Leaderboard

Stronghold crusader handled this sort of thing beautifully Oases were crucial, and the land you have around your castle greatly affected the style of gameplay, and the economic gameplay was amazingly pliable Market rates were fixed, therefore having only one claim to a strategic resource was less efficient, but it was an option for instance, if you have no oases around, and you had Iron or stone, you could sell it for food, and the iron would allow you to build a powerful weapons for a domestic army, while if there was plenty of oasis but no iron, you could hire a slew of arabian mercenaries by selling food

Hi All, So I've recently downloaded the Pyrogenesis Engine after scouting around for various Open Source RTS engines to try and develop a game on. I'm trying to implement this engine for a 3D RTS in the likes of Homeworld, but I'm realizing that the Pathfinding and unit motion is dependent on a 2D Plane, and it seems like the only thing that affects a unit's position in Z-space (or I guess in this engine Y is the height) is basically the terrain mapping. Has anyone dug deep enough into Pathfinding to help me out and point me to where to start? I'f I'm trying to completely re-do Path Finding to allow freedom of motion in the height dimension, where do I start? Am I right that the height of a unit's path is designated by the terrain? I don't need anyone to do my work for me, as it would ruin the learning experience. I just want to know how the Unit Motion controls flow in relation to Pathfinding and Terrain? Cheers! Found some decent hints on ICmpPosition.cpp

This may be useful for the game, but I rather create an off-topic thread so that Off-Topic can be a repository for scholarly research and studies. Below is an excerpt of the full article. It seems that Ptolemy IV's war elephants are inbred African Savannah Elephants. For the full article, see the source below: http://www.igb.illinois.edu/news/war-elephant-myths-debunked-dna

As I said before: how is infinite farms unrealistic??? You reseed seeds, you tend them and voila (easier to say than do xD) You don't need 'wood' to rebuild a farm every so often! You need wood to build the farmstead once, you need wood to repair tools and for certain plants (e.g. tomatos but they didn't have those yet I think) If your farm (and tools etc.) is destroyed, you will need wood (and time) to rebuild the farm. But as long as it doesn't get destroyed you don't. You've been playing AoE 2 too much I think (where wood suddenly transformed into seeds to grow plants that weren't trees...)

Basically, yes. However is up to the map designer to place them (or not) to make a balanced map. This means that in a map with very little amounts of trees it would be nice to place fertile lands far away from wood, so you have to make a decision where to expand, instead of having a one-way to win for expanding. Naturally, a good map designer would place fertile lands near water, big quarries between mountains, etc... To give them more realistic context.

I'd prefer having some kind of quarries and fertile portions of land that can give you a boost in mining or farming that are placed in the map where de designer wants. This will make these portions of land valuable to fight for them or keep in your territory without having to reivent how mining and farming works. This boost doesn't mean that it will grant you the victory, but it should be enough benefit for the player to conquer. I don't like the idea of having garrisoned workers... This way you cannot stop their mining production with troops, because you'll need to destroy the mine to do so, and that breaks the meaning of raids

There are quite a few vendors of computers with installed Linux, to answer your question: http://linuxpreloaded.com/ Not that you actually need to - but yes, it's possible.

The height of units is controlled by cmpPosition. Basically, UnitMotion changes the 2D coordinates of an entity, and then registers it in the Position component. When you then query the 3D position of the unit, the height is automatically calculated from information s.a the height offset, the terrain height and the water plain height. This position it's then used to render the entity. In the scripts, there is a UnitMotionFlying component that allows planes to change height. Though that component is used without pathfinder, and it's just a test.

what you think about attached buildings?I think is best solución to upgrade a existent building. Example Terran Civ in Starcraft many buildings have one to gets one kind bonus or units. We can have a Advanced Farmstead with a water mill. Or storehouse with attached Mine or Lumbercamp or logg camp.

Go watch Red Cliff!! Lol, jokes aside, you can look at all the film sets used in all the Romance of the Three Kingdoms dramas. If you copy and paste 漢朝建築 on Google images, which is Chinese for Han Dynasty Architecture, it should come up with pics of reconstructions. EDIT: Added concept for the temple. It probably won't be appropriate until part 2 though, since Buddhism hadn't spread to China until around 68AD.

To me the main argument pro having infinite farms is that it removes micromanagement in the late game: when you have to manage up to 300 units it can make a big difference if you have to go back to your farmers to make sure that your farms haven't run fallow. It could of course be slightly lessened with a reseed queue like in AoK:TC, but you would still have to keep checking back to make sure it wasn't empty. Another way to do it would of course be to make the reseeding automatic, however that would remove the direct control from the user (minor issue true, but infinite farms doesn't have that issue). A question: do you actually want to influence the game or just argue a theoretical point? If the latter that's fine, but you have to forgive others for understanding it as being about the actual game and argue accordingly. If the former it would be beneficial to your cause if you would allow the discussion to be relevant to the game and not just include the arguments you personally deem relevant. I'll say what I've said before and most likely will say again: This is a game, not a simulation. Or in other words: We have to consider things both from a historical point of view and a gameplay point of view, and it's the latter which is predominant. And just to illustrate that it's not just my own personal opinion allow me to quote from the official vision document that has been guiding 0 A.D. for years: and more specifically: Now, I'm not a native English speaker, so allow me to deconstruct the above sentence. "The point laymans terms", I assume you mean "The point in layman's terms", which definitely is understandable, but seeing as you argue about language it merits being mentioned. "The point [...] is the way we interact in a strategic way against either AI or humans." So in other words, the point of your arguments is that we interact strategically with either AIs or humans and that it's important to you that this interaction is historically accurate?

I don't think we are getting anywhere. The decision to change farms to infinite resources was made recently and is unlikely to be reversed, though feel free to keep debating here if you wish. (AoM had infinite farms, also Warcraft 3 != WoW)

Truth in me when said the farms the only thing is missing is a small wall bigger than a fence and smaller than a city Wall. But I mean stone wall , not palisade. And may be the second have options with advance farming plant trees (Apple tree) and give other bonus and it counter bonus.

Film about wolves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWmOtXSAr1M