Leaderboard

I took my sweet time putting the recording together, but I don't think I want to work on this anymore xP

Upgrading to v24 or v26 (or upcoming v27) are both welcome. Just some more Pros and Cons with going with v26, since the choice seems to be v24: Pros: no performance regressions;it's a newer version and mozilla developers could be more involved in helping and improving it;more time to progressively test and find bugs, updating to v27, v28, ... up until v31 is finally released;can be easily patched with test patches if needed;when v31 will be used, comparison will be done against a version as fast as v1.8.5, if using v24 now and upgrading later to v31 it will be faster than v24, but it will be difficult to say if it's faster than v1.8.5.Cons: Linux distro should compile against embedded version. It would better to avoid it, but it's not really a problem, there are other games doing the same, e.g. supertuxkart, see here;it adds more code to svn, there are some other things that could be removed anyway, e.g. bundled enet.Anyway the long term will be v31 with the option of using the system lib. In the meantime... thanks for all the months of work done so far!

The animations should start from the default stand pose, and end with it. But apart from that, it may be quite simple. How long it should be, depends on your feeling. We can easily stretch or shorten an animation (though that also stretches and shortens the first part of the animation). For how animations work: animals (and other units) have different states (roam, feed/idle, attack, flee, ...) for each state, we can define a different set of animations, and play a sound (currently a single sound, but looping sounds should also be possible in the future. So we can play a sound when we switch to attack mode, but we can's play a sound when we switch between two idle variations f.e. As not all idle animations are expected to have the same sound (you can't play the howling sound when the wolf is sleeping), we can't play any sounds. All the other animations will work. They're all states. The attack animation are a bit more difficult, as the engine expects that the attack happens while standing still. So the animation needs to return to its original position. You can take a look at the tiger animation thread, I believe the wolf animation could be a bit the same (if the wolf has the same bones, you don't even need to make an animation for it, the animation can be reused).

Salute. Almin, thanks. There is no problem with a criticism for me. Indeed attack animation is bad. I'll try to improve or discard it and use a new concept. This great model is created and rigged by Micket. I don't work in gaming industry. As I wrote earlier this is the first time I do animations. Sanderd17, understood. Thanks for an explanation. I'll be posting previews of animations and updating archive. Wolf run cycle animation: Wolf idle 01 animation: Wolf idle 02 animation: Improved wolf death animation:

I'd wish to complement Wraitii's, Isdh's and Don's suggestions above. I understand that 0 A.D. is a RTS between AoE and SC. Given the well known premises of the genre, it doesn't pretend to simulate a whole civilization rise from Stone Age to Iron age, nor a tactical mission that takes a mere few hours or weeks to complete. Its scope is in the between. Alright there are technologies to buy, but it's the premise of the genre, as I said. Also, most of the ideas below don't add much "hated" micro-management, because many could be automated and even "invisible" to the player. And I don't mix micro-management (micro-action) for game-awareness (or meta-play?). So, Trees shouldn't regenerate. Not enough time in one game time-frame. Note that Spellforce, a kind of RTS had Elves grow trees to harvest wood and provide cover, but you could say that magic was used.As I suggested elsewhere, you could also quickly destroy trees (for a zero or small income) with citizen soldiers or even mercenaries/champions, to deny the enemy player from using it in the future and force him to buy wood in the market. I called it "scorched land" or "spoiled land" strategy, that was actual warfare.Berry bushes and fruit trees should regenerate. I wouldn't call taking care of that an superfluous micro-management, only a realistic implementation that would grant diversity to the food system. The rest is only a matter of game balance. Lower initial stock and constant slow regenerating rate (one unit at a time)? Periodic blooming (original stock appearing in a few seconds) simulating a harvesting time every several minutes? Needed technology (arboriculture) to simulate the evolution from the early neolithic gatherers?A counter-measure could be the destroying of such bushes/trees. While not productive (when food supply is null), those plants could be harvested to make wood, like normal trees. A security system would prevent the workers AI to harvest them while not micro-managed and ordered to. A second order could even be needed when the worker is on the spot, and the order would be forgotten when the current bush/tree is cut down and harvested.It would be possible to deprive the enemy player from a near future berry harvesting, and to harvest wood without a market when the last normal tree was chopped down and you still need a last batch of wood (what a desperate situation!). It would free space to build as currently.Mines shouldn't regenerate, but maybe, technology could emulate new veins finding or better mining techniques. This would partly refill the mine(s). You could imagine a "once for all" technology buy, or a "building-bound" upgrade buy (like in American Conquest), or both (the technology unlocking the individual upgrades). You could have such refilling technology periodically available (with cool-down) or only used once (or more if historical staggered technologies). Basically, technology and upgrades would cost much wood and some metal, food and time (virtual workers upgrading the mine).You could condition such civ. special like the Laurion Silver (Athenians) to the possession of at least one functional ore mine when the "technology" is bought (or a political decision is voted). Also, the mine object could stay even when depleted, just to add diversity to the landscape. It would be impassable terrain but you could build over it (deleting it).Why not, you could also have a very slow regenerating rate that would be enough for one worker (in upgraded rich mines) in the end game, abit in the same way depleted mines in American Conquest would still provide a small income. Even if good players wouldn't care this micromanagement, it would add some life in the towns...Why not, mines, even non depleted ones, could be permanently razed to deny the enemy player its income, or to build an important building when you lack space. Only workers units (citizen) (and siege units?) could hack it and that would take a lots of time, more than destroying a building anyways (you wouldn't destroy the mine buildings only, you would sap, fill, flood all the galleries (even if some could be open-sky).Corralled animals, while costing food (maybe only diminishing the food amount they provide on slaughter?) or land, should have an advantage over hunting. Granted current living horses decrease current cost of cavalry (or does the total number of corralled horses permanently decrease that cost?), and corralled animals are "stored" food resource you denied the enemy player from using it, you can capture and use at will (as in AoM). Should it have some effects, corralled animal could be used to lower the vegetable/meat ratio when hunting has depleted the area.Both corralled horses and sheep could have a chance to reproduce in the game time-frame. (elephants too?). This is obviously the historical reason why neolithic populations did corral animals.Corralled animals could grow larger/healthier and provide more food than hunting (like in AoM if I recall). This contradicts with the former proposal of a food upkeep but it could be seen as one of protein resources, should it be of value, again.Corralled animals or more precisely corral buildings with animal inside, would produce automatically a small food income (animal proteins as far as the ratio is concerned), simulating dairy products and young cattle meat (with no micro-management). This income could be a fix growing rate (the more animals captured, the larger the rate) or a slowly decreasing rate, regenerated each time a new animal is corralled.Fish: I like the non-linear regeneration, but over-fishing should be a danger. Maybe there is a way to add some diversity here too (granted, fishing is already a particular food resource management per self):Micro-managing could be mandatory, even with a non linear regeneration rate: after some time of over-fishing in a depleted spot (slowly regenerating, then), the spot could suddenly and permanently disappear.This kind of resources could eventually but still seldom appear during a game at random position but usually far from the lands (the coastal areas being first exploited). This could be a boon for a lucky player, and add some (welcomed?) randomness in well known maps.Should the food income from fish diminish the longer the fishing boat has to sail to the port, or do we consider salt as a well known and used food preservative (used on board)? Maybe a technology could (partly) alleviate the preservation problem?Farm fields, as it was said, should be larger proportionally to the other buildings and no overlapping with each other. Also, the number of workers should be limited (to be honest, I don't know whether it is already the case).Maybe a technology could allow to add one or more workers per field.I liked it very much the way time would be spent to "build" a field and wait for the first harvest (as in American Conquest).Most importantly, I'd like to see seasonal harvest, or simply field depletion and regeneration if you prefer, as in American Conquest. I don't see it as an unwanted micro-management, but as a core strategy for some civs. If you consider a game time-frame may exceed one year, then you need workers in the fields until harvest is completed. That's not the case in AoE, and even if AoE is the main source of inspiration for 0 A.D., that don't prevent from making the system better (as in more interesting or subtle). If you don't care about planned harvesting, then go for mercenaries and champions (who live out of the pile of food and the market). That would even make a real difference between them and elite citizen (I play with Alpha 13). Also when you destroy an enemy field, it may be only a minor drawback for a rich opponent, whereas it should cost a year of production in real life. The mere fighting in/on a field should damage it a little (think about those cavalry depredation during the spring and early summer).

Oh right, nice bonus. I'll make it technology modifiable right away. We can have range-based bonuses now, but they're on-off bonuses. Not something like more bonus for closer entities. Because to would just be too difficult to constantly check those ranges and send messages around everywhere. That said, I'd more prefer just de-bonusing farms near the CC, just for the sake of simplicity.

That certainly looks good. It would indeed be more realistic to give combo bonuses and it gives an extra level of planning and building. Wouldn't it be implemented in vanilla then certainly it should be tested in a mod. Regarding to the bonus shown: you already get range bonuses, in the same way you could display other bonuses.

Maybe we shouldn't be focusing on giving penalties on building farms near civ-centers, but give bonusses to building other building close to civ-centers... e.g. a market gains value if it's build close to a civ-center, a barracks trains units with a little xp or at a faster rate (could depend on civ), houses near civ-centers could be a little higher (apartments) and have an extra +1 pop ... That is far more realistic. There are no penalties on having a farm in the city (once you own the land), but as a center it is beneficial for trade, recruitment and there is a big demand for housing. So my bonus-instead-of-penalty proposition: Barracks: -Increased training rate (easier to find new recruits in a city) Blacksmith: -Decreased cost for tech (cities attract merchants) Dock: -Trade value bonus (cities attract merchants) House: -A +x pop (apartments) Market: -Trade value bonus (cities attract merchants) Temple: -no bonus? Corral, Farmstead, Field, Fortress, Wonder, Defense buildings & Special buildings: -no bonus This would be much more realistic and have the same effect. If you want to have protected fields, that's fine, but you could've used that space for better things. The bonus could be shown when placing a building. When very close it would show (+10% value) a bit further it might say (+5% value). Maybe the building could color green if it would get a bonus.

In my opinion it's completely unacceptable to have such a big part of the game as the scripting engine frozen and tied to one specific version. Any kind of issue we face will require more or less ugly workarounds or forking of SpiderMonkey 1.8.5. Developing a Javascript Engine is not what we want and forking will be a painful, pointless and stuck approach. We won't be able to use new features of the Javascript language, we won't get bugs fixes for the cloning problem, the OOS problems or other problems we currently solve with workarounds or face in the future. Especially now that we are so much closer to the upgrade (my WIP patch is now only about 4000 lines long, compared to more than 24 000 lines a few months ago), stopping the upgrade would be complete nonsense. I think AI threading would work without the upgrade. GC could be improved in the future but we will only really know that when/if it happens. I just found this link. There's a short descriptions of what GGC (Generational Garbage Collection) should improve.

Regardless of who and when they took advantage, the Sasanian Empire was still a legitimate empire from 224 to 651

If you don't have much land inside your walls to farm, then you won't produce enough food to survive the attacks even with infinite farms. If you do have a lot of land, then you should be able to last for awhile. It's really the gather speed that matters most for balance purposes.

Would be really nice if we made the new unit animations in Blender so we could edit the source files easily.

Yes, that's why i'm trying to contact NoMolester, the leader of the Mod. I cannot propose the faction i wish to propose because i didn't receive his approval.

Sarracens

The obstructions can be less, but it cause bigger obstructions sizes (or nothing). You can try it with the fence. If you enable the pathfinder overlay in Atlas, you can place a fence so it makes no single tile "unpassable". If you place a row fences like this, you'll see strange results. The long range pathfinder will think everything is passable, and will just path your units through the fences, but when you come close, the short range pathfinder kicks in (which is more precise), and finds no short path through or around it. This results in the long-range pathfinder kicking in, and returning the same path (as there are no obstructions as far as it can see). This goes into a few loops, until the pathfinders finally give up. Now, with fences placeable in Atlas, the map designer has some power over it. He can make sure it marks some tiles as "unpassable", or he can make sure the row of fences isn't too long (so the short range one finds a way around it). But when you allow these types of objects as buildable in game, certainly when they're used because of their obstruction, it can cause real problems. The same with gates. If the gap of the gate is too small, the sides could trigger two adjacent tiles to be marked as unpassable. That would make it impossible to open the gate decently. For the resolution of the height map, a tile is a 4x4 square when projected along the (upward - in this game) y axis. It's a grid, where every point can be given a different y coordinate. So no, you can't have terrains going straight up. As for changing the resolution to 1x1, that shouldn't be too hard to do if the code is made a bit decently, but you have to think about the pathfinder implications again. Currently, a Tiny map is 128 patches (a patch is something like 8x8 tiles), and a Giant map is 512 patches. So setting the tile size to 1x1 instead of 4x4 would make the pathfinder on Tiny maps just as slow as it is now on Giant maps, and I don't want to imagine what it would lag it would cause on new Giant maps. It's understandable, as for most operations, it will have to check 16x as many tiles to create a path. That being said, Philip is working on a new pathfinder, the main purpose of his work is to give the long and the short range pathfinder the same behaviour (so you don't get that strange fence issue). To do that, he has to work with a more precise grid of 1x1, so in that case, smaller obstructions, more precise heightmaps, and all those things could work.

I've just committed some WIP changes to aegis, which should work with Yves' changes but haven't been extensively debugged, so please report errors that could come up and weird behavior. It should fix an error in the economy (the AI didn't actually care about full resources) so that should improve the econ a fair bit. The defense manager is being rewritten from scratch too so that could change, right now I think it's a little worse than it was before, but it's all WIP. I've removed older AIs too.

I agree , i was open thinking in you. I know you enjoy like me thinking in a exotic culture that nobody never meet or know.And other Historical. The Guptas are relate with white Huns. Someday we can appreciate Yamato and Han cultures in the game. And may be early Mayans and other Mesoamerican and southamerican cultures.

Just so you know, this one is going to be next to completely impossible to tile thanks to that big fat black cloud up there I still need to separate the three slides, but I think this one will be fun