Leaderboard

Having a trac ticket that links to the forum thread about a topic that is desired by many but not implemented nor documented yet isn't bad. Endless discussions is a thing. There are definitely some missing design decisions, but nothing is impossible to solve. The main problem that most of the new design concepts have is that there is no programmer who is enthusiastic enough about this to finish the design concept, convince the team and write all of the code which can take several months to complete.

Preview - Athenian basic rank hoplite shield textures .PNG files are uploaded on the first post in this topic.

To cool everything down, I think that there's a lot of misunderstanding in this conversation. At first, Wraitii never said to train units individually to form a battalion, just that the engine should support three kinds of behaviours. He specifies that fact later. Then Lion phrase it's very hard to understand. IMHO, cause Lion is in favour of individual units managing, he hasn't wrote a concept that actually the others agree, so the ticket isn't really useful cause the concept is vague and lacks a really good description for someone to implement, being prone to another never-ending discussion about how implement battalions. That's maybe the cause that made Wow write "that his enthusiasm is gone". As Wraitti said, the engine can handle individual units, so no worry about that. Engine supporting "dynamic" battalions, for adding or dividing units should be nice. But the problem is that some wants that game should be based on less or more solid battalions and not mess it up in micromanagement.

Sorry I wrote in a bad time. I'm some sick of my stomach so I mean not the good guy right now. is hard to me say this but developers forgets the suggestion. Simple. But a ticket is a kind of memo.

As far as I understand, you want to be able to (1) place a mercenary camp of a civ that fits geographically to that biome and (2) the player to be able to train units of said civ (3) while being able (or not?) to build buildings of said civ To accomplish (1) you need to manually decide which template of which civ fits to the chosen design / current variables used by your map. For (2) and (3), there are two options. Convince the team to revert that design decision, to prevent players from training units of the buildings civ and building buildings of the civ of the units trained at captured structures. Otherwise add stuff that is only used by your map and potentially some mod, For (2) you would need to add new special structure templates for all mercenary camps you want to use, inherit the public mod one and replace the train list with the entities you want to be able to train there. For (3), you would need to add new special unit templates and change the buildlist entry from {civ} to said civ, but that will be maintenance hell. Edit: Or you make it easy and interesting to the public mod and place a biome specific structure (briton dock CC, ptol or sele military colony, roman entrenched army camp) and rely on the fact that the territory provided by that building and the females that can be trained there itself are valuable enough (and ignore that for the roman army camp).

Correct, units no longer have a per-entity obstruction but rather have a "clearance" defined by their passibility class. Pathfinding-wise, that's the only thing that matters.

There can be a workaround. Resize your assets to be smaller, which makes the map appear bigger. Would take a lot of adjustments, like camera settings, movement rates, resize terrain textures in their xml files, etc. but could be done. A lot of work. I could see a fun type of game kind of like a real-time RISK, using gameboard pieces that you can move around the "board" attacking each other and capturing provinces.

Woman gives a 10% speed aura bonus (gathering speed) to citizen. This Icon is showing this bonus

I need some feedback on the first three shields on the top historical inaccuracies inaccurate details etc.

You should not put the mods in 0ad/mods/mod/ but in 0ad/mods/

Limiting the number of units one can produce of a specific type is a bad choice. Units should have particular roles that make them able to be defeated by specific tactics or unit compositions. For instance, horse archers could be good at hit-and-run, but when fighting the more cost-effective foot missile soldiers, though they may win in some brief engagements, the cost would strain an opponents eco. Also, foot archers could have good range and decent damage, yet due to line of sight restrictions, they could not fight to their full potential without other units doing recon.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone @DarcReaver After watching a pro game between Borg and Pysich I have better understanding/realization regarding battalion. Its almost the same in AoE2, and probably many other RTS games with individual unit productions. The game becomes very messy once the heavy battle/war begins. I dont play multiplayer but even if you play against AI the game becomes messy too when you allow them (AI) to build armies. I do my army formations but the AI won't. AI doesn't do disciplined sieges or any disciplined military activity. I don't know whether the developers really consider options so that the game becomes very organized/disciplined in terms of military activity. I still favor individual unit production since IMO could make it easier to have a mixed unit composition but wouldn't mind if the AI can have battalion units in default (much better). Another thing that I noticed on most good player games is that they spam their preferred units mostly that almost two types of armies are just battling for supremacy. I think if there's a limit to the number of units allowed on any type it would be more interesting to see/watch the battle.