sanderd17

I guess one of the issues is that walls aren't closed on impassable terrain. When you build walls against a cliff, people can still pass. You can only use it as a bottleneck.

Things I've thought while reading this thread: 1. If the growth is exponential, we could limit this by slower resource gathering. I'm thinking about slowing down the walking speed when a worker is carrying something. That way, you start collecting close to the base, so walking speed isn't that important in the beginning, but later on, you're collecting further away. To give this more effect, maybe let the ports be only a dropsite for food. So you really have to build mills or walk a while. 2. Every project has an ideal number of workers. You can paint a room with 5 painters, or with 50, it won't make a lot of difference in real life (you need to get the paint, the paint needs to dry, workmen start to collide, etc). Am I right that this isn't implemented currently in the game? By limiting the speed increase for each additional worker, you'll also make sure that players don't let too many workmen in their population, but that they invest more in soldiers. I also like the techs that would allow citizen soldiers to become more powerful, but slower workers.

It depends if these will be eye-candy actors only, or also entities. If those are actors only, it makes no sense to add a shield. If they are entities, it should belong to the civilisation instead of the biome. I think it would be best to have them as pure actors. Btw, they look so good.

A lot of people seem to agree there are different buildings. Buildings which look great with foundations (walls, towers...) and buildings which don't (markets, CCs...). Why not, instead of flattening the terrain, smooth it, and place the building a bit tilted on it. Certainly for the market (with those tents), it would look normal when it's tilted (a tent on a non-flat terrain is always tilted). For huts of the celts, this could also be used. On the other hand, buildings that need to look strong (like the Greek CC), they can't be tilted without looking stupid. So strong building should need to have deep foundations. Anyway, my 2 cents.

Yeah, middle Dutch, Hebban olla uogala nestas hagunnan hinase hic anda thu uuat unbidan uue nu Btw, almost all the middle Dutch comes from the region of West Flanders now. Go figure. They hardly call it Dutch these days. We didn't need to learn a lot of middle English or Middle French though. Btw, it's impossible to learn ancient Belgian, as there are no written sources. It must have been something Celtic, or Germanic (depending on the tribe), but nobody knows. Oh, and languages were a nightmare for me. Week after week getting extra lessons of French, only getting 50% on my theoretical exams, but luckily, my practical exams, especially talking and listening made sure I never failed in the end.

I tried extending the island, to put two pillars on it. But the fortress just has a ridiculous range, so the island gets a strange shape. And it's attackable with a single tireme anyway. So that's no solution either as you can do it directly from the sea.

It's more like a battle against Gaia than against your opponent. The island is very tough to reach. I did it with 3 boats, 5 catapults, 6 rams and some people in a siege tower to collect the treasures so the rams can reach the walls. But next to the island, there are also a lot of dangerous animals (and my spearmen seem to always miss them) If I'd play it again, I think I would just avoid the island. It's a great map, but it would be interesting if you could make "taking the island" obligatory. Unfortunately, the moment you place something there from one of the players, it gets attacked by Gaia.

Maybe memory isn't a problem indeed, but most of the time, it's animated, while you don't see the animation animore after it sunk into the ground.anyway, I believe you guys when you're saying this doesn't cause slowdown.

I meant "easy" in a sense that it doesn't require a lot of abilities. But it's "hard" in a sense that it will take very long. It's like painting a wall. The only thing you do is putting your brush in the paint and bring it to the walls, so in that sense, it's easy. But it will probably take a long while. And you will always want to make corrections. Meanwhile. I've been trying to learn blender. I'm mainly struggling on the texturing now (haven't figured out that part at all). I think, when I know how it works, I can help here and there.

I agree with this. In any way, when a fortress or other defensive building will be captured by the enemy, I would just destroy it myself, right before it's captured. Better nobody have it than the enemy. I thought this also happened in real life, and it would be easy to do in the game too. If the problem is that destroying a building without siege engines is too hard, maybe it should be easier to create siege engines (like in town phase, you can create simple siege engines). Now it indeed asks a lot to create a siege engine. You need to advance to city stage and build a fortress (=10 buildings + 3000 extra resources) just to start creating a siege engine.

I know it's perfectly normal that there's a slowdown when you and your opponent both have big armies. It asks more path calculations, more animations, more memory etc. But it becomes worse when you are constantly killing each other. I have noticed that, when you kill a unit, It takes about 3 minutes before it starts sinking in the ground. After 3 minutes of sinking, it completely under the ground, even for the most steep surfaces that are still accessible, but it's still sinking further for 2 minutes (you can see it in the atlas creator, where you can zoom below the ground). So combined, it takes 8 minutes from death till the unit can be removed from the memory and the animation stops. In those 8 minutes, a lot of new units can be created, causing to use up more memory than the original population cap of 300 would ever allow. I think that the last 2 minutes may be removed, and the first 3 minutes maybe brought to one minute. That would half the time it takes for a killed unit to disappear from the memory. Are there people who agree with me? Or have a different opinion?

all the things you mention don't need coding skills, just 3D design skills, and a bit of XML knowledge. So if you can design, it would be easy to do.

I just found something intersting about the Gauls (in fact, the Belgae, but it looks like all Belgae in 0 A.D. are considered Gauls). The Nervii used to construct dense hedges (by cutting and weaving bushes). Those hedges were too dense to loo though, so impossible to penetrate. They also gave a big disadvantage to cavalry (and since the Nervii was almost purely infantry, they had an advantage). So I was thinking about a hedge that could be build like a palisade (cheap and quick to build), but could also be harvested as a tree, to gain wood. Maybe it could even be possible to build the hedges in neutral area. Sources mentioning the hedges: http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t19.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sabis

I know it's a bit before 0 A.D., but what about the Troyans? Maybe as part of the persian culture, but with extra strong walls (like cartage) and some own heroes.

great, thanks a lot.

It wil indeed cause some extra buttons. But selecting the hero is a subset of 'selecting by weapon', so I thought it would be logical to include all unit types. of course, it's up to you to make the decisions.

Next to the heroes button, why not show the entire (non-garrisoned) population ordered by type. So you can e.g. select all females at once, and garrison them in a safe place. Or select all cavalry at once, and lead them to a battle. Now, there's a chance that you fight a battle, and when it's finished, you see 5 cavalry men standing behind a rock. When the numbers are shown (just like when you select multiple items), you can also see which types are losing too quickly and retreat them (e.g. if archers got in the middle of the battle). I also wonder with the patrolling, how would you define the path, or would it automatically be the boundaries of your territory?

It happened with my map, so I tried one of the default maps (you may notice I call "Gold Rush" in my command), and it still happens. I'm on Arch, the default binary packages of the distribution. On a 32-bit system.

Well, the UI does start with this, but I get the following errors: I got this with my own map, so I tried it with one of the default maps, and it's the same. Setting another, unreachable, player on the map is clever though. I'll try that once.

Is it possible to watch a game of bots against each other? I'm thinking about the map creator, there you can do a simulation, but the players don't move. It would be nice if we can make bots play against each other, so we can test if the map is in balance (if there are enough resources on both sides, if crossing the mountains isn't too hard for one side etc). It would be nice if I could create unequal maps with equal chances (like one player has all metal resources, while the other has all stone resources). But it's hard to test the equal chances if you can't let it play by bots. 0AD is a great game btw. Thanks for your work.

Next to growing trees, there could also be a possibility to "recycle garbage". When you break down a building, you could quickly demolish it (deleting all resources) like it is the case currently, or you could let it recycle, and recuperate a certain amount of the resources. I'm thinking about 80% of metal, 50% of stone and 20% of wood. It follows a bit the real-life recycling. Metal can always be melted again, stone and wood can only be re-used if they're not broken. And wood is more likely to break than stone. Of course, recycling costs time and (wo)men power. Maybe you could even have the option to recycle enemy buildings that aren't dangerous.

Women are better for scouting, because they are so cheap (not in real life, just in the game), and they go just as fast. So yes, I agree. If cavalry would be fast enough to run away when scouting, it would be more useful.

Well, there are a lot of people exhanging bitcoins for normal currency, see this site for a location based list of exchangers: https://localbitcoins.com/ (some people you may even know in person). Of course, you can also use bitcoins to pay directly, without exchanging (although the places that accept it are limited). And it also seems to be a good investement this far. The bitcoins are constantly raising in value (http://blockchain.in...ts/market-price) from $4 last year, to almost $14 currently.