monster lairs is resource.
Differing monster lairs for different terraintypes? Giant Eagles in mountains, Wyverns in forest, Giants in hills, Trolls in swamps. Need not be exclusive to one terraintype. (=fluff + mucho work)
Could lead to more resource driven war as Orcs want t


Might be just extra fluff but:
-Could some types of monsters be captured in the wild by special 'beastmaster' units?
-Others might still need to be bred.
-Giants and other 'inteligent' monsters don't take kindly to being 'captured' or tamed, so may require a tech or improvement to 'befriend' them. (same goes for tree-spirits etc)


MOUNTS
-Monsters+Hero = hero on monstermount. (too complex?)

-upgrade from (tamed)monster -> 'monster'Rider.
or
-Heros might upgrade to his specific monster upgrade if monsters-resource is available AND a special monster trainers pen/guild/pit etc is built AND said hero has the model/ability to ride a mount.

-If a civ has a (captured or befriended) 'giant eagle' as a unit, -> can build an 'eagle-roost' (or something similar) to produce more GiantEagles and later on can build upgrade building to enable EagleRiders.
....this sounds more and more like overly complex stuff, that can be easilly replaced by a race-specific 'horsey-resource'. :sigh:

Different resources we already discussed. An "egg" resource for flying monsters was planned or let's call it nesting ground or something but Duke who wanted to make it is offline.

Mounts:
Depending on Art we get there will surely be mounted heros and some mounted units like Pegasiknights etc. but I think it won't work well together with captured animals just with resources for now. That means only until we get someone to code that ideas;)

A different resources per monster is more realistic but is simply too much. For mounts the best way to do is simply for to have 3 units per character. On foot, on horse/boar/wolf and on monster (hippogryph, gryphon, dragon, wyvern, ect...). Lots of modeling work though.

A different resources per monster is more realistic but is simply too much. For mounts the best way to do is simply for to have 3 units per character. On foot, on horse/boar/wolf and on monster (hippogryph, gryphon, dragon, wyvern, ect...). Lots of modeling work though.
Yep I agree but two resources for monsters should still be ok- but definitly not more- nesting grounds for flying monsters and lairs for landbased ones. Or is 2 already too much in your opinion?

No, 2 should be fine. Why do monsters give -1 happiness? It doesn't really make sence.

No, 2 should be fine. Why do monsters give -1 happiness? It doesn't really make sence.
I thought because the civilians fear them. Does that make sense to you?

I don't see why monsters would be in direct contact with the population. They would be kept away in barracks/stables far away from the main population. It would make more sence to give a -1 happiness to cities who have monsters in their radii because they have to live nextto the monsters, unlike a far away city where monsters are just traded. It would work a bit like jungles giving -1/4 health.

I don't see why monsters would be in direct contact with the population. They would be kept away in barracks/stables far away from the main population. It would make more sence to give a -1 happiness to cities who have monsters in their radii because they have to live nextto the monsters, unlike a far away city where monsters are just traded. It would work a bit like jungles giving -1/4 health.
Yes that would fit better to my intention. Do you know how to achieve this in xml only or would we need a hack?

It would require new xml tags, but nothing that can't be easily soppied from featureINfos. Meanwhile, we could just make it give -1 food and -1 production on the tile it's on.

It would require new xml tags, but nothing that can't be easily soppied from featureINfos. Meanwhile, we could just make it give -1 food and -1 production on the tile it's on.
Good. Put it on the todolist. I'll clear the xml of that malus.

You are right on the resource bit...I felt it was getting too complicated myself. :P

I still like the idea of capturing creatures.
But smaller creatures are better not dependent on a resource, but rather just on developing beasthandling TECH. As it is now. Good job you! ;)
Maybe have the possibility of 'turning' only the more exotic creatures?

I agree on the riders.
Special troops as indicated by the armylists
and several hero models, maybe only the gereral/champion types, need to have foot/mounted/riding-a-monster(/chariot?) version as a possible upgrade.

if you like i can have a shot at doing an egg resource for until duke gets back. just tell me how many polys and the texture size:)

i agree with 2 monster resources. nesting grounds and mosnter lairs work for me. nesting grounds could appear in mountains, hills, forests and jungles. monster lairs could appear in mountains, hills, swamps and jungles. but neither of them should appear on flat land. it seems funny to see a random cave on a plain, or a nest of eggs in the middle of a field :crazyeye:

i also agree with the heroes haveing 3 versions. i hope its dooable

My monster lair seems broken,

IIRC in vanilla, the monsters figetted.
But in warlords, they just stand there in michaelangelo anatomical stance and have a see-through plane running vertically through them.
For the left trolll this looks like wings the colour of plains, for the right one it's only visible if you rotate the view.

My monster lair seems broken,

IIRC in vanilla, the monsters figetted.
But in warlords, they just stand there in michaelangelo anatomical stance and have a see-through plane running vertically through them.
For the left trolll this looks like wings the colour of plains, for the right one it's only visible if you rotate the view.
This transperancy has allways been there. The michelangelo stance is strange though. Will have a look at it.