Well, it's good to be back after so many days of being stuck in other work.
Let me try to respond to some of your posts:
Ah... That's what it was... felt really weird to me too. And I understand very well what you're alluding to. If you wanna kite, I'll take the flag and win the battle.
now, let's rack our brains and find a more appropriate name for that ;-) i've got nothing at the moment, but will think on this !
Personally, I don't have a problem with calling it a flag, given how disgraceful losing their flag/standard/eagle/etc. was to many military units throughout history. That said, you're not alone with this sentiment and we'll add it to the list of improvements.
View attachment 564671 View attachment 564672 View attachment 564673Battle of my single archer VS 2 elks. Deployment phase, Battle rounds and results. It did NOT go well for me ;-) Funny thing is, everyone died in the end, but I wound up with a defeat because I had not unit left
I think that one might have been winnable by using the outpost tile on the high ground.
I find the population growth mechanic rather strange. For those who are unaware it is a threshold based system between Stagnation, Growth, and Super Growth. As far as I can tell, once you are above Super Growth there is no benefit to acquiring more food per turn. Which ends up requiring some pretty mundane micro - checking in with your city every turn to see if you can move a population to another yield (or as the case may be checking to see if you need to add another pop because it has fallen below the Super Growth threshold).
Yep. At the very least the numbers need tweaking, but to be honest, I'd personally much rather it was just a standard 4X pop growth system where your excess food fills up a bar and more food = faster growth. I also found the microing of pops to maintain super growth to be pretty annoying. Not sure I can really see what the motivation is behind this design.
I like the concept of growth tiers, as I believe they are looking to manage the growth speed of cities (capping at one pop every 4 turns), and I guess also trying to make the process of pop allocation more significant if it happens between longer intervals. I agree it's a bit micro, as when you get a pop you might fall of a tier. I think the main annoyance I'm having is the actual number being hidden, so I have to permanently rely on the tooltip to see how much extra I need or how much leeway I have.
It would be good if auto-assigment of pops take into account the tiers. Basically, just place pops in the cases it would move us up a tier, or remove otherwise. For example, if I'm producing 20 food from tiles, don't assign a +4 pop, it's a wasted one. The same goes that if I'm at 51 food, I get a citizen and the food goes under 50, assign a pop to keep super growth.
Right now, the focus system thinks it's using a traditional model, and if you select city growth, it will assign citizens that would do nothing. I have a city with 30 food, I select city growth in the dropdown menu, and it assigns 2 pops that take it to 38, which changes nothing and they are wasted.
As Elhoim has speculated, we are attempting to get a handle on population growth. In many 4X games, population growth is your primary concern, because they help you get all other resources. Number can of course still be tweaked, and since this system is a fairly recent addition, the population automation doesn't take it into account yet.
By the way, is the OpenDev subforum at Games2Gether only accessible to those who are already in OpenDev? I couldn't find it in the official forums myself.
Yes, it's restricted to OpenDev participants. It's already hard enough to keep up with the feedback discussions everywhere without people commenting on threads by participants in entirely different forums. ^^ After OpenDev we will likely share some insights into the feedback we received, and hopefully what we plan to address it.
I wonder if it really is that beneficial in the long term to build quarters all over a territory and not Cluster mostly around the city center. In EL, adjacency bonuses and quarter level ups were quite important. The first exists in HK as well, did not hear anything about the latter.
Two aspects to this:
1. As the game progresses, there are various Infrastructures that will improve adjacency bonuses, so clustering quarters will become better as the game continues. There are also Infrastructures tat improve Exploitations, though, so clusters might not always beat a more distributed city layout. (Numbers are, of course, still subject to tweaking)
2. Quarters "level up" visually once the output of their tile reaches an era-dependent threshold. Here's a screenshot by our resident meme-master Salterius:
does the fortress quarter have a ZoC?
Some of the Emblematic versions do, if I recall correctly.
it is also interesting to see that cities can bring up militia units. I think the AI had 11 units defending the city and each army can hold 8 units. And the battle area was huge. So city sieges can be epic multi turn affairs. In the mid and late game, you will need o bring large armies to take a walled city. It won't be like civ6 where you just bombard a city center until the city HP is low and then take the city with a melee unit.
They certainly will be multi-turn affairs if you want to employ siege engines, since normally those need to be built first, and the battle itself can last multiple turns. And that doesn't even get how the dynamic changes later in the game with the advent of gunpowder units...
@tedhebert - might not want to advertise on a public forum that you got around their scenario release. If it was intended I would think they'd have simply unlocked them all.
We're not going to crack down on him for that. As far as I can tell, that was just an issue with Steam not updating, rather than a deliberate attempt to circumvent restrictions.
No...they specifically asked if you used them to enjoy their advantages. but it's also pretty clear now, from reading other message on the G2G boards, that the survey is for ALL of the 4 mini battles included in Scenario 2... not only for the first mini battle
Some parts of the survey are shared between the battles, others are not.
I'm interested in unit veterancy system and promotions tree, in the devs video the trebuchet got two rank, but we couldn't see how it works.
As others have mentioned, it is "only" a +1 strength bonus per level, but trust me, even small differences in numbers have a big impact (as you can see from the impact the -3 from rivers and the +4 from high ground or flanking have).
I find I really don't understand well how unit placement BEFORE starting the attack, on the big map, plus how the deployment phase on the battle map, really work and affect unit placement. I tried many different things in the 1st and 2nd mini battle, and it seems to me that no matter what I do, the AI will place their units directly depending on what I did in deployment; I have no acces to what THEY'RE going to do in deployment, but it seems they do ?
As far as I know, the AI does not get to react to your deployment. But in the first three battles, the AI are the defenders, so they will try to take the most defensible positions they find.
I'd taken their flag but then the battle ended so I think I ran out of time and lost? Or it was a draw I'm not sure.
If you control their flag (or camp, if you want to call it that), then you are considered the winner, and they will be forced to retreat.
Also my pikemen were getting completely trashed by those francii units ? aren't they cavalry ?
They're cavalry, but they are quite strong cavalry that gets even stronger on the charge.
but still. I believe that the option to crush your opponent in a military will always be an option. If you wipe them all, they can't beat you in the end.
We're still discussing how exactly we'll handle it if you manage to destroy all other civilizations. But since victory is based on Fame, not map control, you may find that even though your Mongol Empire stretches across the entire world, your people are actually "listening to Aztec music and wearing their bluejeans", because they admire them more for everything they did than they do you for conquering them.
I wonder if you built walls then later expanded your city would the walls auto update to meet the new city limits or would they remain as they are? Visually it would be very nice to see the old medieval centre of a city surrounded by walls with the later expansion sprawling out beyond them.
Yes, the walls expand as you build new extensions that are connected to the City Center. As far as I can tell, this is for clarity and readability in combat (The wall is an obstacle to getting into the city, but not after).
Question, why Parisius and not Paris? According to Wikipedia it was the name of Paris at the end of the Western Roman Empire, so maybe we can understand that in this scenario the city was founded by the Romans who later trascended to the French. I could not get if there is any building that lets us infer a bit more of the "history" of this city in this particular scenario... that would be super cool
Our historian has told me that the city is called Parisius in this scenario in reference to the primary source about this siege, a text by
Monk Abbon.
