I think whether the dock gets split or not, we need one more row in the UI.
3 Likes
They are saying there is enough space just put it in the top right
It looks really nice too
For what though?
You canât randomly break the UI for users that donât use keyboard. Youâd have to switch to eco page then cancel, which is a downgrade in UI.
It would also break grid hotkeys too, not a good solution.
I like the idea to have a 3rd tab with defensive buildings so we can all new stuff like palisade towers, bridges and stuff.
If we consider Fishing Ships as villagers on water, then Iâd like them to be the ones constructing any new water-based buildings. Imagine a floating island that provides the same functions as a Dock, built by Fishing Ships out on the water. That way, you could place it near enemy waters or fishing spots, and ships wouldnât have to be trained or shuttle from distant shorelines anymore.
Bridges should be constructed by villagers and not fishing ships in my opinion.
Also maybe there should be a builder ship that can build stuff and repair other ships that is not the Fishing Ship. More for balance purposes.
Bridges could be too strong in general and also need entire rewrite of how grid systerm works right now. Regardless I would start with walls, towers and they themselves being able to build Docks as well. Slower rate but can build it. Also an option to repair ships as well like villagers. Again at slower rate. After all there is no âMonk healâ equivalent for them aside only villagers.
I think Iâd prefer another column or two over another row. Itâll keep the hotkey situation simpler. That said, more columns for villager build and such would be nice.
I meant column actually
Iâd like to see a supply ship to be a unique unit that can ârepairâ (actually heal) friendly ship for a future civ, essentially the naval equivalent of the monk.
In the Alexander campaign you can build a bridge. It is done with triggers but it converts navigable water into walkable terrain.
I think it would be strange for this to be civ exclusive. That would be âtooâ unique for AoE2 standards.
1 Like
it seems you cant destroy already made bridges at all. Even then the way legacy codes still exist, itâd be monumental task to add bridge support. No diagonal bridges at all. Also no units on wall. I am still mad how they couldnt do it right in AOE4.
In fact, it would be too unique for AoE2 standards if itâs NOT to be civ exclusive.
More unique ability, more supposed to belong to a unique unit.
We donât know what the engine is exactly capable of and how easy it would be to change that.
Until the Alexander DLC we thought it would be impossible to turn water into a bridge, now we know it is possible.
We can suggest things here and then the devs can decide if they want to implement it or not.
I donât really agree. I think a similar change was adding the Fire Galley and Demolition Raft, or adding Oysters to the game.
Imagine only one civ being able to gather from Oysters or only one civ having more then a Galley in Feudal Age, that would be crazy.
Being able to build bridges on shallow water would mean they have to adjust some maps because now sallow water doesnât just impact if you can build a dock or not. Like if they donât want you to be able to build a bridge somewhere they can simply add some medium water to prevent it.
Similar to Oysters it would be a new tool for map creation more then a change to the civs.
Allow bridges should probably be a lobby setting though because it might break a lot of old maps.
Not a same thing I think. Being uniquely able to harvest the Oysters (and able to build Bridges) is not a same kind of thing from uniquely having access a supply ship (functionally just a healer unit for ships). They are on different levels.
Having a supply ship, or having a previous version of ship that would be upgraded to a regular, can be a unique thing to a civ, such like a civ that had significantly valued naval logistics or had a interesting naval history in earlier period. You can make it a normal thing to all the civs, of course, and usually it might make sense, but somehow that could be unnecessary, similar to asking the camel scout or camel archer to be a regional unit or asking the charge ability to belong to not only the Coustillier but every melee cavalry.
For the implemented cases like the elephant archer, fire galley, and demolition raft, they did on purpose for: the Indian split (still, not every civ), or the addition for seasoning the bland early water game at the time. Similarly, weâre definitely able to introduce a supply ship as a regular rather than just a UU, but why every civs must need healers on water?
For those civs that have no access to the supply ship, their water game wonât have a deadly flaw because of it, just like you can play without the Turtle ship or Longboat when enemy is the Koreans or Vikings. However, if one can harvest the Oysters or build Bridges while the opponent canât, that is a deadly flaw on balance. Thatâs why they must be included by every single civ fairly.
1 Like
Because Outpost is available from Dark Age. Putting it on 3rd column would be weird.