Zerbob

Has anything been decided concerning the two different types of walls ? I think some big city walls, expensive (stone, ore, and wood) and long to build (and possibly walkable), and some sort of big fences quick to build and cheap (wood only) would be nice. The latter could be destroyed by infantry, while it would take ages to destroy the former without siege weapons. Some civs could only have access to the smaller kind of wall (the britons ? some nomadic part II civ ? the gauls (and probably the iberians) actually had big stone walls around their oppida, the fortresses where they gathered in time of war, like the rohirrim btw. Though they fiought naked and cut their enemies'heads, the celts were much more sophisticated than most people think ; they were traders as well as fighters). I think it would be nice to put archers and scorpio-like units on walls : just one on each part of the wall, that can't move, it shouldn't be too complicated (contrary to melee units and siege towers). They would gain extra armor and line of sight, but could be attacked by enemy ranged units (main difference between towers and walls). Another idea : there could be two kinds of towers, as well, civ towers, and outposts (just a mirador). The romans could have better "quick" walls and towers, while the greeks and eastern civs focus more on "slow" fortifications, the celts and iberians are in-between, and the yet-to-come barbaric civs can't make "slow" walls.

Hey, we had the same idea ! It must be a good one then...

I know, I play in 1024x768. My computer is quite old. But I keep thinking that using the stances space is somewhat "lame", if you see what I mean. I was actually wondering where this could fit. on low resolutions. Maybe some icons could be displayed smaller, to free space. The current layout doesn't leave any free space for future features. Or you could put it over the stances (the panel will be higher anyway, to leave room for the minimap buttons, and you can extend that over the stances and over unit info).

It would make more sense to move garrisoned units to a new panel (e. g. to the right of the unit panel). This way, if someday we want to garrison unit in units (say, in a ram, like in The Conquerors), it will be possible. And if we want an inventory system, so that heroes and healers and some structures can hold relics like in AOM, it will go in the same panel, which will be more consistent. The same structure could even have both garrisoned units and relics.

Well I looked, it will probably need an Inventory component, new events (for the item to have an effect), and a new action (namely "pick up"). I'll code something this week. If this new GUI is adopted, the inventory could be displayed on a panel just to the right of the unit's info panel. In the current one it doesn't really fit ; you can't use the garrisoning code because it uses the stances buttons' space. It works quite smoothly in Warcraft III (though it's not very accurate), but I don't know how. Actually I don't know anything about graphics programming. There must be a trick. EDIT : Garrisonned units and items can be lined above the unit info panel. And finally, I think the two should be a single component, maybe by having two lists of allowed classes in the template, one for items and one for units.I had a look at Warzone 2100's code, and it seems that they use simple raycasting for visibility, though maybe I didn't understand, the code being quite obfuscated, and mixed with some game-specific stuff (you can detect units you can't see or something like that). It also works quite smoothly in game.

Thank you for your very quick answer. ^^ I agree that such things as heroes and abilities would require some coding, though not very much, and don't really fit with 'ancient warfare'. Also it could require to redesign a few things (such as the attack and motion system). Maybe it could be included in future expansion packs (scriptable abilities could be used in an AOM-like mod for example), or otherwise in a fork, but it's too early for that. I had a look at the XML 'entities' and it looks like basic items (with only passive effects) could be supported by "garrisoning" them in the bearer. You could create relics this way. I think it will only need some javascript, and it would be cool for the gameplay. I'll try and test it. Someone expressed interest in working on this recently. As far as I know, that is planned for scenarios but will maybe have to wait until we iron out the rest of the gameplay.Well I'm ready to help for that. It has to be designed first of course. A GUI like Warcraft III's would be nice, too. I browsed the source (I had not seen all those javascript and xml files in the mod directory) and it looks like all the rest is possible. As for realistic line of sight, it is a broader question, but I really think it would be cool even for normal aoe-like gaming. I'll maybe open a ticket about it.

Hello ! I've just discovered 0AD, and it really seems a cool project (better than MegaGlest IMHO). I'll probably enjoy this game very much ; all the features that I missed when I played AOE2 as a little kid seem to be in it. I haven't seen much documentation about modding in 0AD, so someone could give me a few generic explanations and tell me where to find existing mods to study that would be kind. I would like to make a DotA mod for 0AD, so that we get a free way of playing DotA (for those who don't know, DotA is a very popular Warcraft III mod). This would require a few features quite uncommon in AOE-style RTS games, so I'm asking you (the developpers) whether they're currently available, or will be available, and if they're not, whether you (anyone) would like them or not. I don't know wether I should post this here or in the game development forum. Maybe I'll post about it in the development forum later. Of course it would also require new models, because greek soldiers would look quite odd in DotA, but that is not the question. Some way to emulate an experience and level system, like Warcraft III heroes. This would help any RPG mod (e. g. a hack'n slash solo campaign). 0AD already has a promoting system, but it is quite limited for a RPG.Abilities defined through scripting (or XML). This too would help any RPG mod.Items and inventories. By the way, does the interface support "menus" (you click on an ability, and you get a new set of abilities, like the "buildings" button in AOE2) ?Triggers system through scripting. I'm quite sure this has been or will be implemented.Possibility for a unit to walk on impassable terrain (this is like flying at ground level, and I gather flying units are supported so it shouln't be hard to implement).Some way to turn off the "delete" button (or the formations, or the stances, or any command).Custom keyboard shortcuts for abilities, including user-defined ones. This would also be nice for buildings, in "normal" game. It may already exist, I haven't played much yet.Unit "categories" ("hero", "normal", "machine", building" etc.) accessible from the triggers system. This too is very common., and probably already exists. I can't think of anything else yet, but there's probably more of it. Another point is (but this should definitely go into the developper forum), is it really so bad for performance to have a realistic 3D line of sight ? You don't have to keep trace of all the buildings, just cliffs, rocks and trees, that is things that are already there at the beginning of the game, static stuff. You only need a 2D map of heights, with impassable objects having infinite height. This would be great for modders (to make DotA but also funny mods with mazes or whatever you can imagine) and for games on small maps. I find it really annoying on acropole-style maps when your town gets razed by catapults but it takes you hours to send your troops there because of the cliff, or worse your enemy is waiting down the path, preventing you from going out. On large maps you could turn it off to make scouting less tedious. Well, those were both questions and suggestions, thank you for your future answers and comments. If anyone wishes to start this project I'm willing to help him, or even if he wants to implement the missing features (though I'm not a great programmer...). If you think they're not consistent with the project's current objectives I'm ready to accept it, too.