2128 replies to this topic

[Mythos_Ruler]

Thorfinn the Shallow Minded, on 16 September 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

This comes to my second suggestion. Replace Xenophon with a more patriotic Athenian. Two good ideas are Iphikrates and Alkibiades.

I agree with replacing Xenophon with someone more patriotic. We'd probably keep him in Atlas though.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Quote

We'd probably keep him in Atlas though.

If he is in atlas he should be a cavalry unit since he was an aristocrat. The Xenophon unit would be far more excellent for Iphikrates.

[oshron]

Mythos_Ruler, on 16 September 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

I agree with replacing Xenophon with someone more patriotic. We'd probably keep him in Atlas though.

i agree, wholeheartedly. if nothing else, it would be useful to keep old versions of units, buildings, and so on in the game for scenario design. that way, for a campaign, Xenophon could appear as himself instead of being simulated with someone else, even if he's not part of regular gameplay (similar to those elven ships and modern airplanes that have been included already)

[AuroN2]

it's impossible to pit alcibiades into a single faction, because he kept swapping sides to cover his butt.
And as for the makedonian library, i say just make it so you can research alot of non-standard upgrades there, as opposed to foreign tech. besides, some of that foreign tech might only work on that faction given it has structures, units and heroes to be affected, seperate ones, than makedonians have, so it'd be a headache to implement.

[oshron]

for the library (though i think it works best as a wonder) i would recommend saving its actual ability for one of the last things to actually be added to the game: any technologies that don't affect one specific aspect of a civilization or a civilization's specific units (eg "all infantry spearmen" rather than just "all hoplites") can be researched at the library, including Macedonian ones (though by that time the Macedonians would have probably researched those technologies already); the placement of Macedonian techs as well would be for the benefit of other civilizations that, in a given custom scenario, may capture the Library. ultimately, these techs would probably cover mostly architecture

Edited by oshron, 23 September 2012 - 07:38 PM.

[shooter]

My ideas:
1 Before build house player by pressing some key can choose style.
2 Player сan be planted forests
3 Remove options of construct troops to walk, it slows movement.
4 Control units and buildings on pause,after pause they will work.(like a Warhammer 40 000 dawn of war)
5 Unite units in the group(like a Sins of a Solar Empire)

[fricus-mazighen]

Y U NO FOCUS ON GAMEPLAY INNOVATIONS INSTEAD OF GRAPHICS ?

[feneur]

fricus-mazighen, on 25 September 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Y U NO FOCUS ON GAMEPLAY INNOVATIONS INSTEAD OF GRAPHICS ?

Why don't you focus on gameplay innovations? I'm not asking that to be silly or anything, but to highlight the fact that different people have different skills. In other words: it's not a choice between adding one type of feature or another in a given release, but rather between adding what features the currently active developers are able to (and since we're volunteers: want) work on for the next release or not at all. And that means that given the currently active developers we've seen more development in terms of graphics than gameplay features lately. To be fair we have added gameplay features in the last couple of releases as well though So it's not all graphics even at this point (since we do have active developers who are skilled in that area as well).

[lilstewie]

Will there be more units added to the current factions?

[feneur]

lilstewie, on 26 September 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

Will there be more units added to the current factions?

Generally speaking not for part one at least. It's more likely units will be removed as the more units=the harder it is to balance the game, and, perhaps more importantly, the more units, the more alike each other they will get, in other words: what's the point for a player to train two separate kinds of units to fill the same role.

[lilstewie]

^^^^^^


Okay, just curious.

[oshron]

feneur, on 26 September 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Generally speaking not for part one at least. It's more likely units will be removed as the more units=the harder it is to balance the game, and, perhaps more importantly, the more units, the more alike each other they will get, in other words: what's the point for a player to train two separate kinds of units to fill the same role.

incidentally, pertaining to this, i think that units that would use axes or maces (and other such weapons) should be the "swordsman" class. personally, thats how i always imagined axe-wielding units (like vikings) working without having to add much more to the game's functionality. though if i were to suggest any new broad unit class, they would be supportive ones: "Standard Bearers"/"Flag Carriers", which would give a morale boost to any allied units that can see it, and "Horn Blowers"/"Drummers"/"Bards", which would do the reverse: they would give a morale boost to units that they see. there are already Priests in-game, who function as healers, so later civs could either have access to a distinct unit class that could convert enemies (rare in any case) or Priests for some civs could be amended to have conversion abilities. alternatively, there could be an espionage-class of unit that not only scouts but can also bribe enemy units, which would function in the same way as conversion but at a cost of metal (simulating money)


also, an idea occurred to me recently for a Part 2 civilization the other day. i was looking up the historical Kings of the Britons and noticed that the first one began around 9 AD. according to legend, King Arthur died at the Battle of Camlann around 537 or 539 AD. i'm not saying that an Arthurian civilization should necessarily be included, but maybe an Anglo-Saxon civ could be included with some editor-only units for Arthur, his court, and figures related to Arthurian myth (like the Questing Beast and the Green Knight, for instance, which are overtly fantastical as opposed to just folkloric), and the Court of Camelot could be included as an editor-only Wonder. there could even be a campaign focusing on Arthur as a historical person which pits him, leading the Brythonic Celts from Part 1, against the invading Anglo-Saxons

[feneur]

oshron, on 26 September 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

incidentally, pertaining to this, i think that units that would use axes or maces (and other such weapons) should be the "swordsman" class. personally, thats how i always imagined axe-wielding units (like vikings) working without having to add much more to the game's functionality. though if i were to suggest any new broad unit class, they would be supportive ones: "Standard Bearers"/"Flag Carriers", which would give a morale boost to any allied units that can see it, and "Horn Blowers"/"Drummers"/"Bards", which would do the reverse: they would give a morale boost to units that they see. there are already Priests in-game, who function as healers, so later civs could either have access to a distinct unit class that could convert enemies (rare in any case) or Priests for some civs could be amended to have conversion abilities. alternatively, there could be an espionage-class of unit that not only scouts but can also bribe enemy units, which would function in the same way as conversion but at a cost of metal (simulating money)

Standard bearers/"musicians" (to summarize =) ) were considered a long time ago, but were postponed together with morale. Imho we should not start to try and put these things back at this point in development of part one. I think it would be a good idea to reconsider all of these things for part two though, but then to take it in a larger context: To me the theme of part two will be (at least from how I imagine it) more story-based and focused more on individual units. This could include things like triggers/cinematics to create story-based scenarios and campaigns, morale (and things like standard bearers to influence it), attrition/logistics/supply, spy units, etc. It would probably require us to automate the economy since you'd hardly have time to micromanage both the economy side and the war side, but we'll have to see how complicated people feel the economy is in part one (especially since it should be less management heavy once we implement a better farm system).

[oshron]

feneur, on 26 September 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

Standard bearers/"musicians" (to summarize =) ) were considered a long time ago, but were postponed together with morale. Imho we should not start to try and put these things back at this point in development of part one. I think it would be a good idea to reconsider all of these things for part two though, but then to take it in a larger context: To me the theme of part two will be (at least from how I imagine it) more story-based and focused more on individual units. This could include things like triggers/cinematics to create story-based scenarios and campaigns, morale (and things like standard bearers to influence it), attrition/logistics/supply, spy units, etc. It would probably require us to automate the economy since you'd hardly have time to micromanage both the economy side and the war side, but we'll have to see how complicated people feel the economy is in part one (especially since it should be less management heavy once we implement a better farm system).

that's part of the reason i suggested the "musicians" as being in Part 2 the previous civs could also be amended to include them if such units were included. but i definitely agree; balancing the economic and military aspects of the game takes priority over the inclusion of more units or civilizations

what do you think of my second idea? i'd just like to get some input on that

[MoLAoS]

feneur, on 25 September 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Why don't you focus on gameplay innovations? I'm not asking that to be silly or anything, but to highlight the fact that different people have different skills. In other words: it's not a choice between adding one type of feature or another in a given release, but rather between adding what features the currently active developers are able to (and since we're volunteers: want) work on for the next release or not at all. And that means that given the currently active developers we've seen more development in terms of graphics than gameplay features lately. To be fair we have added gameplay features in the last couple of releases as well though So it's not all graphics even at this point (since we do have active developers who are skilled in that area as well).

There are a lack of people interested in implementing gameplay features? That seems like the opposite of how it should be. I guess I'm biased since I dislike graphics programming. Can you really not find people interested in doing something as simple as javascript to add stuff they have wanted to see in games? IIRC the world is loaded with people who can't use compiled languages but really want to design game mechanics. I'm surprised more haven't popped up here.

[CommanderL]

I think there should be a way to cue farms at the mill ? so that way when the farms are depleted the farm is rebuild and the cost of said farm is deducted

[feneur]

MoLAoS, on 26 September 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

There are a lack of people interested in implementing gameplay features? That seems like the opposite of how it should be. I guess I'm biased since I dislike graphics programming. Can you really not find people interested in doing something as simple as javascript to add stuff they have wanted to see in games? IIRC the world is loaded with people who can't use compiled languages but really want to design game mechanics. I'm surprised more haven't popped up here.

No, there is at most a current lack in activity from gameplay programmers And even so there is 1 (and a half if you count wraitii who's mostly been focusing on the AI lately, but did some graphics related stuff earlier) active graphics programmer, and at least a handful other programmers who are relatively active (hard to define some people as solely being focused on gameplay programming though as some might do some GUI work in addition to gameplay programming etc). And almost all patches we receive from people who are not as closely involved in the development are either engine fixes or gameplay implementations, very few have been related to the graphics side. So it's not an overall trend, just that currently we've had one very active graphics programmer and of course graphics are more easily "marketable" than a myriad of engine fixes or similar

[FeXoR]

feneur, on 26 September 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Generally speaking not for part one at least. It's more likely units will be removed as the more units=the harder it is to balance the game, and, perhaps more importantly, the more units, the more alike each other they will get, in other words: what's the point for a player to train two separate kinds of units to fill the same role.

The balancing reason is not entirely true. You could just balance the "needed" units (to have all roles filled) and make the others a bit less powerful. That way things will be balanced and still a great variety of units will be available. Only one strong unit can break the balance, not a variety of weak ones as long as for each role about equally strong units are available for each faction.
That (one overpowered unit) might be a problem with e.g. war elephants and Iberian ranged elite cavalry. They can only fill the role (siege like) when dealing enough damage to structures but will then be overpowered against units if units have no high armor against crush damage (as it is now). Similar thing with other siege weapons. Guess buildings should have less crush armor while units should get more crush armor (compared to as it is now).

Edited by FeXoR, 30 September 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[feneur]

FeXoR, on 30 September 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

The balancing reason is not entirely true. You could just balance the "needed" units (to have all roles filled) and make the others a bit less powerful. That way things will be balanced and still a great variety of units will be available. Only one strong unit can break the balance, not a variety of weak ones.

But that would just make them even more meaningless. And true, that might balance the game in the "no unit/civ is overpowered" sense, but at least to some extent we have to balance the units in terms of "all units should be useful" as well. A balance between the different units. If a unit is not useful there's no reason to include it in the unit roster for a civ at all, then the only use it could have is to confuse new players and make it harder to learn the game =) It's another thing to have more units available for e.g. scenarios, but all units which can be built in a normal game should be useful in some situation. That doesn't say that all units has to be useful in every match you play, some may only be good against say elephants and then they'll not be useful in a match against a Briton opponent, but there should be situations at a whole where using that unit can be what gives you the advantage necessary to win

[FeXoR]

feneur, on 30 September 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

But that would just make them even more meaningless. And true, that might balance the game in the "no unit/civ is overpowered" sense, but at least to some extent we have to balance the units in terms of "all units should be useful" as well. A balance between the different units. If a unit is not useful there's no reason to include it in the unit roster for a civ at all, then the only use it could have is to confuse new players and make it harder to learn the game =)

Yes, that's a bad thing.

feneur, on 30 September 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

It's another thing to have more units available for e.g. scenarios, but all units which can be built in a normal game should be useful in some situation. That doesn't say that all units has to be useful in every match you play, some may only be good against say elephants and then they'll not be useful in a match against a Briton opponent, but there should be situations at a whole where using that unit can be what gives you the advantage necessary to win

An citizen soldier, even if a bit weaker than others, can still be useful to gather stone/metal because it might costs the resources easiest to get on a specific map. For elite units this argument won't work of cause.

In general I agree with you.

Edited by FeXoR, 30 September 2012 - 12:01 PM.