Sighvatr

That and the Ptolemies adopted everything unique about the Carthaginians. Such as commanding a large and diverse force of mercenaries.

I throw in a vote for the Ptolemies. I'm digging up articles and books in my local library for that civilization. Macedonian/Egyptian warriors look pretty badass. Also, a pre-roman Ptolemaic civilization provides more variety of units over other factions. There is the entire Ptolemy dynasty to assign as heroes. The Civilian-Soldiers would be the native Eqyptian forces, and the elite Ptolemaic forces would be more Greek/Macedonian influenced. The building architecture is mostly pure Egyptian with very little Greek influence. Also, the Ptolemaic empire controlled a large section of the Mediterranean, and commanded the largest navy at it's time before the Romans conquered them.

If this lasts till Spring Break, I'll be able to do my share.

Elephants should stomp the crap out of people. The end.

Looks great! Even if they do not function as cages in-game currently, they would look great as scenery.

I found 0ad by googling up free age of empire like games. I looked at a forum and they recommended 0 ad. Thats how I found this site.

How about different variations of Conquest? Building Conquest- If a player has no buildings left on the map, he/she loses (excluding walls and gates). Team Survival- If a player is killed off entirely, than his entire team loses. Building Conquest would be a great gametype for those who dislike searching an entire map for hidden units. Team Survival would cause players to rely on the other in order to guarantee success.

Please detail your question more thoroughly? Otherwise look up an online dictionary for your answer.

This looks so good! I wish I could have a closer look at the units. But brilliant work. You all must had worked in the dark.

If units moved slow when they step outside of their territory, it still slows the game down. You take away some people's economic strategies. The speed set for each unit is already pretty balanced. It is the combat itself that needs features. If we implement a Roman Turtle formation that allows your infantry to become immune to projectiles, than that slows down the combat, and the opponent has to rethink his strategies. Also, slowing down unit speed in general does not let you perform quick surprise attacks as fast. That'll make the game too easy. Lol

Has anybody contributed work to help differ similar factions? Like the Britons to the Gauls, or Spartans to Athenians and Macedonians?

Slowing down unit speed in general, slows down the entire game itself. I think the amount of time it takes to build an economy is reasonable as of now. I dont think there is any reason we should speed or slow down combat. I just suggest that we have more control over the battle than to watch our units play a rock-paper-scissors battle.

I like the suggestion to put more emphasis in battle. Just because you increase the map size, it doesnt mean that it will slow down combat. The only difference is the delay of time to get to the battle scene. The battles will still end quickly. The only problem I see about slowing down combat speed, is that battles will grow larger, because players can produce troops fast enough to constantly reinforce. One ongoing battle could determine the winner.

I would like the melee civilian cav to travel a little bit quicker so that they dont have to corner a fast moving prey.

Really? I thought it was still in progress? I hardly notice a difference when my units are attacked, or attacking?

Make a large Total War similar battle scenario that prevents the ability to build buildings and units.

I would like to see the markets as a huge space taken up by stalls and tents. Age of Empires does a great job of making the marketplace look like a modern day grocery store.

If possible, I would want 0 A.D. as far away as possible from Age of Empires. Age of Empires was fun in itself, but it tremendously lacked historical accuracy in the art and gameplay. Instead, we should focus on what realism we can include into this game that Age of Empires lacked, yet keep the gameplay both interesting and fun. I'm just surprised that 0 A.D. lacked the need for unit formations, as that was historically important in ancient warfare. The infantry needs some kind of buff that would balance them out against cavalry or archery, and I'm hoping that buff would be to create infantry formations. So please, I don't like to look at 0 A.D. as another AoE clone.

I would like to add that any south american civilization included with the mayans still wouldn't make sense with the other factions in-game. Iberians may have never fought indians or persians, but they have more ties to them than any ancient americans to anybody else in the world. Regardless of the unconfirmed theory that the Olmecs have traveled to asia, because of the artwork they created of foreign animal species.

No comprendo. I'm kind of lost on what you said there.

Has anybody tried working on to create new sounds for everything else in the game? Mute Catapults are very irksome.

Must've happened through trade. (I thought pizza was an American dish from New York? Otherwise we would see pizza on the menu of Chinese Take-outs.) I would separate the granaries from the main building. It looks kinda weird when they are merged.

The Dacians were around the later Roman times?

They are the legendary giant shrooms of India. They harvest the fungi to create their mushroom pizzas.

Including Vikings into 0 AD, that is not during the Viking Age, would seem weird. The Norse were small, and slowly developing their culture and trade around the Roman times. It is very difficult to find any articles about Pre-Vikings.