All Activity

Rome Stable and Range:

Really? I don't remember this, I usually play RTS in maximum difficulty (I remember SC2 on Brutal had some challenging scenarios, as it should be), and still I thought Normal in 0 A.D. wasn't the usual Normal. I doubt it's my imagination, newbies have mentioned this plenty of times, and even the game itself states "the default AI level is quite challenging for new players", which shouldn't be necessary to state if it was a normal Normal.

But in this step I try to create this account. but the registration does not work.

Triumph Arch and Vesta temple:

I remember the "Medium" Age of Kings AI. Let's just say that it wasn't medium at all, more of a "git gud" test of your skills. I see our "Medium" AI in the same light.

The AI has improved, but it's not "too difficult", I've won my last couple of Matches on Very Hard, and I suck at playing, I have never seen a video of what to actually do, and I don't care at all about mechanical playing really, I just boom the economy, build defenses, and then attack, all quite slowly. Now, it could be that Normal is indeed too difficult for newbies, but I disagree that this means, as mentioned somewhere else, that the AI or the game are intrinsically too difficult, the issue would be just with labelling. I think that what is artificially labelled as Normal should be equivalent to Normal in other RTS, if the idea is to be friendly with newbies, otherwise it seems to me just a pretentious semantic problem. Level naming has to be adjusted to RTS players, all of them, not just the vast minority that play competitive online matches (something I see as a recurring issue with this game). One could then keep adding levels anyway if more range is needed, to give a challenge to everyone (Extremely Easy/Hard, etc), and the most pros can always try their luck with a 1v7.

This didn't look right to me, so I checked: that's not a real Maya symbol, but a Mayanism one (New Age stuff), funnily enough based on an Aztec symbol. You can see the original Aztec one on page 13 of this scan of the Codex Magliabechiano: https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/289019?v=pdf

Do you still need answers? Has there been a discussion about preferred units somewhere? Just a few things in the meantime. Regarding the great Gupta emperors, all were warriors and patrons of learning, giving them auras with combat and maybe tech speed bonuses. For their differences: -Chandra-gupta I: founder of the empire, unified territory through marriage, followed by conquest. Maybe capture bonus (since diplomacy mechanics are not that complex). -Samudra-gupta: the conqueror, put in place a great army, which probably included a navy. More combat, and military production speed bonuses. -Chandra-gupta II: patron of learning, similar to the previous one, but maybe the greatest. Brought to maturity the empire. Production or more tech speed bonuses. -Skanda-gupta: protector of the empire, successful against invasions, considered the last of the greats. Maybe structure's arrow count bonus. As an alternative, Aryabhata I: famous thinker (math, astronomy, physics), if having these non-combat heroes is a thing. Could greatly accelerate tech research speed when garrisoning a building. It’s hard for me not to give importance to the learning advances in this period, which I can only translate to tech research speed in the game (maybe could be balanced by having lots of techs to research). The Nalanda mahavihara could be a related unique structure, possibly a Wonder. Another unique structure could be the Delhi Iron Pillar, and the Aśvamedha ritual a unique tech (both could increase Hero/emperor’s stats).

The only issue with Neapolis is that it is a very Hellenized town. There are some similar situations with the Saka (Eastern Scythians), notably Chirik-Rabat, a fortified town with Chorasmian architecture.

I don't think this is a problem to have various designs, and I believe the proposal of @wowgetoffyourcellphone is justified. We need to have a flexible concept, sometimes we'll want to represent a people or a civilization from a specific period, sometimes a nation, sometimes an empire, and sometimes a dynasty. We just need to be clear about it and explain it well in the civ's design. Edit: And it’s really good to finally start thinking about what comes next. I felt like this 'Empires Besieged' expansion was constantly being put off until tomorrow, and that people were refusing to give it any thought. It’s clear that not thinking about it creates problems for the expansion’s design, and that we really need to lay the groundwork now, despite the lack of leadership.

Well, since there's Han and Mauryans and not just Chinese and Indians, it seems to me this has been the path the game has been taking for a while, whenever possible (for Britons, Germans and Iberians is a bit more complicated but maybe at some point enough information will be gathered to instead have at least a couple of representative tribes from each). Sasanians and Parthians, also Persian empires, for sure will make an appearance at some point in the base game, so a change from Persians to Achaemenids seems a necessity.

It's how the follow player works, the only info it has are the actions taken by the player not the actual camera movements. Storing that would be much more costly.

I voted for, but does this mean the game is pivoting away from including "Civilizations" to including "Empires"? For example, we had Hellenic civilization before, but it was split into nation-states and later Greek "empires".

Yeah, but in my opinion a Wonder should ideally be a particular structure, which should be the name of the Wonder, instead of a generic "Kurgan" (if regarded as more inspiring, which I can see why). This also would guide better how it should look like. And should be. For sure it was maintained (which I doubt for kurgans, mainly after a few years). These damaged versions I'd leave for the future for, well, damaged buildings.

This is indeed a better example and a good question/remark. Just adding food for thought, the Gallic Wonder based on the Sanctuary of Corent is not clean and fresh: So maybe it is a general issue in how 0 A.D. portrays the ancient civilizations.

The account "tata12" is not registered. So if you tried to log in with that user account, that's probably the reason why it's not working, even though you should get a different error message in that case.

To make emphasis on the "civ" decal's heres an example of gauls dirt rocky ground decal vs rome cobblestone decal:

Mmm... A structure which inspires little wonder, honestly.

I propose we change the "Persians" in the game to "Achaemenids" to differentiate from other Persian empires (one of the likely civs for 'Empires Besieged' would be the Sasanians, another Persian empire). This would entail a lot of changes under the hood, but mainly to just XML files and some jsons, file name changes, etc. I could take care of the pull request for it. Just trying to gauge from the group if anyone would have any objections. This is in the Development forum due to it requiring a large Pull Request to change it (again, a PR I'm willing to personally take responsibility for).

@Genava55 the point obviously is, as noted before, how something looks when it's freshly built. I mentioned the Colossus because it's a Wonder that came to mind that changed quite fast, thus the distinction between earthquakes and grass is quite irrelevant considering what the actual point is. And no, it was not "completely destroyed", it remained in the ground for centuries, still in its way a wonder, in words of Pliny the Elder: "even as it lies, it excites our wonder and admiration". But if earthquakes distract you so much, then another example more aligned to the grass issue: should the Statue of Liberty (assuming a game reaching the modern age) be built with the green patina already on it? Might look familiar, but it's inaccurate, which has been the point all along. Now, another issue is, is the Wonder some generic kurgan? Because yes, some had pebbles, others not, so maybe it should be decided first which kurgan in particular should be represented (the largest?), and if it never had pebbles to begin with then there's not much discussion to be had, I think. Personally I might have gone for the mausoleum of Skilurus (which seems more unique).

Yeah, let's have a gravel surface one for the Wonder, since it's built by the player and is supposedly "maintained" by their people. And then we have a grass covered one for a map "ruins" object.

Seems to work:

This is an absurd comparison and you know it. On one hand, the Colossus of Rhodes fell due to an earthquake, and the Rhodians refused to rebuild it because of an oracle. On the other hand, the overgrowth of a kurgan with grass is a natural process that occurs in all cases if the monument is not maintained several times a year. In your example, the Colossus of Rhodes is completely destroyed. In the case of the kurgan modeled with grass covering it, it is still functional. We are comparing a natural disaster with an ordinary process. Furthermore a process that was difficult to stop. A kurgan is not something similar to a Greek monument. First of all, this stone covering is not found on all kurgans. Multiple kurgans are simply covered with clumps of earth. One should not assume that it was standard practice to cover a kurgan with a stone shell. In fact, this is most common in certain regions. But even when vegetation had overgrown the gravel surface, this was a common occurrence in the Scythian landscape. Most of the kurgan mounds still standing were in this condition. In any case, I’m not opposed to using a gravel surface. I also think it will look better. Once again, I’m criticizing a specific line of reasoning.

Perhaps reverse prop order in the structure's actor.

Yes there was dirt decal texture, but for some reason it gets over the cobblestone, so i need to check if it is any vertical offset i can add to the cobblestone layer so it won't get undearneath the dirt one.