Leaderboard

One thing which makes ideal play more difficult is that there is limited control over garrisoned units. If we garrison cavalry in the CC, we might want to ungarrison the ones that are fully recovered. Currently, if you have 10 cavalry garrisoned in the CC and want to send only a particular unit with full HP out, you run in 2 problems. 1. You don't know the HP of the unit that you ungarrison, so you can't judge if you need to send it out. 2. You can't change the unit that you send out. I tested how ungarrisoning works and it is a first in, first out principle. The only thing you can do is ungarrisoning all your units and then click on each individual unit and put them back in. I know there is a wounded hotkey, but I would like to manage my units from within the CC/barracks.

I meant the native linux build, haven't ever tested the 32 bit msvc build offered for download as I don't have wine32 laying around. Should probably do that some time. As a rule of thumb, a 64 bit build is faster but requires more ram (compiler can use more instructions, registers etc but types may be larger), how much of a difference it makes only testing can tell. But I don't care about that in the first place. The performance issues can't be fixed even if it's twice as fast as the hogs aren't linear. The point of a mingw port is a) to build everything from ground up easily and b) cross compile support. As for the effort, well, it's still reasonable with the roughly 40h I spent on it so far. This includes things like learning premake and lua (which I then abandoned) as well as reading Microsoft documentation.

I'm from Misery. Erm, Missouri sorry.

In 0ad all herds of Animals are static. I was hiking yesterday and thought what if a map or some maps could have a migration of huntable animals from one side of the map to the other at a time interval. For 1v1s it would go from one side to the other across the middle of the map. For TGs it would go across between the two teams. Every 5 minutes the herd comes back but no new animals are generated, (it saves the number from the last migration). Tell me what you think of the idea. I think it would be awesome for gameplay and visuals, but probably not a mainstream feature of most games of 0ad.

Where in this small space do you want to show individual info? Yes, by right-clicking would work, but then you have to go through all of them. Or could we maybe have a narrow colour line on top of each group at the least, showing the group's overall health? Thus, we would at least see health per unit type: I wonder how health of the 11 units could be shown individually, besides by right-clicking or - a bit faster? - hovering over them and then popping out the individuals. Maybe like this, i.e. when you right-click or hover, they pop out (quick & dirty - I'm no artist ): But if you garrisoned 20 units, there would be no room for that many.

I suppose it could be done by restricted classes. E.g. giving sharks the ability to attack but only fishing boats. I'm afraid however it might look a bit weird. Also I believe more people are killed by dolphins every year than by sharks.

Yes, I just hit "Continue", entered some info, and added O7 (CatchAll) as Reviewers. Thanks to @maroder and @Angenfor helping me with my first diff.

I don't see why removing attack stops vision. It makes it absolutely pointless to garrison them. In 0.25, walls have now become a waste of resources I don't agree with removing attack. The balance was wrong, maybe they should not have the unmanned sentry bonus. Maybe only ranged weapon users should be able to fire. Ideally to be realistic, they should provide total protection against hack for occupants, but only limited pierce protection. Walls and turrets should have been more expensive to build, removing a lot of the imbalance. The suggestion of building wall segments without turrets is an ugly consequence. Real world walls without turrets are unstable.

Is that in texas?

Honestly, I thought it wasn't that interesting of a feature in AOE3 to make it a default behavior. The migration was always too subtle to notice before all the animals were hunted to extinction. If anything, in 0 A.D. I find it a bit annoying that herd animals tend to "average out" their pathing and end up all spaced apart across the map. I think they should wander, but stay within a certain distance from either each other, or from the coordinates they were placed.

@Freagarach @asterix @wowgetoffyourcellphone Is this a valid structure? "<optional>" + "<element name='Requirements' a:help='Optional name of requirements that must be met before the entity can be produced.'>" + "<element name="Technologies">" + "<attribute name='datatype'>" + "<value>tokens</value>" + "</attribute>" + "</element>" + "<element name="Structures">" + "<attribute name='datatype'>" + "<value>tokens</value>" + "</attribute>" + "</element>" + "<element name="Units">" + "<attribute name='datatype'>" + "<value>tokens</value>" + "</attribute>" + "</element>" + "<element name="Items">" + "<attribute name='datatype'>" + "<value>tokens</value>" + "</attribute>" + "</element>" + "<text/>" + "</element>" + "</optional>" + Then the data in the file would be like: <requirements> <technologies> <technology name="some tech1"/> <technology name="some tech2"/> </technologies> <structures> <structure name="some struct1"/> <structure name="some struct2"/> </structures> <units> <unit name="some struct1"/> <unit name="some struct2"/> </units> <items> <item name="some item1" value="10"/> <item name="some item2" value="5"/> <item name="some item3" value="2"/> <item name="some item4" value="1"/> </items> </requirements>

Additionally most buildings allow far less than 20 units inside. 5 in the towers yeah? Then you mouse over to get a tooltip for the individual units. I guess you might have to increase the size of the panel if you had 20 of the same unit or something. In your example for 8 or less or w/e you could have a line down 4 pixels to a big box and in the big box you could fit 8 of a single unit type as individuals. I say 8 cause your image has 2 rows and 4 columns left over. But obviously you can jusst change stuff to some other arbitrary number.

Thanks for the nice trick with commenting that line - works like a charm, i.e. the text is translated. And thanks as well for the explanation about the debug messages. Oh my, I learned so much today.

Debug messages look different. Most likely you are in a situation when the territory under your building is captured at the moment when the building is selected. In the center, it is messages related to the game and not debugging that appear.

Yes, sure. I wrote it for this. Try comment 1786 line: - if (!canBeControlled) + //if (!canBeControlled) notifyOrderFailure(entity, player); and all buildings will lose control...

Is there a reason we show units grouped in a garrison? I think it would be useful to show each individual unit with a health bar and even be able to click on them to see their full description as if they were deployed normally. Plenty of screen space to have a selected garrisoned unit plus the normal unit panel for the building.

Performance increases are usually based on program size as far as 64bit goes. So you can work with a lot more data since you can fit it in RAM. There are small increases in other areas, probably not more than 10% speed wise. Of course there is very little difference for the CPU when running a 32bit optimized program on 64bit. The engine would need to be modified to take advantage of most of the benefits that aren't RAM related.

CCs have the Civic Spaces aura which prevents units from building farms around the CC. It's right in the tooltip if you hover over the CC's portrait in the UI.

For ram and mainly different OS it is necessity since they completely moving from 32bit to 64bit only.

@Freagarach worked on some herding beahvior at some point.

You made me check the ebuild for 25b # Build bundled NVTT # nvtt is abandoned upstream and 0ad has forked it and added fixes. # Use their copy. bug #768930 if use nvtt ; then cd libraries/source/nvtt || die elog "Building bundled NVTT (bug #768930)" JOBS="-j$(makeopts_jobs)" ./build.sh || die "Failed to build bundled NVTT" cd "${S}" || die fi Didn't know compressonator, but gives a good first impression: maintained by AMD has standalone libs for integration. has cli and gui tools for artists.

Perhaps I did not elaborate enough. I actually never noticed the migration in AoE3. I was thinking the animals are not even on the map for the first x minutes, then like 50 bison type animals spawn in from one edge and go across the map and then disappear off the edge for another interval. They would move as a group in a straight line with no stopping, so if players want to hunt they need to do it while the migration is happening. I would think this can exist alongside the current hunt behavior.

in (very) short: when you place walls, destroy turrets before building them, they take building time, way to much stone, and are useless.

Yes. I've suggested this before. Maybe it could be done by expandable list/toggling showing group/individual units.

The shark is really cool

Do note that Linux and macOS builds are 64bits. Also, you need to pass --large-adress-aware when running update-workspaces.bat to be able to use up to 4GB of RAM. Else you'll be limited to 2GB. (Autobuilds have that flag)

Check the Civic Center tooltip.

Thank you so much! The result is now this (I did 'svn up' right before the diff) - PS: Now from the root folder: modmod.xml.patch I already have an account.

I am in support of removing international trade bonus and instead giving it to the “Gaia market” (or trade post as it is called in aoe4) In 1v1s and TGs the Gaia market would be in the middle of the map (or in some other fair location). This means a 1v1 player who trades to the Gaia market can have better trade than their enemy. I feel this solution removes the gameplay issues of international trade bonus and it also makes trade a more interesting and varied mechanic. Also the AoE3 trade routes were very gimmicky and forced in my opinion.

All well-argued. I wonder then if an "International Trade Bonus" could be removed as a default feature and given to a civ as one of its Team Bonuses*. Persians and/or Carthaginians perhaps. *There's nothing to say that civs can't have more than 1 team bonus, though we shouldn't get too carried away. It could be a way to make (e.g. Athenians) more relevant in team games if they could have another bonus to fall back on if their primary bonus (e.g. based on a map having water) was not applicable. Perhaps a different discussion though.

USA - Iowa. My nickname is my background: I did my degrees in philosophy, and I'm a recovering philosophy professor.

I guess so. Don't think so, the context is missing. You have to go to the 0 A.D root folder, open the command line there and type in svn diff -x -U5000 or optionally svn diff -x -U5000 > text-output.patch to save it as a text file. Then you have to make an account here: https://code.wildfiregames.com/ and upload the patch there.

@Ceres go to your mods folder, then open the command line and then put in [git clone https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/0ad_terrains_overhaul.git ] Wow's code is not meant to be applied as a patch or to be put into svn by hand, you can just try it out as a mod. If you want to learn more on how such changes work you can look at the git commit -> https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/0ad_terrains_overhaul/commit/0fbb938242a5c70ea653ba93ee69f4f2ca23aa5d there you can see what data has changed and what the filepaths are __________________________________________________ @Player of 0AD^^

I haven't chosen a final solution for 0ad, temporarily you could use Compressonator. But any different (from nvtt) solution requires a noticeable amount of code to integrate into 0ad.

Read OP post--it explicitly attributed the problem to int'l trade bonus. @Gurken Khan Here: There is a market somewhere on the map. Why should it matter if I own the market or my ally owns the market if the benefit is tied to distance. Put another way, if an American company is importing a natural resource from a country in Africa why should the amount extracted increase if the extractor is American or African? The amount extracted is the same. The only thing is how is the benefit split up. If the American company has to pay the African country then obviously the amount of income will be less.

Could also just get rid of international bonus. It doesn't really make sense--why should overall trade income increase when there is a middle man? It makes more sense that long distance trade would be most profitable when a player vertically integrates (i.e., when they build a CC far away and build a trade post there).

From the title, I thought it would be this:

Judging from that not so much