0 A.D. Art Team
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LordGood last won the day on March 15

LordGood had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,365 Excellent


About LordGood

  • Rank
    Professional Pony
  • Birthday 07/12/1994

Previous Fields

  • First Name
  • Last Name

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Ancient to medieval history, namely military architecture.
    and way out of left field comes the My Little Ponies!

Recent Profile Visitors

1,744 profile views
  1. Ignesio Felechosa, he's on ArtStation?
  2. Get rid of the material, the textures are already applied in game over the UV maps. The UV maps are part of the mesh, not the material
  3. yes, make sure only the object you want to export and the prop empties are selected on export. also, remove any attached materials
  4. There are multiple exported objects, or else the object has a material attached. Be sure to only select what you want to export, and in the .dae exporter check the 'selected only' box. at least, that's what I think the problem is
  5. I would personally set it to 1 per tree. Can you imagine two guys swinging axes that close together? Scary groves do add a lot of opportunity, I'll have to admit
  6. this could balance out the speed discrepancy between infantry units, so skirmishers aren't so far ahead in gather rates from pikemen.
  7. There is a middle ground, it just takes some fine tuning to realize. Gathering cavalry is not the issue here, its the snowball effect of cavalry gathering the resources necessary to make yet more cavalry in such a way that doesn't hamper economic growth. Another easy fix would be making cavalry take up two pop slots and giving them a slight combat buff and price hike to compensate. Else make them cost a resource that skews village phase gathering. There are several ways to go about fixing the problems presented that dont involve dismantling playstyles. A good question to ask is how extreme can we make our changes before we alienate our current player base? I don't bring this up over something as remedial as pushing raiding cavalry a phase forward, but you seem to have a distaste for citizen soldiers on a whole, which is one of the standout gameplay features of 0 AD.
  8. the end result is the same, be forced into annoying micromanagement, or fall behind.
  9. it rewards micromanagement, which would mean competitive players wouldn't build slow fields and new players would be forced to do so as well to stay on par. Which would mean slow fields would be redundant outside of campaigns and casual single player games. it'd be a no from me
  10. A perfect square would be accurate but it may muddy recognition, since the standard civic center is a plaza with a rectangular building. A large square building with a courtyard and small windows could easily be interpreted as a fortress at first glance. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to try it both ways.
  11. I'm getting settled into a new computer, once I have my workspace all set up I'll come back to this and kush
  12. The stripes indicating rank are at the top left corner of the unit portrait
  13. 'Chu talkin 'bout? 0 AD does have a unit experience system that levels units up to veteran and elite ranks as they fight.
  14. Stronghold used signposts on castle builder maps to indicate where units would spawn
  15. perhaps we could make the kushites the only civ that can build several less potent and more affordable wonders? otherwise we end up with a wonder vaccuum