Leaderboard

Well, from my perspective (single player only) I would answer "yes and no": - Yes: it would have quite some historical references. The resources would go back to gaia. - No: - This would leave no choice to the besieged player wiht a single CC to recover eventually and counter attack. Also, resources are with the player and not with the building. So, if the besieged player has multiple CC and only one is under siege should he also loose resources? I believe no. We do have a gradual change of ownership of any building that is under siege (surrounded by troops if you tell them to capture instead of destroying it). I believe this models more or less what you had in mind, but nothing happens to the besieged player's resources though. So - again - from my personal perspective, I regret, but would not be in favour of that proposal.

I guess the best comedy just writes itself!

What I need is for details of the art to be visible. I need examples to decorate those hot animal and humanoid figures (gods).

Easy to see if you choose the AI to view and look at the minimap: you had this Arab Javelineer attacking your House since 17:30. He gets killed there and you win.

I think it could be an interesting alternative, if simplified. No one wants to mow down pregnant women unnecessarily. The game that comes to mind is Populous: The Beginning. People are produced by garrisoning existing people in houses, giving an additional dimension to economy management. This would be quite realistic, and not that much overcomplicated. One could have small villages without a Civic Center. The Civic Center would be a later centre of government (historically, when enough organisation was reached), with certain techs, and taking them would still be a common victory condition. The following thing Populous does is that these people are then garrisoned in different buildings (Barracks, Temple) to become the different units. This might seem extra micro, but with the proper automation it should be fine. I had lots of fun playing that game like 25 years ago, it made an impression. I think Caesar III had a similar mechanism for growing the population (if it was not just immigration/emigration). Sadly most people think the way AoE did it is the only valid way. Still, this won't be implemented in vanilla just because, maybe make a mod as a proof of concept, and good luck.

Ok, I was using "turreted" because that is what I used in the code. I added <TurretHolder> to the boat xml files. But I'll start saying "on deck" instead. Ok, I'll just start it out as a mod then, and then maybe make a PR

Not true. I (and most here are surely better than me) have no problems beating an Aggressive Very Hard AI, and I almost always do it only with infantry, which shows the harder levels need to be even harder. The only problem I've seen is that the easy levels are too hard for newbies.

I think people will understand you because people use misnomers. I'm just saying I think it's confusing to say "turreted" when the ship has no "turrets" (the ship towers), or when troops can only be "turreted" in the part of the wall that has no turrets, and not "turreted" in the actual turrets. The problem is that, as with many other things in this game, the person that called that action "turret" had no idea what that actually meant. But a small one, ship towers were not really meant to increase range, but to be in a better position to rain missiles on enemy decks (usually they were the same height, with the exception of the quadrireme, which commonly had two levels of oars instead of three). That is different from the question of your poll. You asked "should being able to put units on the deck of the ship be just a mod, or part of vanilla 0 A.D.?", and my answer is obviously yes, for many reasons, but eventually, not necessarily right now, this has not been properly tested, nor is being yet done with what should be the main purpose in mind: boarding. So these things should start as a mod, and only after quite some fine-tuning, be implemented in vanilla.

Frankly, I don't think that we should do that. Not argueing from history but from the gameplay perspective: For a game that offers different civs, these need to be balanced so they all remain a valid option to be chosen by the player. Any "less capable/less valueable" civ would simply never be chosen and we can remove it from the game. But all this while having different characteristics so that specific strategy might be beeded to win a game, e.g. Kush against Rome.

Where is your proof? Look how they are represented: Maybe they should look more like that in the game, what do you think?

They do as much as some male Heroes included in the game, yet I don't see you complaining about them. You just joined and half of your 8 posts are against female units or Heroes, so it's pretty clear where you come from.

I left the source above, but only look for the images that wow said it wanted. The rest are just my comments are based on what I know about Near Eastern cultures.

I think the project below has a lot of support : But it's an herculean task, and I still have no idea how one would bring it to be implemented into the game. There will be a tone of work too for reviewing the proposed (sizable but not crazy neither) engine changes, unit balancing, testing, maybe even adding some animations to make it extra-cool... Also there is the valid concern that it would inevitably add a bit of extra load. I took an approach that's actually super cheap on performance to simulate the interactions but some extra checks to handle collisions while units move with inertia seems unavoidable; and they however, add up a bit of load. So it's difficult to tell if in the end, it would be considered worth it, or be blocking the whole idea.

I found a different reference for a stage, which I prefer. It has a stone building in it, but the whole structure still looks "rustic" enough I think. Still a wip, so UVs, props and all that small stuff are incomplete. If I'm on the wrong track it's good to know early though, so what do you think?

From assasins creed. Should we go for something similar, especially with the stage? Is it historically accurate?

NO, I'm saying that they should be fully covered regardless of what happened in history. (this is the only time you can make an exemption like this)

I said 0ad should give them more clothes in the game.

I'm only aligned for making a historically correct game, can you honestly say that what I have said is wrong? what is your proof?

These people didn't play a big enough role in history to justify including them in this game

The graphics look good (for the most part) BUT Whenever you select a unit, you get a picture of it and those could definitely be improved