2128 replies to this topic

[Mythos_Ruler]

Geek377, on 21 January 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

I'm considering filing a "bug" report about this issue. What really bugs me is that when I construct buildings on slopes, either the buildings stick out of the ground or are partially buried. Too see what I mean, just build an outpost on a slope. I think that the building footprint should be flattened.

There is likely a ticket for this already.

[Geek377]

Mythos_Ruler, on 21 January 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

There is likely a ticket for this already.

Yeah I tried to look for one but abandoned my attempts

[quantumstate]

I can't find a ticket for this either. It does sound familiar though. I also thought that the building foundations were being extended so this was less of an issue.

[Mythos_Ruler]

quantumstate, on 21 January 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

I can't find a ticket for this either. It does sound familiar though. I also thought that the building foundations were being extended so this was less of an issue.

Right, but I think the best solution is to have a "flattening" tag in most building templates.

[feneur]

Having both extended foundations and flattening sounds like the best option to me, that way neither has to be too extreme

[Mythos_Ruler]

feneur, on 22 January 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Having both extended foundations and flattening sounds like the best option to me, that way neither has to be too extreme

You're not gonna flatten the side of a hill only 90% when building your house, you're gonna go all the way.

[feneur]

Mythos_Ruler, on 22 January 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

You're not gonna flatten the side of a hill only 90% when building your house, you're gonna go all the way.

You're not going to build on the side of a hill =) (Or actually if you do you're probably going to use terraces rather than demolishing the entire hill just to fit in your building )

Seriously though, I think that we shouldn't do full flattening even in the cases where you should be able to build, but more than a little flattening is needed. Mostly because it would look strange with well defined "pits" for the buildings and then the slope continues as before around it. But also since most buildings at least to some extent represent a multitude of individual buildings. But overall I do definitely agree that "full flattening" would be best, I just think there are cases when that would look worse than the alternatives. Preferably most maps should contain enough flat buildable areas for the problem to be minor.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Quote

Or actually if you do you're probably going to use terraces rather than demolishing the entire hill just to fit in your building

Terraces are flat, nay?

[feneur]

Mythos_Ruler, on 22 January 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

Terraces are flat, nay?

Individual pieces are flat yeah, but as a whole several terraces aren't =) But that's not too important I'd say, the important thing is how it works in-game. I guess it depends a bit on what kind of building it is as well. For something bigger like a civic center flattening definitely seems like a better option (possibly with fairly strict limits for how big the terrain height difference can be to avoid the "square pit" scenario), and for smaller things like towers extended foundations/the model going slightly into the ground sounds like a better option.

[Geek377]

As long as my buildings look stable before qBot destroys them

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Well, maybe the buildings can be sideways if need be.

[KayEhn]

I suggest that, when saying 'control all units', you can control what they build as well, so you can make them have more population and be more like a real player. Just a quick one.

[L'ethu]

Some unit like chariots/scythe chariots should have special option that grants them the ability to charge home against a large group of infantry and caused death and mayhem during the charge. That should give chariot a more practical purpose instead of a mobile missile platform.  

Edited by L'ethu, 30 January 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

One suggestion I would give is that when you make a Civic Centre, a name of a city correlating to culture who built this is shown when you select this Civic Centre.

[oshron]

kinda like in Empire Earth 2, then

speaking of naming stuff, will the player be able to rename units in the editor for the purposes of design? for example, maybe renaming the Alexander the Great hero so that he's called Agamemnon for a Trojan War scenario?

[Pedro Falcão]

feneur, on 22 January 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

Individual pieces are flat yeah, but as a whole several terraces aren't =) But that's not too important I'd say, the important thing is how it works in-game. I guess it depends a bit on what kind of building it is as well. For something bigger like a civic center flattening definitely seems like a better option (possibly with fairly strict limits for how big the terrain height difference can be to avoid the "square pit" scenario), and for smaller things like towers extended foundations/the model going slightly into the ground sounds like a better option.

I say flat & foundations. Flat for the higher ground (considering from the center of the building) and foundations for the lower ground. The problem is that when the hill is flattened, the discrepance between two tiles reaches ridiculous values. The solution for this is to add a wall (fashioned alike the building) separating the flattened ground and the original hill ground. After all, we feel bad for both seeing those incredible terrain curves and those too high foundations.

[Geek377]

Another crazy idea: roads. It would be pretty sweet to build roads. For example, the Romans could build roads between several civ centers for easier military transport. But I guess its better suited for campaigns (especially for Rome)

[oshron]

i would definitely recommend including buildable roads for all civilizations (except for any that didnt use them) as well as including something which was suggested a long time ago: to make it so that informal roads could appear over heavily-traf@#$%ed terrain, such as caravan paths. it would not only be a nice detail of realism, but could also give opposing players hints as to where their enemy's caravans are

[hhyloc]

Yes, roads would be a nice feature to have, both "formal" (can be built) and "unformal" ones (created by frequent travels). And giving bonus to movement speed.

[Gen.Kenobi]

I never understood the actual use of roads in an RTS game (it's not SimCity afterall )... Indeed they speeded up the units a bit in EEII, but, really... Not very usefull