Delenda Est alpha 23 - feedback

[Stan`]

3 hours ago, aeonios said:

EDIT: After digging around I found out that both selectable and footprint are hard coded, and there currently isn't any way to define the selection shape to be different from the footprint. It shouldn't be too hard to fix, but even if I do it won't be available until a24

That would be a nice feature and would be unified with the rest.

3 hours ago, aeonios said:

Also I don't know why people keep insisting that damage types are hard coded. Damage types are defined entirely in javascript and are completely moddable, although there may be a few different files that need to be changed for it to work. It's not really any different from resources though.

I guess that's because they are not defined in one json file with their specific characteristics. If they were in one place with a file that could be extended like you can with prototypes that wouldn't be the case

[aeonios]

26 minutes ago, stanislas69 said:

I guess that's because they are not defined in one json file with their specific characteristics. If they were in one place with a file that could be extended like you can with prototypes that wouldn't be the case

That's not really feasible, since the schemas for Attack.js and Armour.js need to be updated separately one way or the other. I think those are the only extra files that need to be updated besides DamageTypes.js in globalscripts though.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

When I say quads, I didn't mean squares, I meant that it renders the texture to a quad, therefore does not hug the ground correctly like a decal does.

[aeonios]

10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

When I say quads, I didn't mean squares, I meant that it renders the texture to a quad, therefore does not hug the ground correctly like a decal does.

Oh, yeah they sure don't.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

2 minutes ago, aeonios said:

 Oh, yeah they sure don't.

I think it was done for "performance" reasons, even though it's trivial to render a decal to the terrain grid, and you usually don't select more than a few buildings at a time.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 6/13/2018 at 7:53 AM, Aragorn30 said:

Did you plane to adapt the gameplay to others mods (like Millenium AD)

Maybe adapt the Byzantines for the Eastern Romans and the Anglo-Saxons for the Germanians.

On 6/13/2018 at 10:52 PM, Alexandermb said:

Celtic aura is floating in that zone.

 

fixed

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 6/12/2018 at 4:04 PM, aeonios said:

AoK did have a slow P1 but everyone played at 1.5-2x speed

I play the mod at 1.25x speed and have designed things around that speed. Maybe try that out and see what you think.

[Guest]

I just tried out the mod for the first time and most of the new concepts are interesting. As mentioned somewhere above, weak-countryside strong-core is nice.

I’m not sure whether it was intentional that civilians (atleast athenian civilians) are not counted for the idleworker button.

One would need to add “Civilian” to g_WorkerTypes to fix it. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/gui/session/session.js#L191

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

18 hours ago, (-_-) said:

I’m not sure whether it was intentional that civilians (atleast athenian civilians) are not counted for the idleworker button.

One would need to add “Civilian” to g_WorkerTypes to fix it. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/gui/session/session.js#L191

I feel like the classes "gatherer" and/or "worker" should be included by default, really. But for DE, I think I will make it cycle through idle "Support" classes. Thank you for that suggestion.

[Victor]

Hi,

I installed the mod yesterday and it crashed the game in the starting screen, as shown in the attached image.

I've also attached the interestinglog.html if it helps.

Thanks!

 

interestinglog.html

[Guest]

Perhaps try it without fgod. Both mods modify the same file and I think there is an incompatibility.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 6/7/2018 at 10:22 AM, Feldfeld said:

A bigger issue probably is mercenaries. From the games i played (including online), they seemed to be a must and that rushing with them is a really good strat. They don't cost food, instead metal, and no pop as well so it's easy to make them in the very early game and then you can attack.

 

I made them require Town Phase. So, it's still good to capture the merc camps in Village Phase (there's a pop bonus for each merc camp, and it's probably good to keep your opponent from capturing them too), but you can't train the mercs until Town.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

but you can't train the mercs until Town.

I think that would do it. Maybe I’m just too noob but the jump from Phase 1 to 2 is kinda big. By the time p2 is reached the base is already quite developed and practically rush free (as in not instant death). Ofcourse, thats assuming the rusher would be at an economic disadvantage compared to the defender and hes waiting for mercs to do his thing.

[Genava55]

@wowgetoffyourcellphone since your mod is spanning on a very large timeline and since you want to include a lot of factions, I'm afraid you got trouble to equilibrate everything while still maintaining a standard for historical accuracy and still trying to create enough diversity. Isn't it better to regroup a bit more the factions together and to let the player choose the factions during the game like in AoM for the gods? It is only a suggestion, not a critic, I like your mod. I don't know how much it is technically difficult though.

Spoiler

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

I'm afraid you got trouble to equilibrate everything while still maintaining a standard for historical accuracy and still trying to create enough diversity.

I appreciate your post, but you have to be a lot more specific than this. Keep in mind, I haven't even tried to balance anything yet bruh.  

 

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:



This is a whole different kind of game. I like the idea, but branching civs are currently impossible to do, except in a really hacky way. That's why I don't even try to do it. 

Having "culture" groups is exactly what I already do though. Every civ within a culture has some very similar bonuses and techs, but some interesting variations. But honestly, it's all a but too much for 1 dude to handle. So, elaborate branching schemes and whatnot are on the back back back burner. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 7/1/2018 at 2:26 AM, (-_-) said:

I think that would do it. Maybe I’m just too noob but the jump from Phase 1 to 2 is kinda big. By the time p2 is reached the base is already quite developed and practically rush free (as in not instant death). Ofcourse, thats assuming the rusher would be at an economic disadvantage compared to the defender and hes waiting for mercs to do his thing.

Perhaps I can reduce Town cost from 1000f and 500w, to 800f and 400w. Would that be a positive change? My whole point is to try to make players establish a strong food income early. Reasoning being that Food is truly the most realistically important resource in the game. Metal is nice and all, but Food is absolutely the most important resource, in reality and in my mod. Maybe just remove the wood cost so people can afford more farms early instead of saving it for the Town tech.

Edited October 9, 2018 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Genava55]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I appreciate your post, but you have to be a lot more specific than this. Keep in mind, I haven't even tried to balance anything yet bruh.  

I know bruh It was something I got in my mind for a few days (I have long train ride to go to my work place, which give me the time to think). I'm saying this because I know you didn't have balanced your mod. I'm worried about civilizations like the nomads because of their redundancy, they all have the same army and the same buildings more or less. Age of Empires II totally skipped the historical part to give them very different bonuses and specialties, creating very different strategies for these factions by a subjective trick. But AoEII have the (boring) advantageous to use always the same core of units which is not your case. For AoEII, it starts with a balanced baseline (and they have ended to make nomads OP but this is a different talk). But historically, it is not that much different. At the Battle of Carrhae, the Parthians were exclusively cavalrymen, at the Battle of Jaxartes the Scythians were exclusively cavalrymen and at the Battle of Mayi the Xiongnu were exclusively cavalrymen. The Huns are exclusively cavalrymen exception of their germanic vassals under Attila. The rare details about infantry in the Xiongnu ranks talk about dismounted horsemen (horses killed probably, a recurrent thing during the war both for the Han and the Xiongnu). It is not without reason that the Strategikon put the Huns, the Avars, the Scythians and the Turks in the same talk about how to deal with them. There are not real strategic problems with exclusively cavalry army with exception of rock-paper-scissor games... either it ends up to be to easy to counter, or they are overpowered. It is why I suggested a reunification of the factions, because it gives to the player all the small variations of each cultures with their respective strategies.

5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

This is a whole different kind of game. I like the idea, but branching civs are currently impossible to do, except in a really hacky way. That's why I don't even try to do it. 

Yeah, I'm myself skeptical about my own idea because of this. The only way I could see it possible is through unit conversion. For example, you start with a generic nomad civic center and generic nomads citizens with a limited building tree. At some point of the game (probably early), you can choose between three technologies icons in your civic center. If you choose for example the Scythians, all your generic nomad units are converted in Scythians citizens units, giving you the possibility to build new buildings from the Scythian tree. Maybe the same trick could be applied to the buildings to show the cultural transformation. I don't know if it is possible on a large scale like this and if it has an effect on the stability.

My idea is simply to give more depth for the player to adapt its current game. If he wants to have a better defense, he could go for the Parthians. If he wants to boom he goes for the Xiongnu. If he wants to keep his option for latter he can goes for the Scythians and choosing a small reform in the late game, either the Sarmatians/Alans for a offensive strategy or the Crimean Greeks for a more balanced game with a couple of greeks units to counter anti-cav units. Like this each cultural factions brings depth and the player is not blocked in the same hardcore macro optimization and micro management to win.

5 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Having "culture" groups is exactly what I already do though. Every civ within a culture has some very similar bonuses and techs, but some interesting variations. But honestly, it's all a but too much for 1 dude to handle. So, elaborate branching schemes and whatnot are on the back back back burner.  

I understand. It was just an idea I wanted to share with you. It is probably a wrong idea but maybe it could help an intelligent idea to emerge from the talk like this