Mythos_Ruler

Good direction. The roof is okay. I think it needs a strip of tiles running down the valleys of the slopes though (the seams between the slopes). Hope that makes sense. Also, maybe mirror it so that the smoke stacks of all the blacksmiths are on the same side?

Check this out:http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Civ%3A_Ptolemies#SPECIALSTRUCTURES

Such an approach could be extended to wall segments as well.

Pretty cool. Any chance a programmer can extend this to the Actor Editor?Also, looks like we can now have real wheat fields that conform to terrain.

Gotta say this looks pretty great. The head bob is a little extreme, but not too bad.

Looks great. Only real critique is that I think an anvil may be too heavy to sit solely on a picnic table. Other than that, it looks pretty much commit-ready.

We had the notion of implementing a kind of "Total War" kind of diplomacy, where there are a group of demands and offers that you can make. Though, I think we decided to stick with simple diplomacy for Part 1.

That sounds fantastic, man.

I think the swords should be more "Celtic", because right now they look Roman. Check out the swords that the Gaul champion infantry are wielding.

That is very awesome. Probably use this for Gauls and one of the others for Britons.

Yeah, the fire raiser in Atlas is based on descriptions of the one the Thebans used at Delium against the Athenians.

Okay, so. The fundraiser is taking longer than I planned to get it up and running, but it is getting close. Unfortunately, even if the fundraiser was up and running today, it would still be 45 days before it could conclude and another 10 days after that before we get the money. Jorma (aka RedFox) has submitted some major performance patches in the couple months since I have brought him back to the team. See: http://trac.wildfire...ry?owner=RedFox Also, see his discussions here regarding performance: http://www.wildfireg...=20#entry270759 Jorma has decided to go ahead and review some other patches in Trac to give the team more time to review and discuss his work. http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1859#comment:7 http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1707#comment:20 http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1923#comment:35 He's already committed a few hundred hours of his time and he's doing it without pay. He's been waiting for the fundraiser to come through before looking for a job. He'd rather work for WFG, but it's harder and harder for him to justify not finding work elsewhere. What I would like to do is perhaps subsidize him for 60 days with the money we had allocated for programming. That would only come out to $2500 for the next 60 days (based on discussion with him about what he needs to stay afloat). This is a very small amount for what we want him to do, so I think is worth it. It makes sense to use the money in this way since the money was slated for such a thing in the first place. What do you guys think?

About "poison" working like what you guys are suggesting, I don't see how it could be anything but annoying unless the game was a slower game with a lower number of units, like some kind of rpg. If anything, I'd rather give the Mauryans a special set of techs to choose from: Poison Arrows Archers +25% attack vs. Infantry vs. Steel Arrows Archers +25% attack vs. Elephants

Could we use "Visha Kanya" for the name of the Maiden Guard for now until/unless we find something better?

The flame thrower was actually used by the Thebans, not the Spartans.

It's just very polished and fast-paced and balanced and has flashy graphics. That's the summary.

"Italians" could actually be the Samnites, as far as mini-factions go.

I would call Starcraft an "arcade RTS" or "action RTS." Super-fast clicking and hotkey management, insane battle micro, and simplistic build orders and countering. It's all meant to push the player into a frenzy of break-neck decisions that, to me, puts it into a kind of "arcade" category. Yes, there can be complex tactics and strategies, but those usually only come to play in the long game where players are evenly matched. In reality, most matches only last maybe 10-20 minutes and one side gets completely annihilated very quickly by the other side because the winning side executes the right build order with fewer mistakes. Resources and maps are also very very symmetrical and are specifically designed for tournament play. HuskyStarcraft game casts aren't good examples for what actually happens in most games between most players because these professional casters only cast the very best match-ups with evenly-matched top tier players. Starcraft is all about action and a few simple mistakes makes you very very dead. In Starcraft's chosen type of gameplay, you won't find a much better example. Whether all of this is good or bad depends on what kind of player you are and what you want from a strategy game. I think it all works just fine for the genre and theme of the game: fantasy/sci-fi, but doesn't work well for an historically-themed game like Age of Empires or 0 A.D. I suggest those who want to play a Starcraft-style game to go ahead and go play Starcraft. 0 A.D. is meant to be a game where you build towns and cities, grab territory, and progress through stages of development. I generally feel very cheated if an Age of Kings or 0 A.D. match lasts less than 20 minutes, but 20 minutes seems to be around the upper range for a Starcraft match. That's not to say we couldn't learn any lessons from Starcraft's game design and gameplay. The balance is excellent, even with unique races, so there are lessons to be gleaned there.

I would include "native" or "mini-factions" as post-release free DLC (probably as part of our post-release patches, to sweeten the deal). And then I would only use them in scenarios and skirmish maps, so that they can be used judiciously and uniquely by the designer. I'd rather they be a "special" feature of some maps rather than something that's used all of the time in random maps and whatnot. They could also be useful in campaigns. To make sure they are actually implemented, it is best to think of ways to include them without much extra programming. Try to think of things that we are going to include anyway, then just build on those. For instance, best to think of a way to use the planned 'capture' feature and integrate that into your plans instead of coming up with a whole-new way of doing things. This way, your pet feature (in this instance, mini-factions) is easier to implement, making it more likely to be implemented. Just my advice.

Well, I committed a rough approximation for the embassies of the general idea of only choosing 1. Update and play around with it.

That's okay I guess, because they have to spend the time and resources to build the new embassy. In what way?

It would indeed need to be a triplet, which the game and UI does not support right now. I was trying to think of a way to implement it without having to write new code. The only way would be to allow the player to build 1 embassy and 1 embassy only (like a hero). If it gets destroyed, then the player can build a new one (again, like a hero).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjUZMh9e8rM

I think one way to make units gather slower as the game progresses is to allow the player to upgrade their troops from basic to advanced to elite. As they get better at fighting, they get worse at gathering, so you have to spend more on gathering upgrades. You also know that, hey, if I upgrade my troops to elite my economy is going to take a hit, so I have to plan this right.

I like the idea, tribalbeat. I am wondering if it could be implemented with the current code without having to add any new code. I can vaguely see how it could be done already, perhaps similar to how you can only have 1 hero alive at any time (just use the same code), but then you could probably only have 1 embassy at a time. I think ideally what should happen is that once you build one of the embassies, you could then build any number of them as long as they are the same kind (Iberian, Celtic, Italian), which I think would need new code. Unless we just want the player to be able to build just 1, in which case the current code may suffice. We'd need to give them some train time techs to compensate for the fact there is only 1 though.