Leaderboard

The launcher can now deal with xdotool on Linux. xdotool can move windows, sends keystrokes and mouse clicks, works quite reliable. Also I found glc allows to capture OpenGL windows. Launcher.py is now at github. Here a video showing why this toolchain was needed. It shows Hannibal launching two miner groups and a scout. At tick #10 it switches to SimRate 20. It took some time to make the video caps running, so here the script to save anybody else interested some headache: ## launch 0 A.D. per python script with autostart captureglc-capture --start --fps=30 --resize=1.0 --disable-audio --out=pyro.glc ./launcher.py## convert captured byte stream into mp4glc-play pyro.glc -o - -y 1 | avconv -i - -an -y pyro.mp4## remove 15 secs with black frames at startavconv -i pyro.mp4 -codec copy -ss 15 -y pyro01.mp4## move mp4 header from end to start for better streamingqt-faststart pyro01.mp4 pyro02.mp4## checkmplayer pyro02.mp4

HI, sry, that I didnt load up an video about the Problem. But in the moment it is realy stressfull in my work, so I hadnt enough time to make a video. But it will come soon.

Starcfraft 2 have some nice modes. Called Challenges, but for this one we need triggers

Wait!! that is not my suggestion. I am talking about a once-buildable-unit each time player has nothing else. Not an always-buildable unit like the elephant worker. Because that would destroy the advantage and the variety of the game by making mauryans mainstream. I am talking about a basket or maybe a cart unit or bovine like you suggest that costs nothing or very little resources and can only be one at once in every no CC situations. Only one . Free or very very cheap. Only buildable if the CC is down. For every civ. If the last one is still alive you can't build another one.

Yes, here I am Japanese, and I like Gỏi cuốn, or summer roll, it tastes good!

..sure, it sounds realistic that testudo reduces pierce attack. But: - how to balance this? Other civs would need a similar advantage. - testudo is a defensive formation, but it also has the same attack advantage (bug) as syntagma or phalanx. Realistically attack should decrease when in testudo.

Yep, you need both the xml and pmp. The PMP file has all the terrain data.

@ Usac: My understanding from Strong's concordance is that the word "rakkab" mainly refers to chariot personnel, whereas the term I used, "rekeb", refers primarily to the chariot vehicles themselves, which is what I intended. I could be incorrect, though, so further details in favour of the term "rakkab" would be appreciated.

That emblem looks incredible, Lion! I'm very impressed!

Yes, svn is a good solution without a bugfix 16.1 .. Want to add here that running both (a16 + a17 svn) lobbies simultanously is possible with different accounts. Just ask one of the mods when creating a 2nd account and mark it as your svn account somehow. Eg I use z and z_svn, Tux has SVNTUX .. ATM its pretty lonely in the svn lobby, so please join.

Standard tower on the left, updated version on the right. Changes: - Bigger shooting range - Shoots bullets instead of arrows. Bullets go further than arrows and take more hitpoints but are fired in a slower interval -Gets a nice plataform and a roof window. I think the castle should be updated in the same way, now using firearms, same texture changing and plataform and roof window additons.

Techs that trade unit stats are the techs I feel should be paired. i.e. you get it and it locks you away from the other. Any tech that only gives a straight up bonus or boost should not be paired in my opinion.

Because wheelbarrow is a boost for every resource. Harvesters will almost have to move some distance to drop sites. Don't get me wrong guys I think pairing up techs can be very interesting. It's just that some techs aren't meant to be paired whereas other pairs can add a huge amount of diversity to the game. Adding expensive techs which also give a substantial boost (ie making it a huge investment with in return, huge dividends) can add so much to the strategic aspect of the game.

There's "rush" and "all-in". If you rush him and you only succeed at doing enough damage that the game is equalized with neither player ahead (quite likely if a player is a strong defensive macro player), then the "rush" player shouldn't be penalized because he doesn't have access to good techs later on. A good player doesn't rush to win, he will rush to get an advantage off guard, or to penalize a player who is focusing too much on economy in the early game. It doesn't even matter if it's rush or not. Limiting the techs you can get through pairing means that you will only see players use strategies that rely on the stronger tech. Players will never choose the weaker tech (for instance wood gathering in A16) because there's simply no reason to. Pairing techs like this only limits the amount of strategic diversity in the game. It doesn't add anything except for forcing players not to use the weaker tech. Which is basically taking away from the game. This problem is somewhat alleviated as you mentioned, through the use of tiers. The question I'm asking is why tier at all? Just unlock all techs which give straight up bonuses (Blacksmith and Storehouse techs) and use pairing techs to make each Civ unique. You could for example, give the Hellenic states the ability to choose between Hoplites with higher attack in exchange for training time (just Hoplites, to make things interesting) OR better armor in exchange for attack. Celts, for example, could choose between giving their berserkers more attack in exchange for less armor OR having all their cav move slightly faster in exchange for HP. There are lots of stats to play with. You could exchange fire rate for longer training, things like that. There's also building time in exchange for building HP. If you give different pairing techs to different civs, you not only get unique civs but you also get unique play-styles. A Celtic player who wants to raid a lot will prefer to get the cavalry speed. A Celtic player who wants to fight straight will get berserkers upgrade. That sort of thing.

I don't really see the point of specialization other than forcing a player down a tech route and preventing him from making the transition to something more suited to a situation. eg if I'm brits and I want to mass slingers early on, I get the stone upgrade. this upgrade becomes "useless" later on when I wanna get metal units. you're not really forcing specialization by forcing players to choose between stone and metal, you're just forcing people not to get the overall inferior upgrade. for example, there's NO reason to get wood chopping since wheelbarrow is a bonus to every resource. that's not specialization, you're just making techs useless. you get more strategic diversity with powerful upgrades that can all be researched. basically, it's impossible to research everything early on so strategies will revolve around a few choice techs. however, as the game progresses, players can get access to what they skipped early on due to their strategy. not having paired techs and also making techs more powerful and expensive at the same time also means that players are open to a new way of playing: upgrade heavy. a player who wants to boom will try to get as many economic upgrades as he can asap, while relying on minimal defense with units. he can do that to the detriment of his ability to pressure his opponent for example. his opponent, on the other hand, can choose to skip getting expensive upgrades early on and focus on getting out lots of units to pressure a booming player. as he does damage, he gets an advantage and can use that advantage to "get more ahead" by getting the expensive upgrades himself for example. the more techs you have, and the stronger they are, the more you're open to possible strategies. that is true strategic depth and it's something that should be developed in an RTS, particularly 0 AD which has a complex economy, which means you're looking at a strategic abyss. that's a GOOD thing. it's kind of like aoe3, where you would choose the shipments to send. what shipments you would send would define your strategy. e.g. early resources for a quick economic boost that is relevant only early game. or you can get quick hunting if you're using a civ that is food reliant. or, you can choose to upgrade your units if you're looking for prolonged age 2 warfare. shipments in aoe3 added a huge amount of strategic depth to the game, to the point where it defined strategy in aoe3. With good techs, interesting techs which are expensive (eg a big investment) yet powerful (they're quite relevant when they're researched) would open up a lot of viable play-styles. booming, rushing, teching, containing and so on. for example one possible strat we currently have is researching citizen infantry really fast. you then get better units than your opponent, however your upgrade takes a hit. you have to use that window of time where your units are stronger but your eco is weaker to deal a lot of damage to your opponent. there's an example of tech that defines strategy. it's really good! it's interesting! it's one of the reasons 0 AD's core design is so good! tl;dr, I don't agree with you at all Edit: I mean here, let's come back to my brits example. imagine I want to slinger rush Well, a stone upgrade would be a boost to my rush. however since overall, the stone upgrade isn't as good as getting the metal upgrade, I'm not going to bother with my slinger rush. i'll just do something else. you see? there's a potential strategy right there (slingers are unique in that they're 100% anti-infantry, so you can't compare a slinger rush to a skirm rush for example), but it has to be laid aside because later in the game, when i've transitioned out of the rush, I won't get the metal upgrade. Because I chose to do my slinger rush, i've actually penalized myself. some people might look at that and say "look, you see, there's an important choice to make there". but that's not true. what's really happening is that "look, he can't slinger rush at all, he's an idiot for doing so because he's going to penalize his economy in the long run". instead of having lots of strategies to choose from, you end up with good strategies and bad strategies. bad in a sense that it just isn't as good. that's why i'm pretty much against the pairing of technology, at least in terms of economic upgrades. eco upgrades are straight up bonuses, so they shouldn't be paired. however, upgrades which trade stats (like health vs training time) are techs that can be paired. you won't really penalize yourself if you choose levy infantry over levy cav because if either way, your units are either stronger or they train faster. one choice isn't inherently better than the other, so this means that you can pair up these techs. blacksmith upgrades are like eco upgrades. if you make blacksmith upgrades stronger, yet more expensive, and you also get the ability to get them all, then you can probably base mid-game strategies around trying to get an advantage with units that have lots of blacksmith upgrades on them. you'd have to invest heavily into getting these strong, upgraded units though. if you pair up blacksmith techs, then you can only get a half-assed version of this strategy. see where i'm getting at?

I solved my problems with Black Forest, now I'm happy to share it with you ! BlackForest2.zip

I was thinking about that. In age of empires, when the computer loses all units and has no chance to build more then it resigns. That is bad for players ego. Player usually needs to defeat all the enemy's civ/important buildings to be happy with himself in conquest. In Age of Mythology, computer ai asks you if it can resign every 10 minutes once you have defeated all its units and it has no chance to create more from the CC/military buildings. So maybe Age of Mythology code suits better this game in terms of a situation where the CC is still standing.

Assyrian Emblem added.

No objections from me (we have the funds). Great job on the trip guys; your representation was very beneficial to the project and community

Oh right, I have SVN too! I'll try to get on it tomorrow evening, european evening that is. ^^ By the way, Skirm cav and archer cav, just ranged cav in general, need to be removed from age 1. Currently you can do this broken strategy which consists of making 8 ranged cav then going to attack and the only way to hold that off is making ranged cav of your own or investing HEAVILY into slower, ranged units (archers and skirms). The problem with investing into slower ranged units is that ranged cav has the range and mobility to keep harassing and picking off units early game. Back home you just continue making villagers normally and you just get a huge, insurmountable lead. This can be easily changed, imo, by replace age 1 ranged cav with spear or sword cav. you can then rely on the cc for defense, as well as spearmen. it's much less broken than ranged cav which can do LOTS of damage and prevent units from gathering resources through their mere presence. spear and swordcav can still hunt and scout. See this game: