Leaderboard

Hi, I played Celtics and build Rotary Mill (increases the food production of nearby farms). But i didn't see the range of area effect on my farms. It should be usefull to see the real impact of all thing in game.

@ s0600204 If it is true, as I suspect, that you are very interested in the Aristeia mod, then this entire post of mine should interest you greatly. Be advised, however, that the information contained in my design docs thus far is provisional, and not the final word, as the information further down should make more clear. @ rolandixor Believe you me, I and others would be thrilled to include a Kushite African civ. As a matter of fact, you probably won't find many people more in love with the idea of depicting a Nubian civilization than I am. As has been stated above, I have indeed put out a preliminary Kushite Nubian design document, as part of Aristeia's Bronze Age mod; my design doc focuses on the black Pharaohs who ruled in Egypt during the time of the Assyrians and the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah. If you're looking for civ compatibility with the 0 A.D. main game's Empires Ascendant timeframe (500 BC to 1 BC), then I would say that researching the Nubians of Meroë would likely be your best starting point. That being said... Most of the following I have stated elsewhere, but I will repeat it here in the interests of convenience and transparency. The Aristeia mod needs both an overhaul and a refocused vision (and that will involve my redoing major elements of my already-completed design docs as well as altering the Aristeia civilization lists). 2000-500 BC is a long timespan, and, rather than having a 1500-year-spanning civilization free-for-all, it might be better to group Bronze civs by era/period (every 2-300 years or so, and this could be reflected in specific scenario maps), so as not to completely lose the sense of time and chronology. If I'm not making much sense, that's okay, I'm still in the brainstorming process myself, but hopefully a clearer picture will emerge as time goes on. One of my medium-to-long-term goals is to create a comprehensive world political history timeline in order to, among other things, better ascertain the relationships, zeniths, and timespans of various cultures and civilizations. I am beginning to have a fairly definite vision for how I think the Aristeia project should look and feel (as far as timeframes, civs, art, themes, focus, etc.). That being said, much (and I cannot stress this enough), much, much research on the part of Theodotus and me (and others who are research-inclined) remains to be done before I would feel comfortable with the mod moving forward. The chronologies and dynasties of the historical eras before c. 500 BC are much less set-in-stone and agreed-upon than later periods are, and so many, many sources must be evaluated, cross-checked, examined, weighed, etc. before even semi-definite conclusions can be drawn. Not only is it still somewhat unclear in my mind which civs to give emphasis to, but even with what would appear to be obvious choices (Egypt and Assyria, for instance), the question then arises which dynasties/rulers/eras to feature. Again, Aristeia's timeframe spans at least 1500 years! Our work is cut out for us... The above is a major part of the reason that I have not yet opened an official topic for the Bronze Age mod even on the Council of Modders, nor have I been actively posting updates on the main forum, besides the fact that, what between student teaching and working, I have little, if any, time to devote to 0 A.D. until mid-May at the earliest. So, long story short, I would prefer that the Bronze Age mod remain mostly in limbo for now, until I have a significant increase in available time. That way, we can ensure that, once we get rolling, we have made Aristeia's design as correct as we reasonably could in the first place. But in the meantime, anyone interested could definitely be gathering resources and info for the cultures and civs in this and any other mods that are either already in existence or yet to be created.

Better like this then ?

Actually, the most up to date of the two would be the information available via the civinfo dialog in-game, but neither is particularly accurate. Consider them as an indicator of what will be, rather than what is. Ardiosmanae is, as far as I can tell, a concept rather than a technology, and may eventually be seen as higher food gather/production rates for the celt and brit civs from game start. Possibly. But it hasn't been implemented yet. Oh, and it has never been implemented as a technology: that was something that was intended as an aura (in r13766) before auras were implemented (in r13998) and has since been corrected. Edit: found revisions

It is now ;-) Thanks a lot, Alekusu.

The third video of the series: A few notes about what I tried to explain ^^: Rushing: A rush is a fast push on phase 1. You sacrifice a bit of economy in order to get a larger army than your opponent early in the game. Good point: If successful you’ll win the game fast Bad point: If unsuccessful you’ll fall behind quickly Countered by: Turtling Turtling: Turtling is a defensive strategy that rely on walls, towers and fortress to defend against your opponent pushes. Good point: Your city is protected by walls and tower, so when your “turtle” is over, you can focus on economy or harassing in mid game Bad point: You’ll invest a lot in defensive structures, If your opponent doesn’t attack, you’ll invest for nothing… Countered by: Booming Booming: To boom is to focus on the early stage of the game into economy. That usually means that you’ll have a lot of women and economic upgrades sooner than your opponent. Good point: You’ll have an amazing economy on mid game Bad point: If you get pressured early in the game, will be difficult to counter Countered by: Rushing How to react against a double rush? So, you are playing a 2v2, you are still on phase 1 and at 8min you have two enemies in your city, what do you do? Firstly you need to evaluate the forces of your enemies; is it going to be enough to destroy your CC? If yes, you need to call for help, in a 2v2, the one under attack should be the one making the calls (because he is the one how knows if he can defend or not, not your ally). While your ally is coming to help you, try to win as much time as you can, repair your CC, garrison some troops, make the enemy follows your villagers etc… If you know that you can defend your CC (Even if you lose your army): Tell your ally to counter attack directly in the enemy base! On phase 1, if you lose your CC, you cannot rebuilt it so the most important thing is to know if yes or no your CC will go down. About playstyle: Aggressive/active: On the first part of the game, Mario and I are playing aggressive/active, that means that we are pushing and looking for a direct army clash. We focus on taking a military advantage early in the game and win the game with troups Aggressive/passive: On the second part of the game, and because Mr.Parrot had an excellent defense, we changed our playstyle and went for aggressive/passive. The idea is to win by making your enemy suffocating inside his own base. You build CC next to his base, add some tower, put units into these buildings and slowly taking his territory until you feel you can go and finish your opponent. It's probably the best way to play against someone who's turtling.

Any idea for the door ?

I've been thinking a while but I wondered what you call 'rules' in this case. Could you elude a bit on that? It sounds most logic to place buildings that have a relationship close to each other (so farms and corrals close to a farmstead, blacksmith and barracks near each other. etc.) Another idea to came to my mind would be the implementation of satellite villages. These are tiny villages with a set task that can function independent (to a certain extend) from the others. They could share some services like repairing/building groups. An example of a stone mining village that provides work and space for 10 gatherers: An example of a farming village that provides work and space for 10 gatherers:

Many times in a game I find that I need more population room. However, in the late game the pop cap basically means that there simply isn't enough space in the houses. To prevent "deleting" your own civilian units to free up space for the more powerful units (this would apply to soldier units too), I suggest we implement decommissioning. The Delete Unit button would be replaced with a Decommission button. Units would simply disappear when decommissioned (or maybe use a simple particle effect). This would represent sending off units when you don't need their services. The unit would return all items received during the course of employment. This would be realized by adding the loot (equipment) values of the units back to the player's resources. To prevent killing all the enemy civilian units, I suggest two changes: First, that we make female citizens non-conquest critical like traders and priests. This requires removing the ability to set Civil Center foundations. Second, to avoid having Gaia units just sitting around after a player is defeated, we could implement automatic Gaia ownership changes based on proximity like in AoK. The proximity ownership change takes away most of the difficulty of figuring out which player actually defeated the other player. Any thoughts?

For one, it avoids having dead units all around your base when no battle has occurred. Killing your own units to free up pop space just seems bizarre. Other than the graphical effect and it being more logical, you would receive the loot per unit decommissioned which provides some new strategies. You could decommission some units you didn't need in order to get some of the resources back to research some critical tech or train some units that you had a more immediate need for. It needs to apply to all units, so a slave market really wouldn't work as well; you should be able to decommission both military and civilian units. Also, the civilians are generally citizens with certain rights, so selling your own people off doesn't make much sense considering they weren't captured enemies. (It also is a sensitive issue that would be more offensive to people without a real benefit to the game, so I don't think it should be implemented that way.)