- User Since
- Aug 3 2020, 1:22 PM (23 w, 6 d)
Nov 15 2020
I think this is an important diff and that it should be carried on.
More details here in the three articles I translated with deepl:
Sep 30 2020
About the revision demanded by @wraitii, I think we have the simpler log-ram available so is the revision still a necessity? The simpler log-ram should be addressed in another diff I think.
Aug 25 2020
Tough men! A log of this size should weigh around 2 tons. But that's fine, this is useless nitpicking.
Aug 24 2020
I approve totally this change. I was wondering the same but I wasn't confident enough about my English to say so.
Maybe a compromise would be to give the siege ram to everyone but to reduce significantly its armor or health, especially if it is introduced at the town phase. But in addition, giving to some civ a technology to improve its armor or health back to normal during the city phase.
Both a lack of swordsmen and siege rams are troublesome. If a siege ram is available at the town phase, it should be noted that it would furthermore unbalance the game for some civ.
Aug 21 2020
Maybe an issue with leader's name of the civ (probably only with Romans)
Aug 8 2020
I tried the revision. I have no issue with the size of the panel and of the icons.
If the game includes more building, then it is a necessity to apply a proposal like that.
Aug 6 2020
Aug 4 2020
It could worth a try. But I don't see any historical justification for the population bonus in economic structures.
It could be the case in barracks and fortresses, because the historical arguments for those buildings are fortified farms with enclosure, oppida and brochs.
Those buildings/places were also inhabited by civilians. So it could be justified.
But in the case of the farmstead, the blacksmith, the market... I don't see justification in regards to other civs, historically speaking.
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Still fine to me.
I prefer the idea of an upgrade than using a new slot for the same function than the house.
"approve of the idea, didn't try"
I think it is a good idea and can be an incentive to use longer wall segments in some cases, and not only shorter segments with more towers.
Good initiative, in the past I found it was a lacking feature for the defense.
The only thing is the difference between the factions. Maybe giving 6 slots to everyone and 8 to the Romans could be better from a balance perspective. But that's a detail.
Putting 1 to fields means you can select them anytime?
Concerning the wall and monument changes, I don't see any reason to reject the proposal.
Something with root territory that cannot be captured is clearly inconsistent.
I accept the solution, removing their root to the territory won't be an issue from a gameplay perspective I think.
There are two ways to do it:
- either developing a scientifically accurate way to represent every animal size proportionally with their footprint => painful as hell and time wasting, probably will cause issue with some models because of coding constraints
- either choosing the footprint with preferential grouping in consideration with gameplay needs.
I think the circle is a better looking solution. Other shapes are confusing if they are not used specifically to distinguish different units. People are used to the circle/arrow/star shapes.
It doesn't really matter that the arrow is not perfectly nice looking, visually the player can easily distinguish the champion simply by seeing the flat side of the arrow or its tip.
If you want to try something else, the pentagon could be a nice alternative because you can stretch it easily and it still recognizable.