Leaderboard

It is neat to see a form of auras back in the game. They were once a huge part of the game design's strategy for play. It was something that really was intended to separate 0 A.D. from being an Age of clone, it also adds more real time tactical depth rather than just masses of brainless fodder being waypointed around the map (like I see in a lot of 0 A.D. youtube videos today). This game wasn't intended to be be won by "they who click their mouse fastest" but rather "they that thinks and strategically out maneuvers their opponents". Auras were key to this idea and implemented in the game at one time, but were never re-added after a rewrite about 8 or so years ago. More info on their intent and purpose: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/XML.Entity.Traits.Auras Back in the day, auras were only represented by a simply player color vector ring when an entity was selected. Morale and stamina (running/charging) were two other aspects to the game that were once fully functional that we lost in that same rewrite... I still morn this loss to this day

hum just remember that sword are good against building right now. If you see 40 sword cav rushing on your CC you can start to panic and defend. For the rest, because it will change very soon (on alpha 18) I don't want to tell you any mistakes.

maybe we can have a hotkey for an alternate view (IE ranges, obstructions, etc) like some games have

What about an additional single color alpha blending for units effected by an aura (different colors for different aurae)? Hotkeys for the max range rings should toggle IMO. I think stamina would indeed be of much value for the game (e.g. for melee charging and/or stamina share as a realistic bonus for formations).

Planned cities were often square, organic cities were often star-shaped. It doesn't depend a lot on the age or civilisation (though some civs tend to plan more, and others tend to have a more organic structure). I do think that star-shaped layouts would fit better with 0 A.D., just because the territories are more or less a circle around the base. So starting the first circular territory with civil buildings, and the subsequent with more millitary buildings, you'll automatically get some sort of star-shaped layout. So it's a good evolution. However, I do think about one modification. Normally, in star-shaped layouts, the buildings face the road or path leading to the centre, they don't face the centre directly (apart from the buildings in the inner circle around the centre). So if you know where your virtual roads are, you could rotate the buildings to that side. And a major problem with star-shaped layouts is that you always have those pointy buildings at the end. They're impossible to simulate in 0 A.D. But I guess the result would look good enough even without those pointy buildings.

allow buildings in neutral area. They are kinda seeds of a settlements. Dropsites fit in this list too - not the elephant. And they need support infrastructure like houses or towers for shelter. Also, that spends a clear bot start command: Build a settlement, if there is none, repeat if resources low. Problematic part of these are that most do not have a territorial influence (meaning that they would decay over time and do not have an area around them where you can build other buildings. the CC is rather expensive I think to use for a starting position of a settlement (unless you make them larger but then we're back with the problem stated in the TS). The dock would be the most ideal center if it weren't for it's restriction to the shore.

This has been thought about but isn't trivial to implement. We'll get to it someday.

Some comments: You might have done this already but you should probably separate each field to use an adaptative height like we do with farm trees. Everything I've seen about terraced rice farms suggests it looks more like a "step pyramid" than what you've done so far. I would try making it more regular and have more elements to make "thinner" rice fields (if you had 7 stages instead of 3, it'd probably look a lot better) I suggest you reduce the height of your walls a lot. On flat ground, it should basically look like a single, big water field, but shouldn't come out of the ground much. I would also try using the "adaptative height" feature to make it look like a single field on flat terrain. Basically have several terraces, but put them slightly below the water line (on flat ground). If there is some elevation, they will come up and be seen, but on flat ground it'll look like this. My suggestion is to think of it like a step pyramid: the lowest terrace should be the size of the whole thing, then each subsequent level slightly smaller. The rice itself looks somewhat fine but I'd make sure it looks less square-ish.

He is quite right the square city idea was the result of 17th and 18th century surveying technology before that laying out a straight line over long distances was just not done as people built just about anywhere they wanted no zoning laws apart from don't aggravate the nobility And no ancient city had regular street grids with the possible exception of Chinese ones as they made defence of the city during a siege and probable defeat at the walls quite problematic random streets helped in the defence. Enjoy the Choice

Thanks a lot! Ill have a good think about that. Any unit specifics?

I think the formations will fix this when pathfinder and formations concept will be reworked. There are lot of changes for A18 , so the answer will be asked after you test it. For A17 the ranged units are very superior in mass than melee units, especially archers.

Could do square citiies for Successors and Romans.

The civ info panels need much new designing anyway.

I support the idea of having a hotkey to show range effects only when they're necessary, and at the same time subtly highlighting entities that are being affected. historic_bruno summarizes the different cases very well.