Cool Ideas

[hollth]

I would quote but I don't know how to break it into smaller ones haha I have the computer skills of an 80 year old

With regard to the market changes I was talking more about when in teams. If there are three people on a team then the middle person misses out on much of the trade benefit. Having a trade route with the number of teams limiting the number of intermediate stop offs give them something too. (hope that makes a bit more sense)

As for the building foundations I don't think having it delayed by such a tiny amount is much of a punishment nor reward for killing it. It should have some risk associated with it. Especially if its a civic centre or fortress. It does require to be attacked so you could also argue that it takes the time spent attacking that instead of units. It can also be used as a scouting tool with no cost.

[Rodmar]

About dismounting and mounting.

I understand elephants as mobile garrisoned towers, so it is not a problem they aren't handle the same as chariot and horses.

But I believe some historical tactics could be possibly implemented without adding any micro-management. However, it would be at the cost of (tons of) extra animation.

- Some Briton noble warriors, not unlike the Achaean heroes in the Iliad before them, would use the chariot to display, retreat, pursue or and simply move from one point to another on the battle field, and as a casting platform for javelins. However, they would join the scuffle by foot, while the servant/driver would stay ready in the rear.

- Caesar reports the Ariovistus's cavalry to have two peculiar behaviour. Firstly, some would jump at an enemy rider to dismount him and go on fighting as an infantry, while his small horse was trained to stay still nearby. Secondly, some other would choose reliable (light!) infantrymen to run beside them, clutching the horse's mane. When the mêlée is joined, the horseman would dismount and fight like an infantryman, while the chosen one stay in the rear with the horse.

- Some Gauls are reported to aim at the horses'chest to dismount its rider. It was maybe a common tactic when disabling the enemy cavalry was critical (as compared to the potential captured horses' value).

As I see things, a dismounted rider ordered to move or to move and attack, would try and disengage melee and reach his horse/chariot in order to move to the new location. Doing so would automatically reload his javelin stockpile and and maybe slightly heal the unit (above the new attribute switch). It would be the main difference between such a cavalry and true "chargers": they would be more clumsy . when going to mêlée, they would possibly have one "charge" attack and then would separate into two units: warrior and (guarded) mount, or one unit and one "dumb" sprite.

If those situations were made playable:

- the battlefield could be possibly more cluttered;

- the extra animations could hamper the game flow;

- this "hobelar" feature would allow to differentiate between true "chargers", lancers/companions, and other cavalry types.

- a question should be addressed: is only the rider selectable, or the guarded/still mount too?

- the mechanism could be extended to various existing situations, such as horses panicking and dismounting their rider in front of elephant, even camels and wall of spears (not the same chances however), and even simple cavalry melee fight (especially spearmen);

- those dismounted warriors (either through will, or the battle's odds) could have two sets of attributes (armor, hp, speed, attack, weapon type, ...), and even, have lost some of their new hp pool because of the dismounting attack, when applicable.

- this could allow to introduce a hidden horse riding skill/technology to differentiate different cultures' cavalries better (not only hp, armor and attack): horse training and morale, horse armor, saddle/no saddle, "tall" horse/"poney", stirrups? This skill would only modify the small chance to dismount/be dismounted.

Now, however the hobilars' usefulness is obvious on rugged terrain and real size campaign (thrice the speed of the footmen), is this feature really worth on small tactical maps?

[sanderd17]

As for the building foundations I don't think having it delayed by such a tiny amount is much of a punishment nor reward for killing it. It should have some risk associated with it. Especially if its a civic centre or fortress. It does require to be attacked so you could also argue that it takes the time spent attacking that instead of units. It can also be used as a scouting tool with no cost.

If you think there's no value in attacking foundations, then don't do it. I also don't attack houses as there's very little value in it. And I don't know how you can use it as a scouting tool. Foundations have no vision range.

[hollth]

You don't need sight. If its attacked by units or buildings then you know where they are. When the issue with new buildings etc showing in explored places without line of sight is resolved, it will be more noticeable. Right now its more of an accidental scouting tool. I know I've been learnt of where units are many times by accident.

Replied to the right one this time XD

[quantumstate]

I think eventually we will want placed foundations to be invisible to enemies until construction starts so then you wouldn't be able to attack them.

[Keaton the Wise]

Ok. Ok. Let's not argue XD.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I think eventually we will want placed foundations to be invisible to enemies until construction starts so then you wouldn't be able to attack them.

Agreed. This is the desired behavior.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Agreed. This is the desired behavior.

But if enemy haven't a single unit the foundation can be destroyed.

[hollth]

Ok. Ok. Let's not argue XD.

If I'm/we are coming off as aggressive that is not intended. (Unless I've completely missed the mark and misread this situation). I would say that debating is generally necessary and good.

So i take it that nobody else agrees with having an economic punishment for half completed buildings being destroyed?

On another note how would having palisade walls upgrade into stone walls work do you think? i.e. unlock a tech that lets you change each piece individually(Like gates but not instantaneously)? Would require more time and resources and make it less powerful early on. Anyway I'm just spitballing here

[Lion.Kanzen]

If I'm/we are coming off as aggressive that is not intended. (Unless I've completely missed the mark and misread this situation). I would say that debating is generally necessary and good.

So i take it that nobody else agrees with having an economic punishment for half completed buildings being destroyed?

On another note how would having palisade walls upgrade into stone walls work do you think? i.e. unlock a tech that lets you change each piece individually(Like gates but not instantaneously)? Would require more time and resources and make it less powerful early on. Anyway I'm just spitballing here

may be upgrade to double palisades and them upgrades to small stone walls. Edited December 15, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen

[Rodmar]

The foundations act as obstacles aren't they?

The rich shouldn't be able to purposely divert/delay the AI with walls of "no to be completed" building foundations for free.

[sanderd17]

The foundations only act as obstacles once the construction started. And as they have les armour, they can be destroyed with a single arrow. So I don't really see a problem.

[Rodmar]

If foundations have no vision range, nor path blocking and are invisible, they are fine.

Now, what's about half-built buildings?

What's about the "optimal" case? I mean, isn't there really any exploit situation when it is still efficient to "half" build a structure or let a structure half built, instead of building (or half building) walls or palisades, either to wall a village up, to buy fortress/tower complex enough time to damage the attacker, or those extra seconds needed to recruit the next defenders squad, or simply to provoke the AI into a premature attack?

It's one thing to cleverly devise one's base, with chock points, etc, it's another one to exploit the building system into buying a few second at no great cost while acting oddly (history/military-wise). Of course it depends on the dumbness of the AI, but you see, I was "traumatized" by the "bunker+supply depot+repairer" cheap and efficient tactic in SC1. There is always an optimal case; it stops being a meaningful exploit when it is worthless or too risky. So, if starting a large construction (no wall) a few seconds before the scouted enemy infantry comes can't protect a tower/ archer squad for long, its fine too.

[RoekeloosNL]

1# More type of Elephants (bows/spears).

2#Gold mines.

3#Firepot ships.

4#Men on walls. So lets say you got every section of a wall that can be carrisonend by 5 men and towers 2/3 men.

[Keaton the Wise]

I think units should be able to garrison and shoot from walls. And if the wall is destroyed, so are the units. A realistic risk to take to proudly defend your nation! XD. Also, even if you weren't arguing, DON'T!!!

[Loki1950]

1# More type of Elephants (bows/spears).

2#Gold mines.

3#Firepot ships.

4#Men on walls. So lets say you got every section of a wall that can be carrisonend by 5 men and towers 2/3 men.

1# show historical units that have these for each civ that used elephants

2# Gold is included in metal adding an other resource type is not a trivial programming task and there are game play issues as well

3# Look at the Iberians they have fire ships as will the Han

4# this is planed but requires a rethink of the rendering layer(huge programming task)

Enjoy the Choice

Edited December 15, 2013 by Loki1950

[Rodmar]

Defensive works

A new wall tech to account for traps and ditches ahead of the palisade/wall.

If possible, the mêlée units would be slowed a few meters from the wall (structure cross-section x2-3?) to allow the defenders (both real and virtual) to score more hits.

Or, "simply" add another small range piercing attack to every and each wall/palisade section, with possible multipliers against cavalry.

[Keaton the Wise]

Is there ever going to be a building that lets units cross un-passable terrain? Like a hole or river?

Edited December 15, 2013 by Keaton the Wise

[Loki1950]

Is there ever going to be a building that lets units cross un-passable terrain? Like a hole or river?

It's the same problem as having units on walls so until that is solved no real bridges.

Enjoy the Choice

[Keaton the Wise]

What's the problem with units on walls again?

[Lion.Kanzen]

What's the problem with units on walls again?

We haven't the possibly to have unit over buildings, example bridge, example unit in walls. Example units over a raft .

[Keaton the Wise]

Can't people be garrisoned into walls? And another thought. Is it possible to make arrows stick in buildings?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Can't people be garrisoned into walls? And another thought. Is it possible to make arrows stick in buildings?

over them not but inside yes they can.

[Keaton the Wise]

Is it a planned feature to have units on buildings?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Is it a planned feature to have units on buildings?

Yeah but have a big lot of work. I don't why. They put this feature for Second Part.