Leaderboard

Actually Harold Bluetooth, who lived circa A.D. 990, was a Christian who 'converted' all of Denmark to Christianity. I would recommend to have it be choice the player can make. They can remain pagan and have access to berserkers or convert and have a different bonus.

If you use squareroot calculation anyway you again could use negative exponential exhaustion (like we already use for armor): currentAttackSpeed = baseAttackSpeed * 0.99 ^ (100 - actualStamina%) Meaning (Stamina -> Attack Speed): 100% -> 100% 75% -> 78% 50% -> 61% 25% -> 47% 0% -> 37% So a fresh unit deals about triple damage compared to a fully exhausted unit (which is OK IMO, otherwise the base could be changed. E.g. for 0.993: 0% Stamina -> 50% Attack Speed). I don't know how well the engine handles speed modifiers though. It would be for sure easier if just the damage would be scaled (though attack speed would be more realistic) To improve calculation speed I think 10 "exhaustion grades" with fixed modifiers would do. Have anyone thought about when and how much stamina is lost dependent on the actions BTW? (IMO it would be running (linear dropping), special moves like charging (a fixed amount per action, e.g. 30%), regenerating when idle (linear, about 1 min for 100% I guess) and maybe fighting (just negative regenerating would be OK here IMO))

Hello! This is what I did, with a friend for female voices, for Latin sentences. The sentences can be found here: http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18631, don't hesitate to correct things on my translation... Enjoy it, and please give me some feedback! Update (20/05) Male voices here Female voices here Thanks, Itms

This is a little Hannibal spin-off, a bot which does nothing except logging some stats about other players. Currently it uses print() and dbgView is one way of capturing the output. It probably needs some cleansing by hand. It should look like this: time;id;name;civ;phase;food;wood;stone;metal;tresaure;unitsLost;unitsTrai;bldgsCons;bldgsLost;techs;popcnt;popcap;popmax;explored;kills0.6;1;Player 1;brit;village;300;300;300;300;0;0;0;0;0;2;9;20;300;8;00.6;2;Cleopatra Selene;ptol;village;300;300;300;300;0;0;0;0;0;1;9;20;300;8;02.2;1;Player 1;brit;village;300;300;300;300;0;0;0;0;0;2;9;20;300;8;02.2;2;Cleopatra Selene;ptol;village;300;300;300;300;0;0;0;0;0;1;9;20;300;8;03.8;1;Player 1;brit;village;300;300;300;300;0;0;0;0;0;2;9;20;300;8;03.8;2;Cleopatra Selene;ptol;village;250;300;300;300;0;0;0;0;0;1;10;20;300;8;05.4;1;Player 1;brit;village;300;300;300;300;0;0;0;0;0;2;9;20;300;8;05.4;2;Cleopatra Selene;ptol;village;200;300;300;300;0;0;0;0;0;1;10;20;300;8;07.0;1;Player 1;brit;village;300;300;300;300;0;0;0;0;0;2;9;20;300;8;07.0;2;Cleopatra Selene;ptol;village;150;300;300;300;0;0;0;0;0;1;10;20;300;8;0More columns can be easily included, the attached code gives a few hints what else is available. I use an IPython Notebook to analyze the data, it is here: http://nbviewer.ipython.org/url/dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/354885/notebooks/Numerus.ipynb And that's me playing against another bot: numerus.zip

Current list reads this: But I want to make some changes to it: Germanic tribes: - Vikings - Saxons - Franks Romans: - Eastern Romans / Rhomaion Middle East: - Arabs - Sassanids Steppe Nomads: - The Avar Khaganate (or Avars) Mesoamericans: - Mayans Far Eastern: - Japanese - Tang Dynasty Does anyone mis factions that are really necessary to implement and that are different enough?

You bring up an interesting point with this post and there are some things I agree with and others that I don't. First off: This choice is a choice that has to be made for nearly every RTS. There's no way you're going to mathematically be able to rush someone while expanding and teching. If you're able to, it means your rush is way less powerful than it could be. If you're rushing, you should be investing every resource at your disposal early game to do damage to your opponent, you don't have any resources or time left over for teching behind it. Arguably though, rushing sucks in this game, you won't be able to outright kill anyone in the first 10 minutes of the game imo, given the strength of the civ center (though I could be wrong on this one). I see early harass builds being quite effective though. This is something I don't agree with. If someone has gone down the "eco" tech route for example, they're going to have a massive advantage when their economic boost kicks in. If someone else went for a "military upgrade" tech route early game, they need to be able to go down the "eco" tech route themselves at a later stage of the game, or else the eco player just outright wins. You have to make sure that any player can research any tech of the game at any point in time. However, as you say, if this means that it's possible to get every upgrade in the game by 30 minutes, then you have a problem, since indeed, stylistic play (aggressive/tech/boom) becomes limited. The obvious solution, and the best one imo, is that full tech-trees should be available through-out the entire game, so if you have the time and resources, you're able to research every tech. However, teching should be considerably more expensive than it is right now. Indeed, don't you see the problem there? In the third situation for example, you're making rushes all-in. If you don't succeed your rush, you have no follow-up and you basically lose. This would be akin to an all-in in SC2 which is somewhat uninteresting to play. Shouldn't someone be able to rush out some military units and try to get something done with them early on? The defending player has to defend well or he'll lose too much and get behind, the rushing player has to harass well to get an advantage to justify the cost of getting out units early (instead of eco techs). However instead of staking the entire game on an early attack, he can take a risk to attempt to get an advantage over his opponent right off the bat. See what I mean?

The Basques are a people united ancient Aquitaine (part of Gallic confederation of Vercingetorix), were never part in any war in ancient Iberia. It is an impropriety to adopt the Basque Iberian tribes.

I have a minor issue to report, in the skirmish map Mediterranean Coves, the metal treasure at the base of the Gaia Iberian Tower to its left is unobtainable without destroying the tower.

This topic made me smile. This was a feature that was spec'd for 0 A.D. 12 years ago: http://wildfiregames.com/users/files/docs/0addesigndoc.shtml Morale was something we wanted to have a dynamic affect in game play. The game at the time was very aura based. Morale applies itself during the calculations of an attack between entities. Noise-makers decrease the morale of the enemy, Standard bearers increase the morale of your units. They were intended to be used in formation. Formations were intended to not just be a visual representation, but more importantly - impact gameplay. We wanted to add depth of strategy by making live/dynamic choices that would give you more options as a player and as an opponent be less predictable. The game was originally designed to be more tactical like Company of Heroes vs. mass-cannon-fodder-he-who-clicks-the-fastest-in-the-right-order-wins. Some of the ways we wanted to do this was through seasons, morale, decision based tech tree, terrain, territories, stamina, etc... The game today incorporates a lot of these ideas to this day - which is cool to see an observe.

I'll have some unit concepts done tonight to upload.

Hi. I just joined the forum because I realized that the game was now using Basque (or rather quasi-Basque) for the Iberian faction and honestly, while I consider this development a clear improvement over the totally anachronistic usage of Castilian Spanish, I see that some stuff does not seem to be properly translated. This may be explained in some cases because of the usage of proto-Basque reconstructions and such (would not be my choice because they are controversial but whatever) but in other cases it is clearly just wrong. For example "caballero cantabri" is still in Castilian but worse: mixed with a plural Latin form that is inconsistent in both languages. I'd use the Basque form "zaldun" for "knight" or "horseman" but I'm a bit uncertain about what to do with the word "cantabro": should the game use the original documented Latin form "cantaber" (not the plural "cantabri", please) or the modern Basque form for the modern Spanish regional Cantabrians which is just transliteration of Spanish in the form "kantabro". In any case I'd use zaldun(-a) for horsemen (which directly derivates from "zaldi": horse and I believe is attested in Iberian as well). Cantaber zaldun or kantabro zaldun would be my choices here. Another issue I have is the priestess: "emakumezko apaiz" is a most strange sounding phrase (priest of the woman type, literally). Apaiz is a Christian word derived from Latin abbas (abbot) and now used for priests (abbot is said abate for some reason). Personally I'd use sorgina instead, which now means witch but is quite apparent that in antiquity meant priestess in the context of Paganism and, in some legends, even magical beings that were courtiers to Mari (the Basque goddess as recorded in legends, although arguably the name Mari is a Christian loan - quasi-santeria, you know). The phrase would be <goddess>-ko sorgina (sorry but I can't recall the name of the historically chosen goddess right now, fill in the blank for me). Alternatively maybe use apaizesa (but not my choice because it implies all kind of "barbarisms"). About using zezen for monument it sounds right to me. Unlike Akerbeltz I do not know of any reason to think that Basques "only sacrified goats". In fact in the legends I've read they usually sacrified red rams to Mari, by abandoning them at the entrance of a sacred cave. These practices are probably unrelated to Iberian ones and it is true that bull iconography is quite dominant in southern Iberia, where it may have replaced an older one of the deer (judging on cave art). Even in the Basque Country one bull idol (Mikeldi idol) is known, extremely eroded but clearly recognizable as a bull (with a circular element inside the legs) in spite of the horns being lost. Another issue I have is the use of ezpata(-ri) and lantza(-ri), because these words are clear borrowings from Castilian Spanish or maybe Latin (spatha and lancea). However it is argued that Lat. lancea comes from Celtiberic. Yet this is not the case of spatha (from a Greek word cognate of spade) and the well-known word falcata (typical Iberian sword) again comes from Latin ensis falcata (sickle-shaped sword), so it seems impossible to find any genuine term. Personally I'd question if everything needs to be translated to more or less probable approximations to unknown ancient names or if it is better to just keep terms English (or whatever language the game is translated into) in some cases at least. For example "falcata warrior" or "falcata swordsman" would sound fine enought to me, giving historical flavor while not falling into unlikely execesses. Also here, if you choose to keep ezpatari, I would reconsider "Lusitano ezpatari" because "Lusitano" is a modern Romance word, not even Latin (Lusitanus I presume). If you want to use Basque, it'd be "Lusitaniar ezpatari", semi-Latin "Lusitanus ezpatari" and my personal choice plain good English "Lusitanian swordsman" or "Lusitanian warrior", honestly. Anyhow here, would I make the choice of skirmisher unit, I'd choose Balearic slingers (Balear habailari; in this case there is a genuine Basque term), because Lusitanians are more akin to the Celtic world than to the Iberian one (both ethnic groups were fighting each other for centuries until the Phoenicians first and later the Romans put them in line). My two cents. I'll come back when I play more with the new version of the Iberian faction and get more ideas. Hope it helps.

I (personally) really like minifactions, to be put on the map as 'settlements' (cfr. Age of Empires III) that provide unique units and technologies.