sanderd17

You might want to search for "Euskara" instead, which is Basque for Basque. If you don't mind, I'll place a call on the wikipedia talk pages (the English page about Basque and the Basque page about it) that 0AD can use a some Basques with good audio recording tools and an clear, expressive voice. I'll point them to here.

I use control groups a lot, but I get problems using them. Sometimes I want to move multiple control groups to the same place, and hitting SHIFT+Number is annoying. And if I sometimes mistake with the CTRL, which reassigns groups, and I'm back to manually selecting them to put in groups. I do agree that it would be complex for the pathfinder. It was just a possibility I gave.

I'm thinking about formations like garrisoned siege towers. Currently, I use the garisoned siege towers of the Macedonians mainly because it's easier to control (of course, it also gives you more protection). But I imagine formations a bit like the same. You can create a formation (for no prize, unlike the tower), you can change formation properties (like packing/unpacking a siege catapult), and you can garrison and ungarrison units in formations. The main differences are in graphics (where the rendering depends on the type and number of units garrisoned), the health calculation (the formation can't be hit, only the units inside it) and pathfinding (a formation can split up for a short time to avoid hitting a tree). But it would be wonderful if we could just select and command a formation like we do it with a normal unit (single click, no dragging). Btw, wouldn't it be nice if only certain units (like a centurion for the Romans) could form a formation? So you have to create a centurion first, then you need to garrison other units in the formation of the centurion, and then you can control the formation by just clicking on it. It could serve as an alternative for a "tech to be researched".

What about Germanics? Not like an empire, but still quite interesting, as they concurred big parts of Europe later on. Also, I remember someone suggesting to make it a "moving population". A population without civil centre, but who could build buildings (that degrade) everywhere on the map. I don't know if it's historically correct, but very interesting game-play wise.

Translators are very easy to find. If you start an open project (so without any restrictions on who can contribute translations) on Launchpad, you can get 0AD translated to all major languages in a week time. The biggest part of the work would indeed be to make the game translatable, in some supported localisation file type.

As far as I know, localisation isn't planned for the alpha releases. The devs first want to focus on technical stuff before they ask people to translate it. It's quite logical, as the texts used in the game are changing constantly. So it would be a real pain to keep up with the translations.

apparently, a certain "Luke" has it: http://0ad.me/sword/ http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14954 Wikia lists a link to installation instructions for Android. For something that takes a lot of effort to get compiled and has no adapted interface yet. Aouch.

Nice list. Btw, I know it via the navigation app OsmAnd (http://www.bidforfix.com/p/osmand.net/). But there, they did not want to host extra features. There was work enough hosting and updating the maps. So all other hosting was externalised (code on github, forum via google groups, bug tracker via google code, etc). Of course, different maintainers, so different wishes. I completely understand you want to host it yourself.

To not get votes from random people, you can try this: http://www.bidforfix.com/ This forum can still be used to discuss new ideas, and bidforfix can be used as a voting system for very precise parts of code or art. The developers set the price they want to see for it, and if users really want it, developers will get that prize. It also offers ways to export the data in your own UI, so it could be displayed directly in the 0AD main screen (if you want that of course), that way, people can easily see what features are planned but not implemented, and support those features.

Yeah, I noted, when you were able to get though the first phases against an AI, you would probably win the game. They also don't seem able to garrison (or at least don't use this a lot). If this is a known problem, it's all right.

I just checked the AI. I resigned myself, so I could see the map, and let the AI build from the beginning, and it looks like the AI starts building town-phase structures before they have access to it. In the first screenshot, you see that the romans have exactly one house, and they start building a defense tower. In the second and third, the persians have already 4 houses (no other buildings, so still not enough to reach town phase), but they start building a defense tower and barracks. It happens every time, both with qbot and Aegis bot. This is the SVN version from feb 7th (which I downloaded to see the beautiful Maurian buildings) Is this known behaviour?

Sorry, I confused the two. How do you call the wall to gate transformation? An entity upgrade? Entity transform? I think the main difference (coding wise) is that a tech transforms all entities of its kind (and all future entities), while the behaviour described here only changes one of those entities. For very special units, these entity upgrades could be nice (like adding even more armour to a hero, or making a "main" civil centre with double health. Of course, having these upgrades on normal units would cause too much micro managing, so not desirable. I'm only posting my thoughts here. You do the coding, so you decide.

Are there ways to check for territory properties before enabling a tech? Like check if the outpost id on your own territory before you can tranform it, or check if the army camp is on neutral territory before you can make a CC from it?

I think the army camp should be compared to a civic centre rather than a fortress. After all, it was mainly meant for a rest place for the army (while reducing the chances of getting raided). It has a disadvantage over a CC: it doesn't create territory. But also an advantage: you can create more powerful units. So I think the price should be comparable. Also, as army camps were meant primarily for protection of those garrisoned in it, the range an army camp has should be minimal, and the maximum arrows fired should also be limited. An empty army camp shouldn't fire arrows at all. So it should have a good armour, but a very light attack. So only protecting the ones garrisoned.

The bending looks very natural to me.

For half-experienced players (those that know the village-town-city principle, but don't know all civilisation's buildings), you could work with colours. Especially giving it a coloured border. This could also be applied to buildings which can produce units (like in some scenarios, you start with a fortress, but that fortress can't produce heroes until you're in city phase). Maybe, to make it not too busy (as you already have the player colour, and all kinds of coloured bars), the border could have 3 grey shades. For non-experienced players, the explanation in the tooltip is still necessary.

I find it very useful in the beginning also. Once the berry bushes are picked and chicken hunted , I fire the corals. The farming is too vulnerable for raids (it's easy to destroy a farm field, female citizens are not well defended). While corals help a bit against raids. If you have lots of sheep walking around, the AI likes to kill those sheep. You've lost nothing, but the AI lost some time. And you can use your cavalry, which has a quite well defence. But the main problem with farming is, you're left with a huge bunch of female citizens afterwards, and they work too slowly on other tasks. As the coral is clearly gaining food faster than the farm fields can in a later stage. Anyway, that's how I feel now, with the fast gathering cavalry. Maybe that will change later on And I do realise I'm putting 50% of my food back into the corral, but I tend to have 10 times more food produced in the end than the AI players. With 50% off, that's 5 times more, without using up the population cap. Btw, it's funny though that the sheep count as units. When I looked at the stats last time, I had 385 units created, 18 units lost, and that with a population cap of 300.

There are two things causing the lag: graphics rendering and AI/pathfinding. For the graphics, a lot of fancy graphics have been added in alpha 12, but can be disabled: http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16910 About the AI, well, just try to play against less opponents. You can lower your population cap in random maps, chose a weaker opponent (like qbot instead of aegis bot), and play against less teams at once. Or even better, play multiplayer instead of against an AI.

Oooh, so nice. For the seam, I didn't notice it at first. It would of course be better if it was continuous, but I don't think people are going to notice it in the game. About the bending, it looks like only the front legs are bend twice. You can clearly see that the metacarpus (mid-hand-bone)is longer than the metatarsus (mid-feet-bone). Also see this movie: the front legs clearly have two strong bending points. While the hind legs have one strong bend point.So I would propose the blue and red dots for the front legs, and only the red for the hind legs. Btw, the actual bending point is at the wrist, so it looks like your dot is drawn a bit too low on the front legs. But a wonderful model.

To many units always get in each other's way. So that's why I only build civil centres and forts with more than 5 units. For walls, you can easily parallelize this. If you have a bunch of workmen, select 5 and draw the first part of the wall. Select the next 5, and draw the second part, and so on. Btw, maybe a nice hotkey set: using the numpad to select a number of units. Say you have selected 20 units, you press "5" on your numpad, and it results in only 5 selected units (a random selection will be good enough). It doesn't collide with other hotkeys as far as I know. And it would be easy to assign tasks. Also in battlefield it would be good. F.e. get 5 units attack that battering ram, while the others keep attacking the normal units. I don't often need to assign a special task to more than 10 units, so I guess the keys on the numpad would do (maybe optional, make the "0" key divide your selection into two parts.

I don't know, but you can make a symbolic link from /data/local to something you can edit I guess: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ln&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+3.2-RELEASE&format=html

The time between firing should also be adapted. Making firing slower so that you gain only a tiny bit against an infantry legion, but it's easier to demolish sieges coming (due to the bigger crush). But an ultimate tech indeed, it should probably be as expensive as a few catapults on their own.

Oops, yeah. A quick summary about what this thread is really about: Currently, the Iberian starting walls are found too strong. There's no possibility to raid them. Disabling arrows from the towers + removing the gates would make them just as every other civ, so not really what we want. Disabling arrows from the towers without removing the gates seems a nice compromise. The arrows could be added in town phase again as a tech. Other civs could also upgrade their wall towers via a tech (e.g. to fire scorpion bolts).

Well, the problem is that the tower turns. So you can set the first tower where it's allowed, but the moment you start appending a wall, the tower turns and often, a corner hits the impassable terrain, and your have to start repositioning your first tower. I would love to see snapping happening. Now, what's really not possible, that's building walls against shorelines. I think this should also be possible. Not sure though. I think as far as you can reach to build a wall, you should be able to build one.

Great proportions, but I think the tusks are a bit big for an Asian elephant. It's of course possible (and highly probably) that they selected elephants with big, sharp tusks as war elephants, but I think the Maurian support elephant could even be without tusks. Apart from that, it looks very Asian, great job. Btw, sorry for telling this so late, but I only notice it with the smaller ears (it makes the tusks more prominent, which shouldn't be the case).