Leaderboard

With battalions, one could "increase the pop cap" while actually reducing the number of controllable entities the player has to worry about. Let's say you can have up to 30 battalions under your command. Each with 20-30 soldiers in it would make 600-900 soldiers total, but you only have to worry about the disposition of the 30 entities, not 900. 100 units per battalion in 0 A.D. seems a bit much. I'm thinking more like 24-30 could be standard, but the code supporting much more for mods.

Function call failed: return value was -120102 (Invalid/unsupported texture format) Location: tex_dds.cpp:446 (decode_pf) Call stack: 009B6C77 009B9295 009BAF43 009B1035 009B10C4 errno = 13 (Insufficient access rights to open file) OS error = 0 (no error code was set) @stanislas69 @wackyserious@Alexandermbthis still shows when i play every faction but do not crash just hitting continue but it spams quite a lot this dialog but other errors are gone.

At least with a hard counter system, every unit is good for something, if not fodder. But I think the topic is drifting.

Yeah I fixed it locally need to rebundle was waiting for the last fixes by @Alexandermb

It does not. (I know because the Faction-Specific Resources mod is mine, so I've been through the mod.io process already). There will have been an option that allows you to save, but not go live. In the meantime, you can return to your mod's page (https://0ad.mod.io/siege) and select the tick icon in the toolbar (between the pencil and the archive-box icons) to hide it and make it non-live. Alternatively, if you want to stay live, go to your mod file's edit page (https://0ad.mod.io/siege/edit/files/163) and add {} into the "Metadata" box at the bottom. Your mod will still be publicly visible on mod.io, (it might even appear as an option in 0ad,) but it won't be downloadable and verifiable in-game until you get a valid signature from @Itms.

Now, for something completely 180 from ancient history:

Found this: Sails are broken because of the 2 deleted sail textures: options are revert the deleted files commit, or just remove them from the variants in the actor xml file. Fixed the dependecy of the oars in TM: Osprey "The Vikings" book reference for norse sail:

I believe there is consensus on this.

No. More accurately, it's the only way script currently have to do things like resources or players bases setting. Maybe you're not aware you're immediately formalizing the problem using geometry as if it was the only solution. But we're not designing a geometry solver but building a convincing illusion of a landscape and using geometry is not mandatory. It's only the most obvious way to go. Maybe you missed the fact my work uses very little geometry if any. It's not coincidence. First of all, rmgen already offers a lot of geometry based features, and it would be stupid to duplicate them. Next, euclidian geometry applies on euclidian spaces not on meshes we're working on. To give an practical example, the YPatchPlacer can compute the border of a region. One can of course discuss the accuracy of the result and try to prove it is wrong using a mathematical method to compute an accurate border. But, rounding the result to fit the map mesh will ruin this accuracy, and I bet the final differences between both methods shall be unnoticeable. BTW, the feature exists not in rmgen and there's no easy way to expand a region as well. Same with slope: mathematically speaking, slope is a vector, not a scalar and is not constant on most tiles because, generally, they're not plane. Rmgen computes a slope factor in a way, I do otherwise, but nobody is right, both are wrong. And last but not least, geometric procedures generate regularity and monotony which can be avoided only adding a lot of noise. That's why I explore other ways to create maps and I hope here to enlarge the tools choice, not replacing anything. If someone is more easy with constraints in rmgen fashion, it's OK to me, of course. But don't tell me those constraints are absolutely necessary features. One more time, the proof is in the result: I don't use constraints, only locks and regions. And as you say: Thanks, you're clearly not ready yet to enter my fan club but time helping, who knows ? But I disagree: there is not a single good direction. There are many each one having it's strong points and drawbacks. I think this at least partly explain why I meet some incomprehension among developers here. They try to make me enter the Procust's bed of their geometric model and can't see why I resist. What do you mean here ? It's not "on paper", this script is working and you will be able to verify it as soon as the A-23 upgrade will be out. Now, don't expect me to reproduce exactly existing maps to create a valid benchmark. I should reproduce even their defects which is ridiculous and impossible: can you really admit at last my placer is not a duplicate of any rmgen placer ? It's like a knife and a corkscrew: both can be put at some limited purposes like opening a bottle but you wouldn't try to peal an apple with a corkscrew. And yes a knife can be used to open bottles, but does this means corkscrews are useless ? Of course not, but your user experience is not very valuable to me because many things are known or even so obvious to you that you imagine not their ignorance can be an obstacle to ordinary users (I have the same problem of course and anyone having some degree of technical expertise, as you say). An example is the "random" label we put on these maps scripts. They are fully deterministic and the only "random" thing in it is you can let the computer choose a map within the large set of maps the script can produce (2^16 I think but maybe it's 2^32 or even 2^64). To you, there is probably no mystery here, but it's against common acceptance of the word "random" and it can puzzle people knowing not how a pseudo RNG works. The challenge here is to learn how end users figure in their mind the process of creating a fully featured map, as a cooking recipe, using their words and not ours. Believe me, this is far less obvious than it looks. Friendly,

This topic is sponsored by: Counters must come back

Prop is good It will allow for variant to be nature and others to be player owned. The best would be civ specific Variants but it has to be done by the conversion code.

Well Trees are used for maps.

This error was reported here already https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/24234-support-of-modio/&page=3

@stanislas69 hun_chariot armature wans't needed neither two files in the mechanical/animations folder they were broken thats why they mess with the shark/croc so i'll deleted them, but about the mud i'm not sure wich one is missing but i changed the dirt_3x3 in anglo corral, tell me if it fix something.

Building on this, maybe showing the match info in the loading screen would be useful. These quitters are more and more frequent, and it's annoying as hell. A complete loss of time. I think the situation is getting out of hand with only manual reporting via forum. Some possible solutions that come to my mind: If a player disconnect from a rated game, game is paused and cannot be resumed while he is absent. If a player is disconnected from a rated game for more than a certain time limit (say 1 minute) he loses and points go to the other player. Maybe have an indicator for each player of number/ratio of unfinished rated games that he's hosted, so we can avoid playing with quitters.

Let's assume I want to make a campaign for 0 A.D. I have several missions, with different objectives, and I might want to have the same mine model with different values of resources, to simulate for example a mine being nearly empty, or one being extra full. Currently there is only one way to go about that. Make XML templates. If I could affect the templates resource amount by script, I would only need on template for a normal, a depleted, and an extra full mine.

I'm still putting my trust on the people who are actually doing the work. All this constant whining about "They're not doing a good job in it." has almost put me in a state of depression.

No. If you do so you will lose. Either you get a disadvantage before p3 due to a rush, that may end the game sooner, either later because as you didn't think about your build order (that must be improvised right in the game) you got behind at economy and are at a disadvantage. If you have 50k res in bank, yes tech are no brainer. Otherwise you have to choose between them (which one to do first always has an importance).

Then i'll just develop for the 2 first points that are, i believe the main points that really are influenced by gameplay design. and . I believe that proper balancing solve the 2nd point, where all these strategies(that are examples for "conquest" type of games) can be balanced, i can also add another example which is ressource monopolizing strategy. I've seen effective uses of all these strategies, and if one can be better than another it's due to balancing (and if it is really needed i can show how simply balancing can fix that). For the 1st point, it's a bit more complicated but i'll show how 0ad managed to fulfill this point quite successfully. I saw some people say "do best build order that does best strategy and win". But to me this is false for 0AD and i'll explain why : Currently, there is no best build order and it is impossible to find a build order that you can apply to each game and expect it to be good. Why ? There is 2 to 3 reasons that work together. The first one is training time of unit along with batch training and citizen soldiers. The 2nd is ressource disposition at start of a game. Your starting ressources influence a lot how you will create units and that will create imbalances really early in the game. The reason behind this is that, to compare with Age of Empires games, 0 A.D's economic units weigh less overall but are in more numbers, train faster, and due to batch training, unlike AoE, you can train as much units as your ressources can afford, instead of 1 villager by 1. So if you have more ressources, you'll be able to grow your population quicker. And it is so true that simply the distance between the woodline you're taking and the CC can make a difference, so just imagine what additional berries or hunt can do. Why is it important ? Because having these advantages is good, but not knowing how to use them will lead to nothing. If you don't adapt with which units you will do or which technologies you will research, you will end up with useless unspent ressource that add up in your bank which is not good. Not to mention that the strategies you will decide to do will be influenced by these facts. What conclusion should we take of this ? It is that it is impossible to apply "brainless build order" and that it is useless to be fast clicking if you don't know the proper thing to do. 3rd reason is about guessing what your opponent will do. If you know that your opponent will rush but you wont rush yourself, you'll for example prefer making citizen soldier which result in more "imbalances" early game. So that mean that fastest click clearly is far than being enough in order to win a game. I'll also finish this argument by saying, as an example that currently online, nobody is ever pretending to know a "best build order" (nobody is even speaking about that, never), and that in most recent games between some of the best player in 0ad (borg and me), the strategies and build order we used were always different.

It's important because what keeps a game "alive" is its multiplayer and loyal players who play every day, even with a horrible balance. I think it's fair to give them at least a playable balance, regardless of whether they're ready or not.

And i'd like to know for which points.

I have already put me in total disposition to do the balance of the game, respecting the gamedesign of game, that is to say, with or without counters system. I'm sure i would do a great job. Probably the most experienced player of 0 a.d, with the most games, besides being the best player. Not only that, I am now 28 years old, and I have played rts games since my 8 years, most of the time competitively, a practical example is to be in the semi finals of an age of empires championship in this moment. I must be the one who understands the most here in the balancing part. The real problem I see is that with each small change, you should by voting and asking the opinion of many people, who most of the time do not even play the game, at least not multplayer. It makes no sense to me. The team should be small, with a maximum of 3 guys taking care of it.

Apparently there exists some kind of design document; could it be published prominently at a clear location on these forums? This could help people understand what you works towards to, not just now, but also in months and years to come. Anyway, I do hope this thread is not too frustrating for you and the other team members. Even though criticisms are posted more frequently than compliments, do know that many people greatly appreciate what's been done so far, what you're still doing right now, and what you all intend to do in the future.

I thought I wouldn't intervene as these kind of talks make me sad and wondering if I should continue to contribute to 0 A.D. or just do something else more personal with that time. That being said I just will answer Lordgood's posts. The question is not whether you would be neglecting the art department it's whether you would not be neglecting that position as well. As in will you have the time to regularly work on it. Art has this advantage that you don't need to feed it with new material constantly once you have reached a certain point. So yeah I'd say go ahead and take this hat if you think you can make a change. You would be seating on that empty chair. (Be warned it's on fire) I would still like to see more activity in that department but that's out of this thread. A council can work if there is someone that ends up taking decisions. It just feels a bit more democratic. But at some point someone will have to choose. Can't please everyone and if there's no majority then he has to decide what's best because that's why he was put in that position in the first place. I guess that 's somewhat what you meant by receptive. Stan out. *drops mic* EDIT : I just feel also some people are being left out (@fatherbushido I'm looking at you) and have tried to keep it working through all the haze that was thrown to them and made it a really frustrating experience.

I think instead of 1 person it should be a small group of dedicated people (6 max) That way it won't be one-sided Things can be proposed and voted over, that way we kind of manage to compress the different views of the masses

This is a very relevant point, and also the reason why I think it's so important to attract (much) more people to 0AD. I'm really not expecting 10 people to implement the entire design-document and manage the slew of daily user-requests, all on their free time. I think attracting more people can be done "relatively easily" by updating the main web-site, especially using much better screenshots than the ones that are there now. Video-editing features can be used more often to make pretty "short-video's" introducing all of the civ's in a 45sec. format for example.. Creating a development report every month/two months doesn't seem too much work to do, but essential to maintaining interest (it gives people something to look forward to, in between releases). There used to be these cool weekly development reports on the main site (I totally loved them), but every week is clearly overkill.. There needs to be some kind of "PR-department" creating/managing/planning promotional materials so that, for example, pretty screenshots, or concept art created by lordgood can be featured, new models like stanislass' Thracians or alaexander and lion's Xiognu minifaction can be shown off, or code improvements explained and new mods can be presented. This "PR-team" should have access to the official website/facebook/youtube/twitter/instagram acoounts and update at least once a week (if only with a single screenshot), and contact important gaming-sites ahead of every realese. These relatively low investments of time and effort, that don't even need to be handled by the development team (maybe just reviewed by them), would do wonders in terms of attracting new players and potential contributors. Some are bound to be coders... 0AD is still shockingly unknown, and in dire need of some good ol' marketing! It would just be nice to have something a little more coherent to market. Why not include a simple campaign for the first time. That would be revolutionary. Romans for example. Nothing too crazy. You play 5 maps, one after the other, each incrementally more difficult than the last. Then you integrate it with the tutorial (for the first map at least). Generate random maps with the right setting, and modify to liking with triggers and all. Is that beyond the realm of feasibility? How often are the Departments of Computer Science in universities contacted? Can't people write specific, pre-determined sections of code as a part of their bachelor's program or thesis or extra credit? It's an open-source project after all... It's historical so there's educational aspects... Advanced classes in digital art departments could probably model a new civ in less than two days (imagine 20 people working on a single civ as a class-project)...

About the proposition of splitting singleplayer/online game style, i see few issues there. I think mods could handle much more efficiently single player desires. - Can the devs keep up 2 games at a time while they seem to struggle with only one ? - If some features are officially implemented in singleplayer but not in multiplayer, it would raise some issues are people would be constantly asking for one or an other feature in singleplayer to be in multiplayer too. Also, it would be quite disrupting for players that decide to go play online after having played offline. I believe that most of online players started by playing offline before.

This is not always true and in fact most of the time false. For example, Roman legionaries used to train in armour with a training scutum and a training gladius twice as heavy as the actual ones. The weight of a Roman lorica hamata (mostly used in the period of the game, the lorica segmentata or laminata came in the first century AD) was about 3.5 kg (not so heavy). Weight of a scutum: 6 kg (they used to train with 12kg scuta) Weight of a gladius: 1.2-1.6 kg (they used to train with twice as heavy weapons again) Weight of a pilum: 2 to 5 kg (they had 2 pila) So the total weight is 17.7 kg to 21.1kg on average so that would not slow people who used to train everyday with approx 30kg The weight was distributed on all the body and they throw their pila before the melee fight so 4 to 10 kg disappear at the beginning of the combat I just wanted to clarify this, well armoured people being slow is a myth.

Part II: Solution Concept taking Atheneans as example civilization: Excerpt from design doc: “Developers do not seem to be content to further the traditional RTS in the same vein as Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, Red Alert, and Warcraft II. Though some are fleeing, we are going to stake a claim in the RTS genre. There is still much innovation to be made. This for us means: A. Less tedious/mindless micro-management B. More strategic thinking C. Greater stress on planning, formations, and tactics D. Choices, Choices, and more Choice ” Right now, none of this is actually present in the game. 0 AD combines all negative features of the game combined with a broken gatherer concept to make the whole game more “unique”. This is a problem and really unfortunate. We have lots and lots of unnecessary micromanagement, almost no strategic depth, no real planning. Only thing already implemented is the use of formations and tactics like flanking of a Phalanx. My aim is to create gameplay patterns that match the points above: - removal or repetitive and unnecessary micro management - employment of battle tactics in conjunction with formations, trampling, surprise attacks, flanking and directional combat. These battle tactics make up for the fact that there are less total units on the field. There is more tactical micro in place than strategical micro - The fighting duration between units is increased. This reduces the need to permanently replace units lost with the “manspam train” - set the waypoint to the battlefield. Newly produced soldiers move towards the battlefield every couple of seconds and after a while this looks like a train moving along the map. - Enforcing a teching pattern that allows a greater diversity in army compositions, and to make certain “cookie-cutter” unit combos harder to reach. - Creating variety in combat. The outcome shouldn’t always be the same. This is accomplished by varying weapon damage and directional combat and creating small amounts of luck based chances. - Making units more durable allows constructive army micro. I.e. more options to heal wounded units. Unit preservation becomes more important and easier. This punishes mindless suicide raids and rewards taking care of units. General earlygame changes: 1. Remove all units from the Town center except for women and citizens. All units are trained in batches of different sizes (the exact number is up to discussion, I’d say we start with 2 women and 2 citizens per training interval. Training time and resource costs are increased accordingly). Gathering rates are changed, this is covered in a separate point. House pop cap is increased; fewer houses to provide more population. Reason: less repetitive micro required by lowering the amount of clicks to get the eco going. Increased gathering rates allow less gatherers to get the necessary resources. This is also important since military will not be able to gather, too (see below). Less houses for progress means less spam to build them. House walls are less attractive and palisades become the choice of defensive building at the start of the game. This all frees up time for the player to think ahead of how he’s going to setup the game while maintaining a relatively complex economic system. I’d strongly suggest of battalions with multiple units in a single entity. This allows less individual micromanagement (-> “clicking speed”) and allows a better implementation of formations. Additionally, battalions create a better atmosphere of managing armies and an empire, not a bunch of ravaging soldiers and a couple of farmer’s daughters Depending on the eco setup the gathering processes can be tweaked to match the size of women “battalions” and Citizens. I.e. maximum gatherers are 4/8/12 for small/ medium/ large resource spots. 3. Slow down everything. Women speed, soldier speed, cavalry speed. It’s pretty obvious that the game runs like a turbo random map game in Age of Empires on double speed. Way too hectic for a game with such a detailed economy and military system. Instead, the focus should go more into automatization of processes to allow more strategical planning. This also makes “fast clicking” less of a requirement to manage the game well. This will improve the game pace massively. 4. Citizens – they do no longer start with their weapons, instead they only work as male collectors. They collect food, wood, metal and stone faster than women, and they can hunt with spears or bows. They have the option to be “called to arms” to receive their weapons but lose their ability to collect resources (in case of Atheneans: Citizens turn into Hoplites). The upgrade is permanent. Alternative: Citizens “call to arms” is a timed ability. When activated Citizens run towards the Civic Center (or Blacksmith) and receive their weapons. When leaving the city boundaries or after a certain time they drop their weapons and become gatherers again. Reason: having an army that can collect resources is problematic. As soon as a player decides to attack, the player loses resources from not gathering resources. To limit the negative effects of this the Citizen speed must be high so travelling to the enemy doesn’t take too long. This makes units look ridiculous when they sprint across the map. The amount of units collecting resources makes it necessary to slow down individual gathering rates, so unit massing is important to gain economic bonuses. The “call to arms” concept allows players to react to early attacks by calling their citizens to defend the city. Raiding economy easier with regular units, as the gatherers cannot fight back efficiently. There is a tradeoff between military force and economic force. This conceptual change still contains the spirit of “Citizen Soldiers” that the game favors as a core element, but in a less problematic way. Military units should not double as resource gatherers. 5. Women can only collect food, and the efficiency aura is removed from them. Gathering from herdables, fields and berries is significantly more efficient. They cannot hunt efficiently because they are not able to use a bow or spear for a ranged attack. They can still collect from them if a Citizen first kills the animal first. A mix of Citizens and Women early on is more important as both units synergize well. Mindless massing of women is made less attractive, since the amount of herdables or berries is limited early on. On the contrary it’s an option to gain an advantage from taking free food on the map with high efficiency by having women collect wild berries and i.e. protect them from raids with male, called to arms citizens. This also allows players to expand early on and increases the necessity to keep scouting the map for assault targets. Being sneaky by collecting hidden resources rewards players with saved resources on early fields. 6. Neutral gaia herdables on the map: herdables can be captured (copy from AoE II, I know. But it’s good!) and then fatten over time. They can be moved around and be gathered from citizens and Women. 7. Starting units are reworked: Atheneans/civs in general no longer start with a mixure of units. The starting units are limited to two Women and two Citizen. The citizen either serves as a scout or can help with hunting to improve food gathering. Since Atheneans are a defensive civ a fast ranged cavalry scout and Psilos are unfit as starting units. Atheneans should be slooooow. Resource layout: Any good RTS needs a clear role for each type of resource that is available. Example: Company of Heroes features 3 resources – manpower, fuel, munitions. Manpower is used for training new units, teching all kinds of upgrades and reinforcing squads. Fuel is used to bring vehicles on the field and tech global upgrades, for example enable the usage of grenades for Riflemen. Munitions are used for squad specific upgrades like giving an MG gunner to a tank or adding sight scopes, or to give a Panzerschreck to a squad. Munitions also are used for usage of active abilities – artillery strikes, Air raids, smoke barrages, tossing grenades and so on. Something similar is in place for Warcraft III, too: Units require gold. Items and combat enhancing features require gold aswell. Teching, buildings and specialized units require lumber as a second resource. A pattern like this should be enforced for 0 AD. Players need to know that if they want to do X they need resource Y. My proposal would be following: - Food is used for training gatherers, melee infantry and cavalry. Military techs and combat enhancing techs require food. - Wood/lumber is used for construction of non-military buildings and required for economic upgrades. Training ranged units requires wood. Wood is also needed to progress city phases. - Stone is used to create military buildings. Walls, Towers, barracks, Fortresses. The creation of Siege weapons requires stone aswell. Stone is needed to progress in the next city phases. - Concept proposal : Metal is split up into two resources. One is called Silver, the other Iron. Silver is used to tech economic upgrades and army upgrades. Iron is used for training soldiers. Advantage would be that there are more options to customize the gathering process into “unit massing” or “teching progress”. Silver is a teching resource, while Iron is a production resource. Elite units like Chariots, Elephants or mercenaries can require Silver as training resource to mix things up for additional gameplay depth. - Alternatively, Metal is a combined military production and teching resource. It’s used for training every military unit that is fielded. Military techs and combat enhancing techs require metal. Economic techs require metal, too. Upgrading city phases requires metal (or silver). Building layout for Atheneans: Phase I: Buildings built by women: houses, farms. Buildings build by Citizens: Apotheke, Strategeion, Sitobolon, Epaulos, Blacksmith, Naos, Pyrgion, Limen Proposed building dependencies in a picture: Conceptual changes: Apotheke: can be built anywhere, drop off point for lumber, stone and metal Sitobolon: unlocks the option to build fields, contains economic upgrades for harvesting and gathering berries Epaulos: this building contains upgrades for hunting and gathering from animals. This building provides upgrades for the overall performance of cavalry units. It no longer trains sheep or goats (the training herdables will be used in a different way in a different civ concept, will be covered in the future). Blacksmith: contains military upgrades, and unlocks ranged units. Limen: a basic shipyard that contains fishing boats and transport ships. Transport ships can be garrisoned by soldiers and then used to capture enemy ships. Strategeion: by default, it only enables to train Hoplites Athenae. Further contains Peltastes Thrax and Prodromos (require City phase) Naos: contains healers and heroes. Yes, you read correctly, I’d suggest heroes and healers are put in an earlier stage of the game to increase their influence on the gameprogress. Of course, considering that they join the game earlier they will work in a different manner and have different stats. Hero units will be featured in a separate position below. Pyrgion and Palisades: defensive buildings for a defensive styled civilization, cheap, fast to build, but easy to destroy Phase II (600 Wood / 400 Stone/200 metal, requires 3 buildings to be constructed): (all constructed by Citizens) Emporios: Market building, contains upgrades that allow trading, increase economic efficiency (that means: upgrades in here allow resources to last longer, especially metal) Gymnasion: Advanced military building, trains Pikemen and contains upgrades that increase infantry effiency (more hitpoints, better attack, better speed etc.). Also trains Hippeis and thus provides a gameplay focus on infantry units and to make them more versatile. Additionally, cavalry helps out the immobile Phalanx formations by protecting the flanks and applying pressure to the enemy. The disadvantage is that this building does not contain hard counter units, and thus it’s necessary to provide the correct army composition to make use of the units from the Gymnasion. Hellenic Stoa: Advanced military building, contains Rhomphaiaphosos, Thyreophosos and Toxotes Skythikos/Kretikos. This building serves by providing a mixture of dedicated hard counter units that hit hard but are specialized. Also contains upgrades for said units. Agora: main civil building that expands the command area and creates further colonies. Trains gatherers and allows to advance through city phases (mostly like it is at the moment). Theikos: improvement of wooden Palisades. Those walls cost stone and have better stats (obviously). Can be built anywhere by default. Defense Tower: building that shoots arrows (obviously) Phase III (700 Wood/ 1000 Stone / 500 Metal, require 2 buildings to be constructed): (all constructed by citizens) Epistoklisma: Fortress used as ultimate defensive building, contains upgrades for military units in general (i.e. training speed). Furthermore allows construction of various siege weapons. Theatron: economic boost building. This building increases all gatherer speed and efficiency in the civic center radius (similar to the Wheel technology in Age of Empires) Prytaneion: Government building, contains techs that affect cavalry units and provide bonuses to general infrastructure: faster construction of buildings, population efficiency, unit costs, ships and so on. It basically boosts the economy indirectly. Example for Athenians: Reformations of Iphikrates that upgrade regular Hoplites to Naval soldiers and replaces Toxotes Skytikos with Toxotes Kretikos. Wonder: serves double as a victory condition and boosts all military unit’s performance significantly (the wonder is a proud sign of how advanced a civilization is, and thus the population will greatly try to keep it that way) Limen Megalos (military shipyard): Upgrade for the regular Limen, alternatively an own building that enables construction of large ships.