Hey why not make them not attack when they have rescources?" Then I thought "Hmmm, but that would be very annoying when workers are being attacked." But I got a solution, quite some work though:

-Units carrying rescources, like wood, metal, food or stone, when ordered to attack or when attacked will drop their rescources and attack. You can pick the rescources up, to reclaim them (and your enemy too).

Why: Again it looks more authentic.

-Little dust coming off of buildings when battering rams are ramming on them or when elephants attack them. Very low priority by the way.

Why: Eye candy.

GAMEPLAY

Battering rams are quite strong, I do not see this as a issue, what I do think is an issue is being able to field so many. My suggestion:

-Siege rams are limited to 4 at the time. You can build as many as you want (replace), but you can only field 4 of them.

Why: to me it seems more balanced. And I think it is also more authentic, I think in the real ancient world most of the time 1 would be used. Four seems like a reasonable number.

When I wrote this I understood this might has some problems. If you play with a big population, 4 will probably not be enough. 4 for 0-200 populations, 6 for 200 to ifinite populations? Tell me what you guys think.

(Idea)

-Units recieve boost when fighting in friendly territory. Citizen-soldiers recieve slight penalty (negative boost) when fighting in enemy territory, except for warlike civilisations like the Gauls and Britons who where keen on raiding (right?). Regular soldiers and elite soldiers do not recieve a penalty (negative boost) in enemy territory, elite soldiers could be given the same slight boost as in friendly territory in enemy territory not in neutral territory. Special guard units, maiden guard for example if there are any, should recieve (bigger) boosts when fighting in friendly territory, and it would make sense if they recieve slight penalties when in enemy territory (they are guards, so they should be used as guards right?)

Why: To reflect moral. I would think citizen soldiers would be more keen on defending their homes than to fight in enemy territory. Regular soldiers and elite soldiers would not mind, elite soldiers might even "like" it. Gauls and Britons being warlike and famous for their raids (right?) would "enjoy" it so would not recieve penalties.

I think this could be very interesting gameplay wise. For one it makes rushes a bit harder (the boosts and penalties should be slight though). It also offers some options to make units different from eachother and also civilisations.

(Idea)

-Units recieve slight boost when they are surrounded by a amount of friendly forces; when they have a big army.*

Why: again to reflect morale. Of course the boost would be slight. Just like all my morale ideas, slight penalties and slight boosts.

*Blobbing is not an issue right?

These are my ideas for today, now if you excuse me, I'm going to play the game.

I hope I did not share ideas and suggestions already planned or suggested, I think that's annoying and I want to avoid that.

Feel free to share your own ideas and suggestions, and opinions on my ideas and suggestions!

__________________________________________________________________________

EDIT NEW

I would like to see experience expanded some day. I think 3 phases seem fine, though I do like the concept of unit preservation and I would like this to be even more important.

What I think:

-Perhaps more phases (5), but visual upgrades are not necessary. The last two phases could take (much) longer to gain (but with similar effect, since I think too much bonuses might be too much)

Why: unit preservation.

Excuse me if this is already planned:

-Elite units should also have experience, so unit preservation of elite troops becomes more important. Since they are already trained, perhaps make it take longer for them to gain experience compared to other units.

Why: unit preservation.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

The only thing here, is all ideas are good but remember optimization and all work that have. Torches can be difficult to have in units.

with ram agree with you, and if they can have a garrisons units to move. More realistic isn't ?

I agree I play for optimizated gameplay I play with 150 pop max.

Second gameplay idea, many times we talk that, but always we can't agree. I show other idea positive bonus for civil buildings. Can autorepair. Not same for towers or fortresses. Only minor building house for example.

And this is a democracy haha, why don't let the player choose the gameplay or rules. In other games like sport games you decides many of rules.

How many heroes.

Convertion

Bonus enable/disable civ bonus.

Stamina

Enable realistic physics.

Can put in templates or random. For example classic style without territory rule. More AOK.

Obviously all can mod that but not all players want mod. Only for a little thing.

You can have many rts modes or gameplay and you dont bored you can try new rules ech time. I can play like Aok or AoE Saga. Like Ron, blizzard Rts. Even Total War saga with realistic and formation.

[FeXoR]

I don't like capping anything. It's quite unnatural that a civilization can build some fortresses, siege rams or whatever and then gets incapable of building another one. Instead I'd prefer to balance things. Unit capping might be needed though to ensure a fluent multiplayer experience (and balancing will not help here).

I don't like arbitrary group bonuses as well. Some advantages might still arise from groups but they should arise naturally (like units shielding each other, fresh troops are cycled to the groups "border", ranged units are covered by melee units or such things).

I'd like the tech tree in general (including phase upgrades) to be more detailed and dispersed. That might include other phases but dependencies of technologies, buildings and units would do as well (indeed no phases would be needed then). So in general I'm not opposed to more phases but think other dependencies in the tech tree would do better.

Edited June 17, 2013 by FeXoR

[sanderd17]

The torches thing would look great, but requires a LOT of work. Every unit will need to have an additional attack animation.

Dropping resources is a bit too micro-management to me. I prefer the more automated things. You also fear to end up with a map full of little drops of resources.

For the battering rams, I also don't like the capping. What will you do to compensate other factions (like the maurians with their elephants, or the Athenians with their catapults). What could be done is something like "diminishing returns" for each battering ram. Such that each added battering ram will do less damage. This looks natural, as the first battering ram can find a good place to hit (a door f.e.), while the subsequent rams find worse places.

For the morale stuff, some of it might be good. As currently, the battle phase is too short compared to the build phase. The morale could fix that slightly. So no extra morale for big groups (they'll win anyway), but extra morale for fighting on your own ground could be given (if you assume the attacker is stronger, thus giving more power to the defender would balance it better). On the other hand, that could also be achieved by building a better defended base (that is already a home-advantage). I'm a bit undecided about it.

[Unarmed]

The only thing here, is all ideas are good but remember optimization and all work that have. Torches can be difficult to have in units.

Yes, of course. I actually prefer a good optimised game than a bad optimised game with lost of gimmicks. Hence I present these as ideas (this could be done, doesn't have to). And I understand the developers have limited time and manpower, just like any voluntary game.

Good thinking. However, I have no idea what would mean bad optimization and what not. So I present these ideas and let the developers decide if it is possible to implement regarding optimization.

with ram agree with you, and if they can have a garrisons units to move. More realistic isn't ?

I agree I play for optimizated gameplay I play with 150 pop max.

I have played mostly singleplayer, and 150 max also seems for me the best option. I like the idea of garrisoning a ram, or that the ram includes soldiers (by costing food).

Second gameplay idea, many times we talk that, but always we can't agree. I show other idea positive bonus for civil buildings. Can autorepair. Not same for towers or fortresses. Only minor building house for example.

And this is a democracy haha, why don't let the player choose the gameplay or rules. In other games like sport games you decides many of rules.

How many heroes.

Convertion

Bonus enable/disable civ bonus.

Stamina

Enable realistic physics.

Can put in templates or random. For example classic style without territory rule. More AOK.

Obviously all can mod that but not all players want mod. Only for a little thing.

You make a very good point. Something like the rams for example could perhaps be in the options (though this does require more work no?). In the topic about gamemodes I forgot to say, that I prefer to have customizable gamemodes than a lot of different gamemodes. Worms: Armaggedon, a completely different game, has a lot of customizable options. I think that would be good. It's important that those options show up in multiplayer games.

Democracy also applies to my ideas, that's why I made the polls.

I don't like capping anything. It's quite unnatural that a civilization can build some fortresses, siege rams or whatever and then gets incapable of building another one. Instead I'd prefer to balance things. Unit capping might be needed though to ensure a fluent multiplayer experience (and balancing will not help here).

Maybe it would be better, if implemented, to be optional? Capping - on or off.

I don't like arbitrary group bonuses as well. Some advantages might still arise from groups but they should arise naturally (like units shielding each other, fresh troops are cycled to the groups "border", ranged units are covered by melee units or such things).

I must say, I don't like my group bonus idea that much (because you already have an advantage with a big army). But bonuses or penalties depending on the territory I like.

I'd like the tech tree in general (including phase upgrades) to be more detailed and dispersed. That might include other phases but dependencies of technologies, buildings and units would do as well (indeed no phases would be needed then). So in general I'm not opposed to more phases but think other dependencies in the tech tree would do better.

I also like a more detailed tech tree. Like I mentioned in the general suggestion topic, I hope to see more tech trees and especially choosing between them. Choosing between units would also be nice, the choice could be instant so it doesn't slow down the game. Like (example, I would need to do research):

-Gaul kennel

Irish Wolfhound anti-cavalry vs "Mastiff" anti-infantry

One thing I don't like that much is people wasting soldiers (sending them on suicide missions). So I would like some additions that favour unit preservation over unit sacrifice. Though, I don't know how many agree with this, maybe I'm alone. Right now there are three:

-saving units means you don't have to pay for other ones

-saving units means you don't have to spend time to build other ones

-experience gaining units means it pays of to preserve

In games against AI, I float rescources in late game. So it does not really matter much if I preserve my units (though in the long run it's of course bad).

*The experience goes quite fast, so it is easily regained, an idea:

-Instead of additional phases, the excisting ones could take longer.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Unarmed

[FeXoR]

Moral boost in home territory seams OK to me as well.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Moral boost in home territory seams OK to me as well.

This is actually being reserved for some civ bonuses or team bonuses.

ROMANS TEAM BONUS ¶

• TB1
  
  • Name: Socii.
    
  • History: Being allied with Rome came with great benefits (as well as great peril).
    
  • Effect: Allied citizen-soldiers gain a +10% attack when in Roman territory.
    

[Unarmed]

This is actually being reserved for some civ bonuses or team bonuses.

ROMANS TEAM BONUS ¶

• TB1
  
  • Name: Socii.
    
  • History: Being allied with Rome came with great benefits (as well as great peril).
    
  • Effect: Allied citizen-soldiers gain a +10% attack when in Roman territory.
    

Nice. I like the idea of team bonuses a lot.

Some of my ideas could indeed be faction specific. Hence they are ideas, let's call them conceptual ideas.

About the torches, I think I haven't been clear enough. It's like:

-Units, that can attack buildings, throw torches at buildings. The torches are just like regular projectiles, but they do damage against buildings. I think Age of Empires 3 had this, I got the idea from that.

So, not units using torches to set buildings on fire. Just a secondary or third projectile attack specific for buildings.

Flaming arrows and the flaming javelins would of course also be able to damage buildings. My idea is that the regular ranged units can't use the torches, and that upgrading to flaming arrows or in case of the Iberians flaming javelins grants these units the ability to attack buildings.

Wikipedia, a disputable source, says Assyrians used flaming arrows. I can't find which other civilisations use them. Maybe Persians could have flaming arrow upgrades? I read Romans also used them, but since they got no bows and since the Iberians already have flaming javelins perhaps not give them this?

[Sighvatr]

I would stick with every unit using torches to burn buildings. No point in shooting a good arrow or chucking a javelin into a burning building. Arrows and javelins were more expensive than torches by far. I am not thinking of the kind of torches that use cloth and oil either.

The final third phase of a citizen soldier is as good as an elite soldier. Two more phases will disrupt the balance between citizen and elite soldiers.

I'm going to build 200 rams to attack your base if we ever play.

I do not like capping a population limit from continuing to create anything more, because it steals the players potential to use his resources to give himself an advantage. If my friend has the food and wood to keep creating noob soldiers to attack my base. I am going to build my twenty fortresses to defend myself with all that stone I mined earlier.

I like the concept to give bonuses to groups of soldiers because that means some twinky player can not rely on sending individual horse archers to harass me, but that is my personal problem. I would like to see the game evolve formations into something a player has to rely on using in order to win battles.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Sighvatr

[Lion.Kanzen]

Don't forget special ops, like spies and guerrilla warfare (skirmish and deception tactics) . All know about little army can destroy a big imperial and dispel instead army with alternate tactics.

[Unarmed]

Good more opinions.

Don't forget special ops, like spies and guerrilla warfare (skirmish and deception tactics) . All know about little army can destroy a big imperial and dispel instead army with alternate tactics.

Quite interesting, I read that the Iberians did not deploy that much guerilla tactics.

I think guerilla warfare is very interesting, a matter of fact, I'm really interested about this kind of warfare, and the darker sides like terrorism. I'm going to think of ideas concerning that. I assume the Gauls, Britons and Iberians are the factions which would mostly deploy guerrila tactics.

One problem is that you can't really hide, since the base is on the same map as the soldiers. What was planned, units becoming invisible when in a dense forest, seems like a good feature. I can't think of anything else right now.

Spies. Does anybody know Seven Kingdoms? I liked spies in that game, but since the dynamics of this game is totally different those features could not work.

I would stick with every unit using torches to burn buildings. No point in shooting a good arrow or chucking a javelin into a burning building. Arrows and javelins were more expensive than torches by far. I am not thinking of the kind of torches that use cloth and oil either.

I had that idea too, every unit using torches. But I noticed how Iberian flaming javelins were very effective against buildings and I figured that was a feature and I did not want to eliminate this feature.

The final third phase of a citizen soldier is as good as an elite soldier. Two more phases will disrupt the balance between citizen and elite soldiers.

I do not agree. If you give them both the same phases (visuality not neccessary) this should not be a problem at all. A bigger issue is "do most players, and of course developers, feel this is necessary or a nice addition" and of course, very important "do the developers have the manpower and time to implement this".

I'm going to build 200 rams to attack your base if we ever play.

That seems like a waste, hehe. If you made more than 10 and some soldiers I would be scared and not play at all with you.

I do not like capping a population limit from continuing to create anything more, because it steals the players potential to use his resources to give himself an advantage. If my friend has the food and wood to keep creating noob soldiers to attack my base. I am going to build my twenty fortresses to defend myself with all that stone I mined earlier.

You make a good point. However to me it seems like you mean:

-He who has the highest rescources wins (I'm pretty sure you ment he who has the most rescources has a (big) advantage)

I think it should be like this, he (or she) wins with:

-Good strategy (what to build, what to upgrade)

-Good management (rescources, what to gather, when to build)

-Good tactics (when to attack, how to attack, where to attack, formations, use of heroes)

-Unit preservation (this should be under tactics but this is important to me)

This has nothing to do with limiting or capping, but I want to see unit preservation more rewarded as of now.

I mean you should still be able to do suicide missions if you want to (I did this when I was little in Empire Earth 1 and Age of Empires 1, human wave tactics), but if someone does preserve it's troop well and someone who doesn't, the one that does preserve should be at an advantage.

I like the concept to give bonuses to groups of soldiers because that means some twinky player can not rely on sending individual horse archers to harass me, but that is my personal problem. I would like to see the game evolve formations into something a player has to rely on using in order to win battles.

I must say, I do not like my "group zeal" idea that much (that's how it is in Company of Heroes, sorry for that).

I am with you, I hope to see formations evolve in something that can win battles. I thought of a buff when in formation, but that would be problematic since formations don't work like:

-always in formation

It would be kind of cool if units would stick together in formations. Attack as one. Like Company of Heroes squads or Knights of Merchants groups or Total War units.

Did the Celts fight in formations? I always visioned them as not having "real" or tight formations except for those "Romanised" troops.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Unarmed

[raymond]

Battering rams

…if there should be a limit: 6 or 8, otherwise unlimited

group bonus

… to counter it, it should be not to hard, so only a slightly bonus

More phases

…selectable while starting a game to create a flat (3) or more complex (5) game

Standard should be 4

And of cause:

More victory conditions (win: killing all workers; gather 10000 stone; gather 10000 wood; gather 10000 stone; gather 10000 metal; build a world wounder etc.)

and in the main menu: game settings (like resolution)

Edited June 18, 2013 by raymond

[Unarmed]

Good points.

More phases

…selectable while starting a game to create a flat (3) or more complex (5) game

Standard should be 4

So you think it would make the game more complex? Maybe you are right.

I think it's important when we make suggestions or ideas that we keep in mind that those ideas or suggestions do not make the game too hardcore/not for casual players.

But with this I see no problem. It doesn't really make the game more complex to me. And casual players can still play very casual. Against a "hardcore" gamer they would already have trouble to play against I think.

And of cause:

More victory conditions (win: killing all workers; gather 10000 stone; gather 10000 wood; gather 10000 stone; gather 10000 metal; build a world wounder etc.)

and in the main menu: game settings (like resolution)

I would think these are planned.

[Sighvatr]

I do not believe that who ever has the resources win. I believe that more resources helps you win. I also do not like the idea of tier 5 units, because that means the tier 5 unit can kill off multiple enemies attacking at the same time and that seems silly.

[Unarmed]

I do not believe that who ever has the resources win. I believe that more resources helps you win. I also do not like the idea of tier 5 units, because that means the tier 5 unit can kill off multiple enemies attacking at the same time and that seems silly.

Yes, I agree. And resources would be one of the most important if not the most important but not the only factor.

Well, I thought of that problem. I forgot to type it, this is how I vision it (simplified):

Let's say it is now like this (again this is simplified, and I don't know if it's doable):

Citizen-soldier

Tier 1: 100 points

Tier 2: 150 points

Tier 3: 200 points

Elite soldier

Tier 1: 200 points

It would turn into this:

Citizen-soldier

Tier 1: 100 points

Tier 2: 137,5 points

Tier 3: 175 points

Tier 4: 212,5 points

Tier 5: 250 points

Elite soldier

Tier 1: 175 points

Tier 2: 212,5 points

Tier 3: 250 points

If this would mean, and I fully agree with you this shouldn't happen

tier 5 unit can kill off multiple enemies attacking at the same time and that seems silly.

Than tier 3 and tier 5 would be lowered and according to that the tiers would be given points (simplified stats).

[sanderd17]

If you are willing to make 2 extra models per unit. They should be distinct from the existing ones. Then I won't stop you.

[Unarmed]

If you are willing to make 2 extra models per unit. They should be distinct from the existing ones. Then I won't stop you.

Don't be offended, but: Not a very helpful post. I think you know that I don't have the capabilities to do that. If I had I would have done it already, or mentioned that I would do that. I would love to contribute to the mod just like you (and I'm planning to!), I want to learn modelling and texturing also because one day (far in the future) I want to make my own mod for this game (I would prefer to wait; until I can actually mod, the game itself is finished or in beta stage, and the concept of my mod is finished).

Anyway, I feel like you could have better said:

"The problem is that additional models need to be made. Because (...)"

Also, why need they be made?

Well you do have somewhat of a point in your post to be fair; because it might be an important design feature --> But if the problem is that you don't see how strong a unit is there could be other solutions. Most other games which have a ranking system have some icons (to explain: icons floating on top of the units). Could I make icons?

Yes. (No idea if they are good , see attached file)

There is of course a possibility that icons is not possible in the engine. Another argument against the icons would be that they look ugly/don't fit etc. I at least do not see that as a problem. Company of Heroes shows the experience always on top of a unit, but perhaps it could be made to only show when you select enemy or friendly forces for those who think it doesn't look good.

Icons could, in my opinion would, actually be an improvement. I do not always notice if my soldiers are upgraded even with the visual upgrade (the very obvious ones like hats, yes, I do notice).

Sometimes I even have a little trouble distinguishing types of units. But since you can see when units are selected the types, I did not bring this up.

See attached file for icon ideas:

[Sighvatr]

Don't be offended, but: Not a very helpful post. I think you know that I don't have the capabilities to do that. If I had I would have done it already, or mentioned that I would do that. I would love to contribute to the mod just like you (and I'm planning to!), I want to learn modelling and texturing also because one day (far in the future) I want to make my own mod for this game (I would prefer to wait; until I can actually mod, the game itself is finished or in beta stage, and the concept of my mod is finished).

Have fun!

http://www.blender.org/

It took me a day to learn and create a helmet for a game, but it does not take long to learn.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Sighvatr

[Unarmed]

Have fun!

http://www.blender.org/

It took me a day to learn and create a helmet for a game, but it does not take long to learn.

Ok, so it's not that hard. Then I can't blame him for his comment. Nevermind Sanderd. Sorry!

Though what I also ment, it's just not modelling them, I would need to research which helmets are historical accurate not only for the time, but also for the unit and importantly rank. I know I can Google, but I think I would need a proper book (Osprey I guess?). But maybe someone here knows it?

Sounds good. And it helps the graphics in this game are not too "good" (I think they are great, but you know compared to the newest commercial games).

I'm going to start Blender this week. If it's really that easy I will surely make visual upgrades if there is support for it. Because I actually want to do trees first

Trees!? Are you kidding me, trees are boring!

Maybe, but I think the atmosphere is important.

EDIT:

I was reading this in the design document:

Citizen Soldiers will gain experience and automatically gain promotions. With each rank, they become stronger, and don a unique appearance.

So, I can understand you Sanderd.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Unarmed

[Lion.Kanzen]

Take it easy. All we be new in the forum , is good people with positive feelings. This kind of discuss I missed, today may be, and I repeat May be, can true or real. Is important you invite your friends to join us. Attract more people more contributor more contributors more programmers and more artist to give their passion and lot of work to the game.

Then--------

Yeah Guerrilla warfare can works with all factions.send a Spy to your enemies, spoted a attack, bribe few units or less. Put false decoys, put traps I love traps, may be a big rock rolls to enemy formation. Or a big fire ball, see new total war at Teutoburg Forest.

Or a ambush. In the game praetorians the units can hide into the grass.

[sanderd17]

I would like to see some more trees (and other plants). Unit modelling is indeed harder, as you need to find good references. And I don't think the extra tiers are worth the extra modelling work. But that's my opinion.

For each tree, you should have some variations (not every palm looks the same, if you add trees in Atlas, you'll see that they randomly vary). Some trees also have an autumn, winter or dead variation.

Trees don't require that much modelling work though (the top consists out of a lot of cutting planes). But good textures really make the trees.

[Lion.Kanzen]

See biomes in Map design forum. Remember only time frame trees. Some vegetables are natives from America.

[Unarmed]

Trees don't require that much modelling work though (the top consists out of a lot of cutting planes). But good textures really make the trees.

Yeah.

See biomes in Map design forum. Remember only time frame trees. Some vegetables are natives from America.

(Maybe I should make another thread to talk about this, I will do when I'm working on it.)

I know quite something about non-native, exotic plants (but mostly animals). It's one of my interests.

I also know quite something about edible plants, and have a survival guide with edible plants.

And the internet has a lot of information where plants (and animals) are originally native.

It's not only plants from America, some plants were not that far North in Europe (for example). So I can't just use all the plants that are in my own country (Netherlands) for example and put them on a map of the same country. I read the Netherlands used to consist of mainly Scots pine (but that could be prehistory, would need to research that), and like depicted Netherlands was mainly swamp (but also lots of forest).

But I think it's okay if I go with all the plants from my country (that are from Europe, North-Africa and Western Asia), since their is a good Dutch site that has thousands of pictures of plants and I can look at home for references. I will make a list of plants that I want to make, here are some:

-Blackberry bush (food)

-Raspberry bush (food)

-Scots Pine (wood)

-Common Hazel (edible hazelnuts) (both wood and food)

-Small English Oak (edible acorns) (food)]

-Fly amanita (poisonous mushroom) (eye candy)

-Penny bun (edible mushroom) (food)

-Wild cherry (food)

-Mountain Ash (food)

As you can see some nuts and mushrooms I made as food. I think it's important that there's not only fruit, for authenticity reasons. Bees nest would be kind of cool (that attack your workers but give you valuable honey (food)).

[sanderd17]

Blackberry and Raspberry would be easy. You wouldn't even have to model (unless you want to). Changing the texture of the current berry model might be enough.

Having food and wood on one thing isn't possible for now. It's not a problem with the engine, but in the GUI you can't choose which one you want. (And giving the player extra hotkeys to select between the sort of resource is no good I think. We're already short on available keys.)

Bees nests would indeed be cool. And already possible.

Also, don't forget flowers and weed. Just as eyecandy. And don't go too high poly. Certainly those small features (like those mushrooms) will need to be low poly.

[Unarmed]

Blackberry and Raspberry would be easy. You wouldn't even have to model (unless you want to). Changing the texture of the current berry model might be enough.

I think I want to though. It is less of a typical bush.

Having food and wood on one thing isn't possible for now. It's not a problem with the engine, but in the GUI you can't choose which one you want. (And giving the player extra hotkeys to select between the sort of resource is no good I think. We're already short on available keys.)

Not my intention. It works like this:

Model regular oak = wood harvest

My model is small oak = only food

So my intention would be not having two types of gathering on one "model" (I have no better word for it). But the same type of trees but different models and different gathering types.

Bees nests would indeed be cool. And already possible..

I could make one, and the little bees (black dots I assume). Empire Earth (1) had flies too, but I haven't got Empire Earth anymore for reference. But it would need animations right?

Also, don't forget flowers and weed. Just as eyecandy. And don't go too high poly. Certainly those small features (like those mushrooms) will need to be low poly.

Good thinking. Though I didn't forget about them fully, because I did have it as an idea.

There are many weeds that are edible. One particular weed is ground elder that the Romans used to cultivate for food, but it escaped and is now common in Northern Europe. Another one is the dandelion, which farmers dispise but which is actually edible (not tasty though).

But no edible weeds/flowers? Just eyecandy? (I think that's fine)

I will go very low poly and then ask for feedback on this forum when I'm going to start my project.