Mythos_Ruler

Some cool new Cretan Date Palms with which to adorn your maps! Patches (300 Wood) -> Short (100 Wood) -> Tall (200 Wood). They are a higher polygon count than most trees, so use them in small clumps and groves, rather than large forests.

I would say so. It may be useful, but not necessary, for a designer to be able to tweak the "importance" or "weight" of these neutral territories when computing the territory shapes. And yeah, the actor would be invisible in-game, but visible in Atlas. I can make special looking objects for this purpose.

I think the "fairer" (last) approach is a moot point, because the most "fair" solution would include equal amounts of resources, rather than simple number of terrain tiles. And I think one of the challenges (i.e. fun) inherent in a game like ours is figuring out how to overcome being dealt a bad hand. I'm not fond of the Starcraft approach where every single position on the map has the exact same resource and terrain situation. I think we want our game to be more "organic" than that. So, I think the pathfinder approach intrigues me the most, with some method implemented to give the designer some leeway (blocker objects, or a paintbrsh layer in Atlas, something). Some things we also want are objects for Neutral Territory (anyone can build), and No Man's Land (no one can build), that essentially create their own "territories" with special properties.

If we did it, then I think they would need to look and function differently for each faction. How would you propose "capturing" an unclaimed settlement?

I think switching to a BfME1/AOE hybrid concept is huge feature creep. In my mind there are different levels of feature creep. Good - Finding yourself with time on your hands, so you decide to add a high level feature like resource shuttling that replaces an earlier resource concept (gather auras) that had as many problems as it solved. - Adding a feature here and there where the design document is fuzzy or inadequate. So/So - Minor features that can be implemented within an hour, like when I made Houses train female citizens for testing purposes and no one objected. This wasn't even really "adding a feature" per se, just shifting a feature (training) from one building to another. Bad - Adding complexity and features to an existing feature (settlements) that currently has no problem in concept or design. The BfME1 concept will require a complete redesign of the settlement concept, design and testing of these "upgradeable plots" (what will we put there?), and more artwork than planned. How are Civic Centres included in this concept? TBH, I have no trouble with the concept itself. Personally, I'd like to have more buildings with more diffuse responsibilities between them. But at this late stage? Not so sure. On the other hand, I've proposed a Curtain Wall design that's feature creep, but then again, the design document is fuzzy there. The design document is super clear on settlements.

To get war elephants you have to create a map in Atlas.

There seems to be one. I've tried. Looks like somewhere around 250 is the largest. Sounds like a good companion feature, actually.

So, I've been trying to make real-world maps. I made the Greece one for Alpha 6 and for Alpha 7 I would like to make an Asia Minor/Anatolia/Turkey. What I had to do for the Greece one was take a very high resolution satellite image of Greece (a free image from the NASA website), slice it up into 512x512 sections, then make many many many separate decals (about 20) at their largest size with these slices applied. Then I arranged these square decals with sections of Greece on them back together on the terrain grid in Atlas. I was then able to trace out the shoreline with the modify terrain tool. The problem was I could not make one large decal with 1 2048x2048 image applied to it. The decals have an upper limit on size imposed upon them. My request is to either: -- Allow decals to have a size at least as big as the "Giant" map size in the game (probably the easiest solution), or... -- Rig up a system to where in Atlas I can have a special "layer" over the map terrain where I can choose whatever (2^ resolution) image I want applied to it. This would be the best solution, but probably the hardest to implement. Must be able to toggle on and off at-will. With either of these implemented, designers can use real maps or hand-drawn mockups, and apply them to the terrain in Atlas and use them as a guide. This is something I and many other designers have wanted in a map editor for years. Ensemble (and most other game devs) didn't even bother supporting their map editors, let alone include innovative features like this. As you can see, with the current methods available to me I will have to slice up that satellite image into 60 separate textures, then make a decal for each one, then meticulously arrange the decals onto the terrain in Atlas. I would like a way to project the entire texture, whole, onto the terrain grid instead of having to slice it up and make separate decals, which is tedious to the extreme.

The bridges are two side models with raised, flattened ground between, yeah. And the map is committed to the Public repository if you have the SVN version of the game. SICILIA Players: 2 Factions: Carthage vs. Greece Biome: Mediterranean (Medium amount of wood and animals, but heavy on stone and metal). Abstract: Carthage and Syracuse duke it out over the interior of that great island, Sicily. Syracuse starts the match with a corps of Thracian mercenaries, while Carthage begins with a battalion of Celtic mercenaries.

How about a lighting scheme like this?

Gallic Fields Players: 3 Factions: All Celt Biome: Temperate (Heavy on all 4 resources) Abstract: Defend your Gallic outpost against attacks from your treacherous neighbors! They are your cousins by ancestry, but no friends of yours! And watch out for marauding Romans! Oily scum, they are, who drink watered wine! Pagh!

Like!

In a Massacre of Delphi situation where you start the match with mercs, we could either give them modded versions that don't have a recurring cost, or fix the starting mercs with triggers that prevent their recurring cost from occurring until later. Or... just give them non-merc starting units. Exactly. And I think such a feature would prevent the player from training mercs until later in the game when their economy is up and sustainable. If you trained merc units early on, you would risk them converting to gaia because your economy is not healthy enough yet. Also, I think the units available to Civ Centre should be non-merc units (local units that have a more noble reason to join your cause). Merc units would be relegated to the Barracks, which won't be available until Town Phase.

Perhaps, but archers cannot take down buildings, which is the main aim of any direct attack (destroy the buildings so the enemy cannot train any troops=you win). It would be a good raiding strategy though. Depends on how weak in Health we'd make them. If they die from one sword swipe, then they could balance out nicely. Another way to balance mercs would be to prevent them from gaining Loot from killed enemies. Just throwing ideas out there. Any way you look at it, I'd like to make mercenaries unique in some way other than just making them cost a fixed amount of Metal at time of training. In ancient times mercenaries were used as cannon fodder, because they cost too much to employ over the long term. I would like to somehow emphasize this a little bit. Mercenaries also tended to double cross you when the battle went ill or when they found out that you didn't have the cash on hand to pay them. It would be interesting, if we were to make mercs have a recurring cost, to make mercs convert to Gaia if you run out of money to pay them. There are a million different ways we could make mercs unique. As long as we pick the features that are consistent and understandable, then they could work.

I think "unnamed" maps should default to their file name in the in-game map browser. They currently do not. (but it's probably tangential to asmartgoat's problem)

Sure, but I am thinking ahead a little. We have a wishlist of significant rendering features that aren't implemented yet. (normal maps for terrains, distance fog, specular) Some tax graphics cards more than others, but as we continue to add more rendering features and more gameplay features performance will continue to go down slightly. And the Nvidia GT cards are kind of like the "premium" version of that series of cards, so much so that they perform better than the budget cards of the next series in line. So, an 8800 GT performs better than some of the lower-end 9 series cards. I agree. For one thing it uses newer tech. It's also "cleaner" than our old 0 A.D. site that's been Frankensteined over the course of multiple years. I think we should take a cue and not make our new 0 A.D. site too "themey" and focus on cleanliness of presentation. On the .de site I like the slidey animated links on left.

The Toxote ("Toxotes Kretikos") is a Greek unit, but also a mercenary, yeah. I haven't balanced out costs and stats for Carthaginian units yet. That was my first preference as well, but we don't have the capability yet to make units continuously cost resources, so for now their cost is fixed. My preferences for mercenaries: - Train fast, but also have lower Health. - Low up-front cost (say, 10 Metal per soldier). - Continuous cost as long as they are alive. Say, -5 Food and -10 Metal for every 10 seconds they live. - They don't gather, at all, but they can construct buildings. But like I said, we don't have the capability to really do the continuous cost thing, so they have to have a fixed cost for now. And not to mention this would all be feature creep, which we try to avoid.

Once you click the button in the UI to select a building to construct, you left-click to place the foundation or you may right-click to cancel.

All mention of "Super" Units should actually be "Champion" Units from now on (we made the switch at Alpha 6). If you see "Super" anywhere in the game or Design Document, then let me know so I can fix it to Champion.

Here is everything you want to know about the game design. Some things may be out of date (like seasons), so ask if you are unsure. http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Design_Document Technologies aren't implemented yet, but you can get a general idea for each civilization from their civilization profiles in the wiki. e.g. http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Hellenes#TECHNOLOGIES

I don't see anything different. Maybe my cache needs to update. The sys requirements I wrote there are just guesses, but I think they will be closer than the specs listed in our 6 year-old FAQ.

Graphically and aesthetically speaking, I think the site background should be something other than a screenshot. I think the header and the background need to contrast to compliment each other, or else they will clash. Right now they are both screenshots of different things, so they clash (create visual dissonance) instead of compliment. So the background I would change to either a nice gradient or use a dark gray tiling tile background, like the official 0 A.D. site does.

I'm not a programmer either, but based on my experience playing the game on my old rig, my new rig, a friend's rig, and my laptop, I would suppose these requirements when everything is said and done: Minimum Requirements Processor: Single Core 2.0 GHz System Memory: 1GB DDR RAM Disk Space: 1GB Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce 6 series. ATI Radeon 9 series. "High end" cards circa 2004. Recommended Specifications: Processor: Dual Core or better System Memory: 2GB DDR2 RAM or more Disk Space: 1GB Graphics Card: Nvidia Geforce 9/100 series or better. AT Radeon HD 4 series or better. These were released in 2008.

Check this out. http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14946 Perhaps combine your efforts?

This isn't bad at all. I have some criticisms. They are minor at this stage, but I think I should throw them out there before your guide grows too large. 1. Terminology - Train units. - Construct buildings. - Research technology. 2. Text and Formatting I would use a modified "outline" format, like this: Large sections use headers with Bold, UPPER CASE, large size (18-pt would be fine), non-serif font. Use numbers, like 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and left-justify. Don't center anything. Then sections below those can use 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. in the headers, in a smaller, bold, non-serif font. Body text (all the information), will use a 12-point serif font like what you are using already. Currently the body text is too big. Also, try to be neutral as possible, that means using alphabetical order and other neutral methods. Sample: 2.0 FACTIONS The game has 6 main factions based upon 6 civilizations which lived between the years 500BC and 1BC. Each faction represents a civilization at its peak, and each has distinct advantages and disadvantages in the areas of Soldiers, Heroes, Navy, Buildings, Technology, and Economy. 2.1 The Carthaginians Abstract: The Carthaginians were a Phoenician people who settled Tunisia in the... Soldiers: Heroes: Navy: Buildings: Technology: Economy: 2.2 The Celts (The Gauls and Britons) Abstract: The term "Celt" is a broad term describing many groups and tribes of people... Soldiers: Heroes: Navy: Buildings: Technology: Economy: 2.3 The Hellenes (The Greeks and Macedonians) Abstract: The Hellenes are the forefathers of Western civilization... Soldiers: Heroes: Navy: Buildings: Technology: Economy: 2.4 The Iberians Abstract: The inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula... Soldiers: Heroes: Navy: Buildings: Technology: Economy: 2.5 The Persians Abstract: Ancient Persia is a rough and hard land, giving rise to a hardy people who forged... Soldiers: Heroes: Navy: Buildings: Technology: Economy: 2.6 The Romans Abstract: Rome of this age is not yet the imperial powerhouse it is destined to become... Soldiers: Heroes: Navy: Buildings: Technology: Economy: Also, a rundown of all the building and unit types would be most helpful! What do you think?