Leaderboard

That's definitely what I'm envisioning: it fits the theme of city expansion, since smaller cities are more agrarian/primary sector and big cities are mort about craftsmanship and "industry" in the original sense.

Wait till January 2017, before asking again. But I think we're going offtopic. Better stick to the SMAA topic (in case you can help nikagra with his technical questions ofc, else stop posting in this topic).

You can already use waypoints when defining the trade route, i.e. click on the first market, then shift-click on the several points you need to define the route, and then on the second market.

Since this is a common request I'd like to enable by default more gfx effects on newer cards in alpha20. Specifically, GLSL when using an OpenGL 3+ cards (see here the ticket with patch), and everything on OpenGL 4+ cards. This will need testers to make sure there are no problems on some cards.

Maybe this is totally off, but I'm reading a lot of this community members complaining that the game is slow and boring. Is this because you guys have been playing it for a while? Say me for instance, I just got the game at Alpha 18, and I'm still liking it. Sure, the reduced pop cap to make the lag managable is a bit annoying, but I think this game is fairly interesting. I've played so many matches, it's beginning to lose its edge, so I'm turning to Delenda Est. But the new players would still like it! As the game is created right now, it is very arcadey, very casual. A good game to start out on. From what I've read of Delenda Est (I have not been able to try it yet) it makes the game easier to micro, but the adding of auras and larger units transfers more to (at least in the combat area) a Total War setting, more focusing on tactics to win a battle than sheer numbers, which makes the game a lot more competitive, and less casual. It's not that the game is not quite being made right, that major changes are needed, it's just that the game is fairly casual right now, and some people (me included) are more competitive gamers, which is why Delenda Est is a good idea, possibly even an official expansion for the more competitive player. But I do agree with the rest of the thread. Counters need to be buffed. This is a good step to making the game more balanced for all players. Sorry if I can't provide any coding advice though, I suck at coding.

How To Play update or downgrade 0 A.D. to fit the requirements of the mod version you want to play download the .zip file of the desired MinMod version extract it to <0 A.D. installation folder>\binaries\data\mods run 0 A.D. and navigate from the main menu to Tools & Options → Mod Selection (select the mineral mod entry in the upper field) → Enable → Start Mods start a new single player game with a supported map ************************************************** VERSION 0.2 ************************************************** ************************************************** VERSION 0.1 ************************************************** ********************************************** ANNOUNCEMENT **********************************************

I don't think that the detailed model would work here, because that would take too much managing time away from the military part of this game. I see 0AD's focus somewhere in the middle: It is part city builder, but the ultimate goal is to invade and defeat the enemy. /begin shameless plug BTW here's another example of a city builder, similar to The Settlers: https://wl.widelands.org/ /end shameless plug

On current markets: Most of my team games go to age 3 and the market is a key factor to win. In general trading has a higher profit than gathering resources, if your trade route has a higher profit than 36 resources (more or less depending on upgrades). I find it hard to explain a newcomer all tricks of trading, mid game. Let's say you have 2 team members left and right. The best trade route is to trade between left and right, and even better if traders of middle player use it (because both team members get a share). But as the middle player you can't tell fresh spawned traders to use that route. AFAIK the only way is to spawn traders without route, track them as idle worker, and set origin and destination market. On changes: I'd like changes too, games tend to a similar behavior now. The game shouldn't become too complex and a manual for trading would help newcomers. If you go to age 3 and build only in the territory given of your first cc you end up with a high structure density and adding more buildings to the game makes the situation worse. I imagine first the city first evolves in a gathering manner and in age 3 your city would evolve in a crafting manner and you might have to delete old structures to set market next to craft buildings and rearrange everything for a higher profit. A bit off topic: I'd like a technology to see the resources of my team mates. And spectators could see resources of all players. Even more off topic: I'd like a technology in the Corral enabling the auto-micro for hunting dangerous animals, since you dont have the necessary apm to hunt, when your city is big.

I like the idea in the way to encourage players to use more of the map and have some strategic spots to hold. It was also proposed for some ground with a farming bonus (working in Delenda Est if I read correcly). I have one doubt though, with gold being fast to gather and small supply, they will deplete quickly. The highest the reward is, the faster it will vanish (so less time to fight for them). On the same time, wowgetoffyourcellphone also suggested to have metal and stone mines or careers, that are infinite spot (I don't think they are implemented yet in Delenda Est). That way there is still an advantage to keep them under control on the long run, but they may not (or do) give a short time bonus. It may be having all stone/metal spots infinite (like farms), but with more or less gatherers allowed per spot. Anyway, if you can test the idea (which will require modifying maps) it may give a lot of interesting feedback.

I played a few RTS long ago, as I don't have any Windows since my gaming experience is far from the main stream. Even if the concepts are not really innovatives. My top, inspiring my changes on 0 A.D.: Age of Empires II, Command & Conquer Generals. Both for simple mechanics, units countering without much much micro, battles being sending the right units at the right spot. AoE also for its historical background. My top, but more counter-sample for my changes: Annex: Conquer the World: a game on Megaglest engine, with a good sound-atmosphere and a simple counter-scheme and a lot of continuous battles full of micro (for me maybe a sibling of C&C Generals or Starcraft II in the free software world, but with much less quality and an annoying interface) Zero-K: base upon Spring Engine (Total Anihilation inspired engine), an other game with continuous fight and a clear counter-scheme, with a big part of micro too. Warcraft II: but more for the music, graphic style and background. Didn't liked my online games (rush for max pop knights or ogres and rush at ultra-unplayable-speed). All of my top, except for Warcraft II, have this particularity: rather simple mechanics, a clear counter-scheme, fighting most of the time (I can't turtle, it stresses me, I need to go out). Either with instense full micro or a slower pace with more focus on positioning units (with a preference for the later). Other relevant games: Warzone 2100: very interesting campaign but still a big mess in multiplayer with way more time reading the doc than playing the game. Tried to make a mod to push away most of the complexity and focus on designing a proper army (but it was not played and I abandonned the game). Battle Bugs: hey, I was quite young at that time, and commanding ants, pray-mantis and grasshoppers to conquer a slice of pizza was fun Caesar III: a good real time building game (I don't remember if we could pause the game) with a lot of resources to manage to grow you city, but rather repetitive scheme and poor battle design. Battle for Wesnoth, UFO Alien Invasion: TBS with few units, recruiting and positionning for the first, training a squad battle after battle with a lot of abilities for the second. Other I didn't liked: Warcraft III: I didn't catched the hero-focused game, they had too much importance in battles comparing to regular units to my liking. In short I wasn't playing how it should be played. Starcraft I and II: I played a lot Starcraft I in campaign, but never understood how to play (which unit for what, ending up massing super units and a one-fight win-or-lose game). Played a bit of Starcraft II, too much micro, often only one decisive fight with too much speed to handle it for me. Otherwise they are good games Megaglest: poor interface (shared with Annex), strange animations and graphic style, I never finished a game. If I played it I may have liked it, it has a good reputation. Sudden Strike: too much things to handle everywhere, not really forgiving because it is hard to replace your losts. Since I now can't play most of the well-known games (I played Starcraft II on a borrowed computer) or with a lot of pain to make them working (when possible) I can only study some aspects with videos or game reviews. I'm mostly sticking to games with at least a free game engine.

Yes, all mines will still provide the metal which the game uses now. The new mines differ in position: more valuable metals are found farther away from CC gather rate: more valuable metals are gathered faster amount: more valuable mines provide less total metal I'm still not sure if the mines should differ in the last point. Perhaps the amounts should be more equal. But a 4K gold mine otherwise would be an insane advantage. We will see in the testing phase...

No

No, it's Yves that is working on upgrading the renderer to use OpenGL 4. However, we plan to still maintain an OpenGL 2 rendering system in parallel.

Think tho, game is no good if player lose interest after only some weeks. Replayability is the hallmark of good game.

Actually, Philip isn't doing anything with a new render.

Nice idea. I had thought of something that would somewhat improve it's lore-friendliness... Maybe: The market receiving a percentage of every worker turn in nearby (let's say 1%), and a bit less for houses nearby. This way, the player would be encouraged to have a market as soon as possible, and to build it next to houses and dropsites. Then, those resources could be either traded with another market for profit based on distance or used in emergencies (though would trigger a cooldown and would be very costly for not getting profit over these slow-generating resources). ...Then I realized just how complicated it is, and how it would benefit the player who has more resources at his disposal (the winning player would have another bonus just for being in the lead). Well, leaving it here anyways, maybe someone may get some useful idea out of this.

When he becomes a town/city dweller as in garrisoning selected cits to various buildings to increase those building efficiency(workers). Enjoy the Choice

I like the idea. Kind of like the persian palace, but requires garrisoning. Sounds like a good way to keep civilians useful in the late game.

New Questions: I was going through the modelling import guide --> http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Basic3DImplementation I got the mesh to show up purple in actor view. However, the texture does not show up, and I get the following error: I double checked the templates and followed the tutorial exactly! No luck though. Anybody have suggestions?

I'm actually thinking about something similar and currently working on a mod that will introduce more variety for minerals (not more kinds of resources, just a system that should somehow encourage a riskier playstyle and add more strategy to resource gathering). Edit: sorry, I think you meant something different - what resources are most important in which phase of the game and which resources are needed for what, I guess.

what exquisite building, I love, have nice contrast beteween textures color palette. And have very details.

I know I know, it's not gameplay... I'll get those models in the engine next time I promise! Here's an animation in the meantime!

They are merely eye and bugcandy. They have no impact on simulation. Last time they had it was because of a bug. Some formation auras will need to be implemented.

...then don't do that? Don't force your opinion on those who want to have a different approach. Formations at the moment are literally pointless.

I simply meant it would be nice to have an army based approach to combat rather than a mash of soldiers together. Total war style. Where you place your troops makes a difference. At present you can ajust troop placement in a few seconds and have no need to scout or make any basic efforts to arrange you troops in anyway. Perhaps grouping them together as a single unit is odd but at least you could actively strategise, placing spearmen in front of archers etc. Now you just jumble them together or they move too quickly. Maybe make the consequences of having an unorganised army greater. At present the AI sends troop after troop at you in one long line of assault. And they can win because army organisation doesn't play much of a role. I would decrease unit speed, meaning more time to think about unit placement, and battles would need to be planed.