serveurix

The myth of the Amazons may have been inspired by some scythe tribes (which could use female horse archer squads), according to some historians. But the cutted breast thing is very unlikely.

Concerning the mods, I still don't have an accurate view of which ones are libre and which ones are not. If you could provide me with a list of the mods and an up-to-date and reliable copyright status for each of them, I would very likely take a look at the ones that are libre.

I corrected that, thanks.

Yes the seleucid are well done graphically too, the buildings are well proportioned, easily distinguishable and transmit the proper feeling.

So, here is my idea about geographical random maps, such as Mediterranean or Red Sea. I've wrote this quickly so if it's not understandable, please tell me, I will rephrase and perhaps add some mockups. The idea is to add a feature that allows to choose the user starting position on geographical random maps. Here is the situation : Let's say that five players want to play a match on Mediterranean, Normal size. They start by choosing their factions : Player 1 chooses Gauls, Player 2 chooses Athenians, Player 3 chooses Persians, Player 4 chooses Egyptians, Player 5 chooses Carthaginians. Player 4 (ptol) starts in Gaul/France, player 3 (pers) starts in Illyria/Yugoslavia, player 2 (athe) startss in Syria, player 5 (cart) starts in Egypt, player 1 (gaul) starts in Maghreb. The players CC placements are determined randomly (it's not a fixed placement) and the starting posisitons are attributed randomly to the players. Case 1: choosing a faction and choosing a starting point But let's say that those 4 players want to play a "realistic" match, where player 1 (gaul) gets the Gaul starting position, player 2 (athe) gets the Illyrian one, player 3 (pers) gets the Syrian one, player 4 (ptol) gets the Egyptian one, player 5 get Maghrebian starting position. They would like to define those starting positions in the match setup screen, when they choose their civ. In order to do that I think we should be able to divide a random map of a certain size into zones, each of them containing one or several potential player CC placements. For example, on Mediterranean, normal size, we would have one "Gaul" zone, one "Germany/Poland" zone, one "Eastern Europe/Russia" zone, one "Yugoslavia" zone, one "Turkey/Near-East" zone, one "Egypt" zone, one "Lybia" zone and one "Maghreb" zone. The players would be able to choose a starting zone in the match setup screen in a list, or to set it on random to get the current default behavior. In our case, player 1 would choose the zone "Gaul", player 2 would choose "Yugoslavia", player 3 would choose "Turkey/Near-East", player 4 would choose "Egypt", player 5 would choose "Maghreb". Now what about Britain ? Iberia ? Greece ? Well those places are too small for a CC placement in Mediterranean Normal, no player can start here. But I guess it's possible on Mediterranean Large, Very Large or Giant. This is why the zones should be defined differently depending on the size of the map. On "Very Large" there should be one or several "Britain" zones, one or several "Iberia" zones and one or several "Greece" zone (perhaps even a "Macedon" zone and a "Laconia" zone, I don't know how big this map is). Of course in the case of users choosing both their faction and their starting position, the GUI shouldn't assume that the player choosing Britain will play the britons, or that the user choosing the britons will start in Britain. The point is to allow the users to choose a starting position, for example to have realistic positioning, but not to force them to choose a realistic positioning. The player choosing to start in Britain should still be able to choose the egyptians in the list. Case 2: choosing a starting point but no faction Now let's assume that all players want to play with realistic positioning, but would like their civ to be chosen in a semi-random way. Let's say that we're playing Mediterranean on a size that is big enough for "Greece" to be a zone with one CC placement. A player should be able to choose "Greece", check a "realistic civ placement" checkbox and set the faction on "random", and have the game choose between athenians, macedonians and spartans. That would mean that each zone would be associated with a list of possible factions you get when you set the faction on "random" and check the "realistic civ placement" checkbox. An other possibility would be to implement the "semi-random faction choice" in the GUI. Instead of having one choice in a list of factions we would have several boxes to check, and let the game choose randomly into that sublist. For example if I want to play any civ but the celts, the greek and the successors, I would check "romans", "iberians", "carthaginians", "persians" and "maurya" and the game would choose randomly between those five. I am in favor of the second option since it does not depend on the particular case I'm talking about here, and could be applied to any map. But I also think that each zone should have a list of realistic factions to play on, for the next case below. Case 3: no starting point choice, no faction choice Now let's assume that all players still want to play with realistic positioning, but don't want to know their faction or starting position, like in a classic random map match. The players all choose "random" for the civ and the starting zone, and check the "realistic positioning" checkbox. Then we would have, for example, the Player 4 starting in Gaul with the gauls, player 3 starting in Illyria with the athenians, player 2 starting in Syria with the persians, player 5 starting in Egypt with the ptolemies, player 1 starting in Maghreb with the carthaginians. What do you think ?

(part 1 is here, it was about the a11 bugs) Now first of all, I must thank you again for this awesome release. I have followed the development closely for years, I have taken a bit of a distance in the a19-a21 period, but now I'm back to it and I must say : a22 is one of the best releases I've seen in terms of changes. It's full of gifts, especially on the art side. I've looked back at the changes from a12 to a22 and made lists of stuff I liked, disliked or did not understand, let's take a look at it. Novelties in a12, a13, a14, a15, a16, a17, a18, a19, a20, a21, a22: Good points (here is where I thank you for all the cool stuff you guys have done since a11) : a12 and a13: the possibility to limit the pop below 300 was much needed, implementing it basically saved the user experience for all the a12-a18 period in a13 defining the performance problems as bug n°1 was the best thing you did a14: thank you again for making the walls able to expand into unpassable a15: thank you for the attack sound notifications, that was much needed also, congrats for all the new techs and auras in a14 and a15 : they greatly improved the gameplay a16: the possibility to set trading routes waypoints and the trading window where you can choose the resources to exchange are features that make 0 A.D. stand out Kudos to Lordgood and Enrique for all their great models, textures and animations. I think we'll never thank them enough. Kudos to micket as well, his animals and animations are tremendous. I wish he comes back and continues to animate animals. We need MOAR animals ! \°□°/ Edit: there's even a ticket list for the ones that haven't been added yet https://trac.wildfiregames.com/query?status=!closed&keywords=~Animal&order=priority&report=18 Also congrats for animating the birds, whoever did that. That ever-needed change suddenly brought life to the maps of 0 A.D., that was magical. a17: thank you for bringing the long awaited copypasta tool into Atlas congrats for the rotating mill animated model. Again, this kind of details really brings life to the 0 A.D. cities. Also congrats to Omri and his musicians for the "Honor Bound" remake. a18: The new persian textures make the persian cities a lot less dull, this is great. Similar texture enhancement has been done for all the other civs, but the persians were the ones that needed it the most. a19: the new pathfinder is the best thing that happened to 0 A.D. since alpha 11. Thank you so much ! congrats for the long-awaited latin voices. Implementing all civ voices is a must ! a22: I can't congratulate the artists enough for this release. Enrique and Lordgood (Edit: and stan) did an awesome job, the new stupa is breathtaking, the new standing units are superb, so are the new briton defenses, the new persian ram is miles above the old one, and every new music is more intense than the ones of the previous alphas. The new building variations (scaffoldings, destruction) are really encouraging. Bugs and remarks (here is where I rant about all the rest) : a14: 1: the new farming paradigm is meaningless. If putting two workers on every farm is the best why give us the possibility to put 5 ? Why allow a choice that we will never make ? 2: altitude bonus : how does this work with water ? is it consistent with raising water maps ? - does this work with vision range ? it should, so the attack range is never bigger than the vision range - does this work with damage ? I think you should get a damage bonus with the altitude, even for melee units, so the players are encouraged to exploit the terrain. when charge will be implemented, I also think you should get a charging distance bonus if you're running downhill. maybe some units could even have an altitude malus (for example pikes : weren't they more effective when fighting uphill than downhill ?) - does the slope affect speed ? or do units move at the same speed no matter the angle of the slope ? I think units should be slower when climbing up, faster when running down, and that the bonus/malus should depend on the unit (the malus on fast cavalry trained for sprint should be more important than the malus on elephants or siege engine whose workhorses are trained for stamina) 3: We need a sound feedback for an action that failed (like training a unit but not having enough resources) a15: 1: I don't understand why the lobby needs registration. Why not use a federated XMPP server ? One should be able to play a lobby-advertised game without having to register. 2: We need a script that checks if there are inaccessible resources on the map that can block units, for example a script that would check if a tree is unreachable due to terrain (some maps are still concerned) or partly unreachable (when 50% of the space around the tree is unreachable, 50% of the woodcutters will get stuck) 3: Notification minimap : we need an animation like animated circles or squares (some people are working on it already) and attacked units are blinking for waaaaay too long after they stop being attacked (true for both on the map and the hero button). 4: I'm skeptical about having a double restriction on the defensive building like fortresses and towers (they have both a restriction of the number of buildings you can build AND on the distance between them). Maybe one restriction is good enough (at a time I was really advocating against the double restriction but now I kinda got used to it, so I'll just drop that there to see what other players would think of it). 5: The ship garrison mechanism (embarking) is awful. When you ask a land unit to garrison inside a ship you would expect the game to draw a line between the unit and the ship, find the intersection of that line with the shore, consider it as a boarding point, and move the unit and the ship to that boarding point, and board when they both reach it. If the ship is already on a shore accessible to the land unit, it should not move (unless the players asks it explicitely to do so, for efficiency reasons). Ships should have an ungarrison command that works like in aoe : you click the ship, you click "ungarrison command", you click on the point of the shore you want to ungarrison, and the ship moves to that point and when he reaches it, he ungarrisons all the units. The big difficulty here is to determine what "reaching it" means. I think aoe just defined a zone around the ungarrison point: if you clicked in the middle of an island, very far from any shore and then unreachable by any ship, the ship would move to the shore, trying to reach that point but would not be able to ungarrison. If you clicked on an unreachable point that was like five tiles away from the shore, however, the ship would move towards it, bump against the shore, not be able to reach that point, but consider it's close enough and ungarrison anyway (and a funny consequence of this is that if there was an other island right behind the ship, the ship could ungarrison some units on that other island, which was unwanted but sometimes practical). (after a bit of testing) Actually, this is worse than that : currently the units don't even check whether they can actually reach the embarking point. They could both go on either side of a cliff by the sea and remain stuck there. 6: And sometimes ships don't react to embark order, when they have been targeting an enemy just before (even if that enemy is dead). 7: Maybe we should have a similar mechanism for repairs (ship moving to the shore). 8: Garrisoned ships should look different than non-garrisoned ones (garrison flag maybe ?) 9: The maurya trading cart zebus still have no animation and no shadow. I know there's some WIP on this. 10: Please give the possibility to pause the loading screen when loading is finished : maps load so fast now that we can't read the tips ! (I know there is a ticket for that) a16: 1: the falcon is the only bird. We want MOAR birds ! \°□°/ (of all sizes : big ones, small ones, medium ones, sparrows, doves/pigeons, crows, seagulls...) 2: Last time I've checked (few alphas ago), buildings with water planes (persian wonder, ptolemaic market) inherited from the sea water mobile texture and it didn't look realistic (there were waves in what is supposed to be still water). I haven't my gaming machine here so I don't know if it's still present (I'll try to check this evening). 3: there are so many art files for which nobody knows where the sources are. Please make sure that every art file has a source available publicly. (Note: I would also advocate for a policy saying that all sources should be in an open format) a17: the units on walls sometimes fail to auto-attack a19: 1: we should have an option to have a confirmation to keep the recordings of the matches, like battle for wesnoth has. At the end of the match the game would ask us if we want to keep the demo file, save it under a different name, or not keep it. Or maybe we could have a system similar to hedgewars, whith a "save the demo" button in the summary screen. The big problem is that 0ad saves every demos, even the ones of matches you launched just to test something or make a screenshot, and the interface does not make it easy to clean up your demo files. With a confirmation to save the demo at the end of a match it would be a lot simpler. 2: Units speaking latin : we need MOAR languages ! \°□°/ There were some people working on the sanskrit, hebrew, basque and gaelic recordings some time ago. What's the status of those projects ? 3: Btw, many people are wondering what the units say in the game. I think it would be really cool to add a dialog page in the civ description item of the main menu where people could see the dialog lines, their pronunciation, and what they mean. 4: We need a sound for when a building is captured or lost. 5: We need an animation for the capture on the building, like a raising flag or blinking models a20: 1: a way to set cinematic path points in atlas by hand (not necessarily graphical, just a form with coordinates should do) a21: 1: concerning the geographical maps, I have an idea about adding a feature that allows to choose the user starting position. It's a bit long so I'll create a new post for it. 2: Displaying the team bonuses in the tech tree would be nice. If they are present in the civ description screen already it would be nice to have it in the tech tree as well. Actually it would be good to consider that the tech tree screen is "the screen where I can know everything about a civ in terms of gameplay, quickly, and at any moment" a22: 1: Current endmatch charts are not really useful. I do not know how to make them the most useful possible, but here are some ideas on how to make them better : Currently the charts tab displays two charts next to one another, and by default they both show the economy score by default. One good starting point would be to display the two most relevant charts by default, like economy score and military score. A second point would be to have units and graduations in the abscissa (time) and the ordinates (points, kills, units...). Finally, it would be nice either to have them on top of one another instead of side by side, so we can compare them based on the timeline. Or, even better, we would have the possibility to display them as transparent layers and have each of them use a different line style. There must be a better way to display charts though. Maybe some charts or combination of charts are more relevant than other, maybe some are totally useless. But I'm really not familiar enough with the game to know which one yet. 2: Although I fully support the proposal to rewrite a clear and exhaustive game design document, I'm quite satisfied with current balance, except for the "rams are lawnmowers" thing. And I also don't like the fact that it's more profitable to garrison your citizen-soldiers and put your women on attack stance than the opposite when you're being attacked. 3: Scaffoldings shouldn't be underpinnings. Current cart wall underpinnings are partly-built walls through which units can ghost and it looks awkward. Underpinnings must be very flat, like the ones we had before. The current carthaginian underpinnings should be used as one additional level of scaffolding instead. 4: New carthaginian walls look good, but they are too beefy compared to the towers and fortress models. Towers and fortresses should be redone/scaled up to look more beefy, or walls should be redone/scaled down to look thinner. Anyway, we should have a rule for all civs that says that towers should look at least as strong as wall towers or even stronger, and in any case fortresses and towers shouldn't look frail when put next to a wall. 5: The new capitoline temple looks fine, I wish the pediment painting looked better though. It's the most artistic part of the building, so the texture should be more detailed than other textures of the building. 6: The new persian ram is fine, however the player color is hard to recognise. There might be some sort of dark filter on the colored texture, it should be removed (or made brighter). 7: new animations : the new woodcutting animation looks weird (the left arm seems to deflate suddenly), and one of the spear hit animations looks weird as well (the arm seems to twist 180° in a split second). 8: other animations are good, although from the editor it looks like the speed is not always realistic (or some animations are mixed, like "jog" instead of "walk", etc.) 9: scythe units should not have the same animations as sword ones. You do not fight with a scythe like you fight with a sword. 10: The little piece of cloth at the bottom of the hoplite's shields should be animated like the capes. This is very important for screenshots and videos. 11: There are headless silhouettes, but I haven't spotted them all. At least the athenian women are concerned. Gosh that's messy. If you managed to read it all that far, congratulations. I hope I'll be able to make one small post every release for the next alphas, rather than a big one like this.

Hi, in 2012 I made a list of the things that were bugging me in 0 A.D. alpha 11 ( https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/16534-early-short-review-of-alpha-xi/ ), and I planned to do this for every version released, but I haven't found the time to do it. I'm not going to list all the bugs of the game in this post, I will just give the current status of the ones of that previous post. Then I will make an other post and try to list the new bugs introduced in new features or versions from a12 to a22. Don't be scared by the amount of text. Since I haven't numbered the bugs in the older post, I have copied or paraphrased them here so you don't have to waste time looking for them in the previous post. Bugs of https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/16534-early-short-review-of-alpha-xi/ : 1: "No sound/notification when the player is attacked" : solved 2: "Off-camera sounds too loud" : solved 3: "Possibility to build houses above the pop limit" : notabug 4: "Military units attack wild beasts by default" : still present. I'm ok with the military units automatically attacking predators (it's very useful with towers helping against wolves), not ok with the auto-attack of the huntable animals (like boars). Boars and equivalents should only be attacked on demand. Edit: this would probably need some design decision and/or new technical features, related to these bugs : https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3007 https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3783 https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3919 5: "The scared deers runs faster than the citizen which are hunting them, forcing the citizens to follow. A deer can make a group of citizen following him all around the map, and if you don't pay attention, a group of citizen can end up in the territory of the enemy. (Why don't they hunt deers with arrows ? I think it's the case in the "Age Of" series)" : still present. I still think all citizen should be able to hunt with a bow. I've seen that the slaughter of domestic animals was treated differently than the attack (at least on the animation side), but I haven't seen anything similar with the hunt of wild animals. Why not make the units hunt with a bow ? (Side note : what about other animals ? rabbits are a pain too since they run fast, but using a bow to hunt rabbits would look unrealistic and quite ridiculous. Are rabbits even relevant in this game anyway ?) 6: "There is no indication about the place you've clicked to move your units. It would be good to have little arrows or a flag, like in the "Age Of" series." : still present in a22, but waypoint flags have been implemented in a23 svn. A ticket exists : https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/657 (Note: only the arrows animation have been implemented, which is what I wanted, but apparently it's planned to add a target flag as well) 7,8: "Units grouping before doing anything bug" : irrelevant since formations are disabled 9: "units trapped in angles" : solved. almost never happens now with the new pathfinder 10: "When units collect resources, it seems that they carry them to the nearest dropsite, speaking about the distance, not about the length of the path. For example, they would rather carry resources to a dropsite which is behind a cliff, but very close in distance, rather than an other dropsite which is located a bit further, but can be reached quicker." : still present. Don't know if solvable. Edit: probably related to PF work anyway so maybe it's not worth reporting this one. 11: "gatherers trying to fish, fishing boats trying to reach a farm or a cc" : solved. land units don't target fish anymore and ships do not target land dropsites. Edit: There's a ticket though, waiting for a design decision https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1437 12: "Maybe it would be good to have the ability to transform a wall into a gate before it's built (when you place the underpinning)." : still present https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1772 13: "Please give a way to know if a wall will be long enough to be able to be transformed into a gate before it is built. Sometimes you want to build a gate between two cliffs, and you end up with a wall which is too short to be transformed." : still present : apparently we can only turn long walls into gates, not medium or short. I think there should be an indicator that helps differentiating the long walls from the medium and short ones (not just the length, which can be hard to estimate) https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1772 14,15,16: "There's no way to know if the wall you've build is close enough to the natural obstacle you want to take advantage of. Sometimes you build a wall next to a cliff, thinking it will protect you, and enemy units go round it. Maybe you should implement the same mechanism as in AoM, where wall "stick" to the edge of the cliff when you try to place them (like currently walls "stick" to other wall edges in 0AD)." : still present, but less problematic now that walls can be extended into cliffs and water. I still would like to see some sort of "snap to the edge" behavior. 17: "No town bell" : solved 18: "When a soldier is working on economy tasks, he abandons his work and fight only when he's attacked. I think that in AoM, when a worker was attacked (even by a beast), all workers in a certain perimeter helped him to fight back. Maybe it would be good to provide this option." : still present, not very important, probably a matter of preference. it just comes down to "do we want workers to behave like in AoE2 (micro them all) or like in AoE3 (workers come to help their comrade automatically if they are close enough) Edit: could be related to https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3919 (assuming the mechanism for humans would be the same than for animals) 19: "It would be good to print some more information about objects or events. When you send a unit collect treasures on the map, you would like to have a notification "+100 wood collected" when the unit grabs 100 units of wood, for example. It would also be good to show to the player the number of units in garrison inside a building without clicking on it, with little marks above the health bar, for example." : first one wontfix (Edit: ticket here https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1773 ), but I still think that when you receive a big amount of resources instantly you should be notified about it immediately, as it will have a huge impact on your economic plans, second one partly solved (need to press "Ctrl" though after selecting a garrisonable unit or a building https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1774 ) 20: "The behavior of the "find idle workers" button is quite disturbing. It's true that every soldier is also a potential worker, but then all the workers do not have the same abilities : citizen can't build military buildings, cavalry can't build, range units are more adapted to hunt while citizen are more adapted to other economic activities, etc. Why not a button (and/or a keyboard shortcut) that focuses only on citizen, an other on military units, an other on ships, an other on priests, etc ?" : still present, don't know how to solve it, don't know if it should be solved anyway. I somewhat got used to it, generally avoiding making citizen cav, and systematically garrisoning all the non-working citizen cav into buildings to avoid polluting the idle worker button. 21: "As some units can level up, why not implementing a behavior "go back to the base/the next priest when severely hurt", like in Warzone 2100 ?" : notabug. Really a matter of taste, actually. Artistically is doesn't really make sense either in a history game (not realistic). 22: "There's a severe lack of keyboard shortcuts at the moment. The "select all military units", "select all workers", "select all units", "select all units of type X" keyboard shortcuts of Warzone 2100 would be very useful here. " : still present. I still would like to see some more keyboard shortcuts, perhaps not the ones I was talking about back then, but at least the buildings ones (to quickly access buildings). https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1899 23: "back to work feature" : solved 24: "units stuck around resources" : solved (except when the number of units authorized to gather the resource is bigger than the units who can actually reach it : happens a lot on maps with trees on steep slopes). 25: "When a farmer is clicked, it would be good to display which farm he's currently working on. As farms can partly recover each other, it's often hard to know." : still present. Given that we should put 2 units per field instead of the max of 5, that the fields are generally so close to each other that you don't know which field a unit is working on, it would be good to have a way to see which units are linked to which field. For example when you select a farmer make the field he's working on blink for a second, and when you select a field make all its farmers blink for a second. OR, alternatively, get rid of that stupid farming paradigm where 2 farmers are more efficient than 5 on the same farm. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1776 26: "When you send a group of units to grab a treasure, maybe you could make so that only one unit goes, the other stay in place. I propose that because it's the default behavior in Warzone, but note that in Warzone it's justified by the fact that you can send the complete group of units to grab the treasure (simply by clicking next to it). The same behavior would be interesting when you send a group to build or collect resources : just send the units which are able to perform the work, and let the others where they are." : probably notabug 27: "In AoE II you can ask siege units to fire at a specific place, to deforest a region or to prepare an ambush. This feature would be useful in 0AD too." : still present. A ticket exists : https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1777 28: "It looks like units can't carry resources of different types. If a worker carries 7 units of metal when you ask him to go mine stone, he will lose his metal when he starts to mine stone." : notabug. There's a ticket for that though ! https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2947 29: "As the gates are asymetric, there is an inner side and an outer side, but the computer doesn't know how to turn the building. It causes some weird situations like doors with locks on the side of the enemy. It's not a game bug, just an aesthetics bug. And it would not make sense to add a button "change the side of the gate", as this won't change the game experience of the user, so I don't know what the solution is." : I know how to determine the orientation of the gates now, so when it comes to making screenshots, there's no bug. It's still ugly though, so I'd recommend making symmetrical gate models. 30: "Buildings' orientations are always the same. Giving a random position to buildings would make the cities look more realistic. (I think it's already like that in AoE III, not sure)" : notabug. The orientation of the building's door is supposed to be always the same for gameplay purposes. 31: "Strangely, when I send units like Baguada (Skirmisher) killing an enemy unit, and that this unit is already dead, my Baguada seem to give a hit in the air. They are not actually launching their javelins, but they begin the move and there is the sound of the javelins being launched." : still present, it might have something to do with how the animations are cycled. Haven't investigated it. 32: "A lot of animations are missing. Citizen killing sheep, bears dying, trees falling, buildings being progressively damaged, wind blowing in the sails of ships when moving, etc. The siege machines should also have human operators to move them and make them fire. But I guess you already plan to correct all of these." : still present for most, planned. Damaged building variations are on their way. Would be cool to have it for ships too (falling mast, burning sails, etc.). Falling trees would be **awesome** to have. Edit: ticket for the falling tree animation : https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1017 33: "I haven't played a lot with ships yet, but it seems that 0AD fails on the "No more tiny ships sinking other ships with arrows." statement for the moment. I don't know if you plan to give a charge ability to triremes so they can pierce the hull of enemy ships, but if you do, I can't wait to see that." : still present, planned. I know it will take a lot of time to implement ramming. 14 of them were solved or were not bugs, and among the ones which are not solved, some are being worked on or planned to be worked on, and some other would need to be discussed before being solved (or ruled out). What does the dev team think of this ? (A22 review part 2 is coming)

I have two arguments in favor of making the juggernault model : 1) The game doesn't have a proper naval combat system yet. The short range pathfinder will be rewritten which should have an impact on the current retarded behavior of the ships. There will be a turn radius for ships in the future and maybe even commands to control the ships more accurately. Ships will have charging/ramming commands and perhaps even turrets. The way ships behave when taking a garrison should be redone as well. Also take note that most current maps are probably unadapted for ship use. You should probably not be able to build quiqueremes on a small river for example. For all those reasons, I don't think you should deduce anything from the current naval system of the game, which is very far from the final one. 2) Even if the designers drop the tessarakonteres for being OP, it seems that the single player campaigns are in the line of sight of the project now, and those single player campaigns would, I'm sure, feature a lot of unique units, heroes and eyecandies that are not available in the standard game. If somebody decides to make a ptolemy campaign I'm pretty sure you will be asked to make a tessarakonteres at some point I'm not saying that the juggernault model is a priority though. Just don't completely flush out your ideas and/or your drafts

I'd like to see a spectator overlay, that shows a table displaying information in real-time about the players, such as : - their global score - the amount of each resource they have - their current pop - their citizen pop and champion pop - the phase they are in - their number of relics/wonders And there should be a hotkey allowing the spectator to cycle through players POVs, and an other one to toggle the fow+sod thing.

I've never managed to make it work. Each time I Ctrl-click on a structure the units move away from it to kill the units around, no matter how close I am to the building.

What about fatigue ? Sure if you're skilled you can always work it out. But if after playing 0AD for 20 minutes you're as tired as if you had played AoE for 60 minutes, this is a point to consider. I had the exact same reflexion in FPSes. In OpenArena the models can be very hard to distinguish from the background, but if I increase the screen backlight, try not to blink and stay perfectly focused on the details, I can be as good as I am in Nexuiz. Problem is : after 15 minutes of it I'm as tired as if I had played Nexuiz in normal conditions for an hour. It's not just about targeting the enemy unit. It's about seeing the threat, take the decision on how to respond depending on what you see, selecting your units, and targeting the enemy unit. Being able to see quickly *and* accurately is very important because all the rest of the tactical action depends on it. Agreeing on both points. An animation takes longer than a glance. Yes.

@Andrettin : Wyrmsun on pyrogenesis ? Why would you do that ? You're the one that made Stratagus usable ! Although Wyrmsun lacks some gameplay and UI features compared to more modern RTS engines like pyrogenesis, it shows quite a significant progress compared to the BOSWars experience. I had never thought I could enjoy a Stratagus-based RTS until I saw Wyrmsun. Also, although the pathfinding in Wyrmsun is not optimal, I'm skeptical about pyrogenesis being able to improve it. I'd recommend making a lot of performance tests before giving a definite opinion. (I haven't tried Wyrmsun multiplayer so I don't know about that part) Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a 3D RTS based on the lore of Wyrmsun, with nice models, graphical effects and all that stuff. But perhaps not as a replacement of the current 2D game.

I'm not 100% sure but I think Thorfinn is right in the sense that the bottom of the shield should point downwards when the unit is bracing, and point backwards when the unit is walking. So on the picture above the shields with the amphora and the helmet are ok, the ones with the soldiers running and the alpha symbols should be turned by 90°.

I just wanted to say that I support Lion.Kanzen's first proposal. Sure it's not original, but " 0 A.D. Alpha 22 Vae Victis " sounds pretty badass. Plus it has two "V"s.

@mapkoc : Some commonly used massed armies, when playing against the AI : Athens: Rams. Brits: Rams. Carth: Eles. Gauls: Rams. Iberia: Rams. Mace: Rams. Maurya: Eles. Persia: Rams. Pto: Eles. Rome: Rams. Sele: Eles. Sparta: Rams. /o/

+

About points 1, 2 and 4, I'd say this is already being adressed. There's a new pathfinder which has been brewing for a few alphas ans should be out soon and solve most of the lag issues. New unit models are also being worked on and those should be nicer, with a more easily recognisable silhouette and slightly bigger compared to the current ones. There will be new textures for them but I don't know if they will be optimised for visibility or not. I've also seen some discussions on the forums about changing the grass textures so objects are easier to spot. About point 3, you can change the angle of your camera in-game using the relevant keys, and maybe you can also change the default angle via the config file.

To show the logo animation of 0 A.D. in a widely-recognised format you can use this file, re-rendered from source by your servant : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/0ad_dynamic_logo.gif

Did you consider adding them to the Opengameart.org database ?

I suppose this question has already been raised, but is there a way to make a difference between movable obstacles and non-movable obstacles, so the unit's don't try to go to a point they have no chance to reach ?

The walls are perfect. Not sure about the fortress though. Do you have any documents supporting that fortress design ?

He's two weeks late /o\

More generally, Atlas should share the same keyboard shortcuts as the game, at least for everything that is UI-related.

The thing is that since the game is in a period of constant balance changes, a new table would have to be generated every alpha release...

This screen is excellent. The possibility to have a faction randomly chosen in a set of selected factions is a must-have.