Leaderboard

Incredible explanation effort. Mini-factions were thought to be non-selectable civs that would be in some scenarios/maps and they would be capturable for unit recruitment and some bonuses. We called them "mini" since they wouldn't need a full set of units and buildings as an standard playable civilization. You can think of them as capturable camps with IA controlling it until any players comes and takes control.

About my next drawing I was trying to figure out a sub-saharian civilization like the nubians or the Aksum Kingdom. Houses and markets, etc... just documenting myself. I still can't see how a mini faction could compete with a standard 0AD civ. or may I'm wrong about mini factions idea. Great about the Sierra bug fix, I asked my employees to help me to get into building and compiling 0AD but we are very busy at the moment.

This has probably been mentioned, but there are 129 pages in this post and I cannot wade through them all. Why not key the food resource to the population size as a decreasing quantity. It doesnt make sense that it requires xx amount if food to produce a person, yet standing armies consume none of your food. In "Evony" each person "consumed" a bit of your resources every hour, which made sieges possible, since they mostly relied on starving out the enemy and forcing a breakout. After food depletes, people die off in a priority order, cavalry and elephants and horse teams first (high food requirements), then women (food diverted to the front line troops), then troops themselves.

Or have a maximum bridge height (or water depth) so that bridges cannot be built across oceans, or at least make it very expensive to do so. The problem I forsee with having standard bridge sizes is that then in order to make bridges useful the maps would have to be designed with bodies of water with a specific width to cater to bridges. This would have the effect of there being predetermined bridging points on the map. I like the idea to keep these things as free-form as possible. Also, I just want to see people build crazy bridges! I like the idea that a player might endulge in a big bridge building project, and it could end up being a great feat and help them win or it could be a disaster that is never finished and ruins them. We have all tried to build a "Great Wall" in a game, with mixed results, so why not tempt players with great bridges too? Reminds me of real life huge building projects that old empires took on, sometimes out of necessity, most often for prestige.

you want background music in 0AD?, here is the link. download in ZIP format https://play0ad.com/media/music/

I got bored and made these, eye candy for Phoenician cities I suppose. although, they do fit all nice and snug in the house footprint...

This game like AOE is based on civilizations competing for resources in a limited play area. Civilization comes from latin Civitas, which translates into "City" in english, "ciudad"" in spanish, cité" in french, "città" in italian. "cidade" in portugues, etc.. and means group o people who have suceded to settle in cities (bigger or smaller) instead of wandering around to find food and water, and from that perspective city building plays a essential role as all is about it. From my point of view, the focus of the game is on the cities. A bunch of cities with it's own culture is a civilization. The city provides protection, food, knowledge, etc.. That's why you protect your city and need walls and large armies. If your cities fall your civ. may perish. Therefore, to build your city larger, nicer and with lot's of different buildings gives and Idea of the rise of your civ. Most old civ. tied to their capital city, (Rome, Athens,Carthage, etc... City building is a

Totally agree. Perhaps because I really like city building. Nevertheless it's a pity many great models aren't used currently...

I love those designs. Why can't we have as much different buildings a civilization did produced at the same time in the game? and not hiding them in phases. I mean that different buildings should be enabled in different phases and be builded near existing ones as the civilization advances through centuries as we can see in our actual civ. we still have castles, palaces and other buildings from past centuries. That enriches a civ. and visually makes the game much better in eyecandy terms. To hide a building with an upgrade of itself makes the game more static and les dinamic as you feel as your civ. advances through the centuries that you still have the same buildings but just upgrades. 1 temple, 1 town center, 1 barrack, etc... or copies of them all along the map. It's like copiying yourself as time advances and your civilization grows. It's a bit strange, less realistic and visually boring. I think, it's just an oppinion

Because of this thread I have come to love watching replays. But as an observer, I would love to know what a structure is currently producing/upgrading without clicking on it. Just to know what the strong players prefer to produce, what to upgrade, when to upgrade them, etc. I suggest that it should look like this (I can immediately see the player producing 10 women without clicking on the Civic Center):

I figured git can even host releases. Depending on expected downloads, this may be an option (if there are not too many, e.g. for 0AD using git might be no good, though I haven't checked the spec as of which traffic git allows).