FeXoR

@feneur Thanks for making that clear! While GIT may be an alternative revision controll system for us to use (as main repo) we definitely should have the project on our "own" server. (Also there should be a clone on a PC physically owned by a team member)

It would be nice to have better camera controll in Atlas e.g. setting the camera for a full map view straight down. That also could be done for a default map preview. That could also include generating a screenshot and exporting it in a format usable as mappreview. Would definitely be nice to have. (I wonder though if that axcess in space in the mappreviews is more a hack than sane ;p Yes, the vidget size might change but then it'd be preferable to automatically resample/cut a given mappreview to fit that widget...)

IMO all civilizations should have a "ranged siege unit". "Tunnelers" - not sure about the name, but still - would be suited for all civilizations to have. (Or at least for those civilizations without any other ranged siege unit) They could be made buildings rather than units though and thus could also be captured and would not be mobile. In that case any Citizen Souldier should be able to build them IMO. EDIT: No unit should have any armor type 100% though ;p

(I just noticed that I forgot to add Wardogs to the raider spots with treasures in Caledonian Meadws - they would have fit quite well )

IMO an option in the gamesetup to chose the seed (for non rated games) would be nice to have (with a button like in Atlas to randomize the seed and a vidget to type a specific seed in/show the seed). The default should be "random seed" or something (No seed shown). Restarting a match should also have an option to keep all seeds, only that of the random maps or reroll all (default) IMO.

If the brightness of the gates upper crenelates would decrease upwards (instead of increase as is) and the background brightness increase towards it (as is) the border would be much more clear. The other way arround wold also work but than it would not look like "glow" any more.

1) No. This is not how the world works. Sacrifices mainly helped the priests staying in the center of peoples attention. That's IMO about it. 2) Yes (but since the ansyer to 1) is "No" somehow irrelevant)

From @wowgetoffyourcellphone: "Also solve how to choose which side is the ramp side and which side is the defensive (wall) side when you drag place the wall length in real time." This is allready an issue because gates have an "inside" and "outside" allready (as is). Same goes for wall towers, while few of them have doors all of them have droppoints (where the units come out when ungarrisoned). So at least this part has to be solved either way.

It appears that "Scottish" was a term introduced several hundret years ad so that's likely out of question. Remaining naming options are IMO: Scandinavian Gaelic (Mostly used for culture/language though then as a region) Celtic (Though Celts where basically everywhere in Europe so not very distinctive) I will go with Scandinavian untill further notice

@mickmca Dragging should also work with the middle mouse key. View angle can be changed by Strg+middle mouse button+mouse movement (Currently a bit broken though). For zooming use the mouse wheel (Slower with Strg pressed). Have a nice stay

Hi Sheldon and welcome to the 0 A.D. forum Thanks for letting us know you like the game so far. Yes, there are some female team and community members but AFAIK not that many. Joining a game via the lobby server should always work (with an internet connection that is ). To host a game via the lobby server 0 A.D. Alpha 20 uses UDP port 20595. Fully fledged routers should also support port mapping (but some so called routers nowadays have hard times correctly providing IPs to connected devices allready...). I thought linux has it's own port mapping utility you and the people you want to play with could use but I can't find it. EDIT: Fixed that double typo - though it's much less fun now x) To get involved in the development of 0 A.D. I reccoment starting here: https://play0ad.com/community/participate/ http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki Enjoy the game, your stay in the forum and trac

It is also possible that your internet provider blocks some ports. The following is my own point of view and might not at all correspond to the the 0 A.D. teams oppinion! In that case a lawsuit against that "service provider" for not granting you access to the internet (which for me means all ports) as stated in the contract (if legally applicable in your country) would be the nicest thing to do. Changing your ISP would be simpler and still decent. Waiting for the Alpha 21 would be simples I fear though.

The link I gave you sais sudo add-apt-repository ppa:wfg/0ad I'm sorry, I should have mentioned clearly that the "-dev" version is broken at the moment - and is not optimal to be used by non-developers (Much more likely to be unstable). I'd suggest you remove that PPA if you are not going to develop or test the development version of 0 A.D.: sudo add-apt-repository --remove ppa:wfg/0ad More info how to remove a PPA at http://askubuntu.com/questions/307/how-can-ppas-be-removed (Look for the best answer, green checkmark) Though I'm still confident that the non-dev PPA should work. [While I wrote this message you wrote back] You just said you "re-installed the main repo". I'm not sure what you mean with that ;p However, if everything works fine now, good. Still you should remove the wfg/0ad-dev PPA if you just want to play 0 A.D. It would also be nice if you could try to explain more detailed what the problem was If it still doesn't work just state it and I will tell someone who also runs mint to be of better help then myself :/

The only thing I can recomment in this case is using the instructions from here: http://play0ad.com/download/linux/#a0A.D.providedpackages ...because to me it sounds like the official mint repositories dependencies are indeed broken for 0 A.D.. A less system interfering way would be to use autoremove and update and try installing the mint 0ad package again but I don't think it will help.

@svott Sorry. But let's say this video is added to what the team will take into consideration concerning naval warfare ;). I definitely agree that the topic in question is commentable only by team members - not so much to be read by anyone. However, that's not my departement ;p

Hi @darkwing_duck and welcome to the 0 A.D. forum I don't have any experience with mint but I would try (with "sudo apt-get" seams to be replacable just with "apt" in mint): sudo apt-get remove 0ad sudo apt-get clean sudo apt-get purge sudo apt-get install 0ad If a packige conflicts that is part of 0ad e.g. 0ad-data or 0ad-data-common remove it seperately (sudo apt-get remove 0ad-data-common,0ad-data) Retry 2-4 If that still doesn't work the dependencies might be broken (I don't recommend using force though since you can realy break your system with that. Please repost in that case wait for a better answer ). EDIT: Maybe related:

Nice one Linked it to a corresponding design discussion:

AFAIK a fight shielded sword infantry vs sword infantry lasted much longer on average than e.g. archer vs archer. If you only have one damage and armor value you would need the archer to deal bonus damage vs archer (I wonder why only the damage gets bonus BTW, not something like "half damage by archers", but that doesn't realy matter). As is you'd just need that hack damage and shielded units have more hack armor (and a bit more piercing) so the fight needs longer (sword vs self) while archers have little armor at all so that fight will be over soon. You'd also make all units but archers (and maybe javelins) have bonus damage vs siege engine. ...and and and... you will wind up with "bonus damage vs [unit type]" being needed basically for any unit type and sometimes even several of those per unit type. EDIT: And yes, 2x2 (2 unit types in your example) is less than 3x3 (as is damage/armor types). But we don't have only 2 unit types and not all units of all civs of a similar "type" are - and IMO should't be - exaclty the same.

"Balancing" the game with 3 damage and 3 armor types (and health) means you need to fiddle arround with 7 values per unit type - or short 7*nUnitTypes (Not considering unrelated values). Using Warcraft III's way means you have 36+5*nUnitTypes (the 6x6 = 32 values in the unit independednt attack type/Armor type matrix , attack type, damage value, armor type, armor value and health per unit). So it's not that much of a difference and much less easy to communicate to the player what this or that attack or armor types actualy mean for the game (The mechanism is not explained ingame in WC3 but only on the webside). Using hard counters mean you have nUnitTypes*nUnitTypes values to at least consider. That's much more - with e.g. 30 combat unit types it would be 900(!) values to balance. So IMO it's not to be uses usually - the 3 armor/attack values should be used in the common case - but only as exceptions where units are clearly meant (not 0 A.D. concept wise but in the real world back then) to counter one specific kind of unit type (Like pike vs cavalery - but that's about it, though pili where to counter shields but a shield is not a unit type ;p). Most unit types did not have very specific roles and thus should not have it enforced uppon them, the game and the player IMO. (Siege strong vs buildings allready is covered with the crush damage and armor) (Arrows weak vs siege engines/buildings covered with piercing damage and armor) (Cavalery strong vs archers can be balance with speed, low archer life and archer damage/time*[time the cavalery needs to cover the archers range] < cavalery life - basically: Cavalery is faster and have more life. Mass archers are still hard to balance but changing the attack/armor types won't change that) Replacing damage/armor to only use 1 type and balance the rest with hitpoints would be easier for the player to understand. But it will also reduce the ability of the modders to balance their mod (same for the main branch ofc) so I'm not sure about this either.

@gameboy Yes, that's what @Itms meant. I just want to make you aware of that @Itms is also woking on reducing the memory need of the player AI. That will at least soften this issue - and actually fixing the cause rather than the symptoms

I agree. But AFAIK it is like that (but for moving ships/siege towers since moving entities can't use their primary attack). BTW: I really like the siege tower moving mayhem

The "random target for (ranged) attacks beyond the first" actually makes sense to me. E.g. not all units can stand at one "window" and shoot through it. That also makes towers/fortresses weaker with the progress of the game (e.g. against siege/champions) which is IMO wanted to raise the chance one player wins (so the game doesn't take forever). The unit AI IMO needs improvement though including another though about stances (and - less related - formations).