Unarmed

I can imagine a huge economic power giving units to it's less economically ally. If implemented I think I would favour it over resources. Imagine if you have game without locked teams, you give a ally units and the next thing you know, your ally declares war to you and your own units are turned against you! I think economic side, and to me diplomatic side, could indeed be futher developed. Though it's kind of difficult since some players want it simple. We need to look at ways in which we can please as many people as possible. On the other hand, if research would say 80 percent of players wants a improved economic side, 5 percent doesn't care and only 15 percent doesn't want it? But who knows, the 15 percent could be the developers, haha. In short: it's complicated. (Don't let that stop you from stating your opinions, and suggesting! But it's a good idea to think about.)

The developers thought of this, it is definitely discussed and it might be planned. I would also love it.

From another topic: Also, Lion.Kanzen, what I think would be a much better things, especially question number 3, to ask to players is: 1. What do you not like about the game? 2. What do you feel the game lacks/needs to be improved? 3. Why did you uninstall 0 A.D. ? I'm not implying everyone is uninstalling the game or something. Let me explain: knowing what you do right is good, but knowing what you really need to improve on or did bad is even better I think. Sometimes when I uninstall a program question nr. 3 pops up, and I personally, always answer unless it's that bad that I don't bother. I think this is good for 0 A.D. though I haven't unistalled it yet so I don't know it is already there. The third question is good because you get to know what people don't like at a later stage. When I am new to the game, I am more positive than when I play it longer and get bored of it. The first question is good, and it could turn out to be positive; there is not something I don't like (more likely as; there is not something I do like) The second question, I think people will always ask for something to be improved even if the game would be 10 out of 10. I can go on for hours with this post but I need to continue this later. What I forgot to say, but I had to quit: a survey with both positive things and negative things is of course the best, but if you must choose between positive and negative things I would go for negative. Example how a good survey would be (but I'm guessing not very do-able): -Do you feel the historical accuracy in 0 A.D. is good? ++ + 0 - -- (the zero meaning I don't care) -Do you feel the gameplay needs to be improved? ++ + 0 - -- -If yes, what would need to be improved? ................. _____________________________________ Something else I would like to talk about but perhaps in another thread; how the real time strategy market is changing and how it could affect 0 A.D. I mean if I look at the classic real time strategies: -AOE3 was well recieved, and I see Age of Empires online too, but both are big changes of the original -Empire Earth 3 did very bad, the series died, it also changed but not very well -Starcraft 2 did exceptionally well without changing much (correct me if wrong) Correct me if wrong, but to me the most popular games do not seem to be Age of Empires type games, but instead games like Total War and Company of Heroes. Starcraft 2 is a exception, it seems very old school and nothing new, yet it has a great rating and is highly popular. It would be very interesting to know what people nowadays look in a real time strategy game. Are they fine with a improved and expanded Age of Empires game? Do they want a game with more depth? Do they want a game focusing more on combat instead of base building and gathering? Do they want something different and refreshing or do they prefer something more conservative that plays very much like the old games? Etc. Obviously, the developers have a clear vision, and somethings that players look for in a real time strategy game would be hard if not impossible to add to 0 A.D. I will take another look at this thread because maybe I did not see things.

I agree with you fully. These type of things would be the best for DLCs. I think focussing on the main "stuff" is more than enough work for you and the other team members. I'm not sure if I agree on the special feature though. I'll get back to that later. Good advice, I appreciate it. And I will start thinking about it. Though it is quite challenging for me to think about it. I would like it to be interesting, refreshing and have depth. I look at it like this: 1. Easy to implement, but less authentic and limited in depth. (You can choose to gain resources, you can choose to deny it to your enemies, you can choose to get the units) 2. Harder to implement, but more authentic and more strategic depth.(You get the options like 1. but you get three options how to get the units which are also more authentic, and the outpost get's more strategic depth.) I personally prefer the second option. To be blunt, I don't like the capturing, except for the destroying and gaining resources. EDIT: If my idea would not be a option, I would prefer the Age of Empires 3 way over capturing. I will try to come up with alternatives. From a design view, it is very good to think of things that would be easy to implement, and see if it would be just as good as a idea that would be harder to implement, I fully agree. But do not make the mistake of favoring everything that is easier, just because it is easier. The game might turn into something bland and repetive. (If I look at the design document and everything I read that is planned, I do not believe the game will turn bland and repetive. But I can't judge until I have played. Right now the game is certainly not bland, but it is repetive to my standards. I also feel like the game lacks depth right now, but I guess depth is something I personally like. Depth is not really needed I guess, Company of Heroes does not have that much depth to me, but the multiplayer can be really adrenaline rushing (dying means paying, games can be really close with points), something I never had with Age of Empires multiplayer so I doubt I would have it with 0 A.D. (this sentence not meant degrading) Some of my concerns. Might not be shared by the majority.) EDIT: Don't get me wrong though, this project is shaping up very nicely! Just some little concerns. I thought of talking about much more but I am already going way off topic. _______________________________________________________________ EDIT: Removed and put into the right thread.

I would like to try and draw some non-Africans too on paper.

May I say that I'm really impressed by your involvement? Attracting more is indeed very important. I did advertise on a animal forum I am member of, but only two replies. I thought free game would gain many views and replies, but no. I think I should have been more specific and put in the title "free 3d game", maybe they think it's a flash game. The two replies I got were very positive though: awesome! Very cool! Things like that. Attracting more is important because more people would get involved in opinions but also by developing (developers speeding up the progress, improving the game etc.). Though I just said that I feel the developers are doing a great job of doing so (advertising I mean). So I'm not sure if the forum is not that populated because of that, I was kind of suprised this forum is not more active. Though a mod in which I was active with and possibly still will, also has very little forum activity. However, this mod is ranked quite high on the top 100 of Moddb; place 42. By the way, I also found out about this game by Google. I indeed searched "free Age of Empires like game", but I also keep track of IndieDB strategy games. But more often Moddb though. Even mods for games I don't have. I will definitely read the project governance forum but I think I have done that already.

Don't feel too bad. This may be a nice opportunity, and if somebody would jump in that's great. However I feel that you guys are doing a very great job of getting attention, I see Twitter, Facebook, Steam, Youtube, IndieDB, developers commenting on Youtube and Heaven games forum (no idea how I found that, not intentional) and how you guys involve with players like me. By whatever means, I hope this game get's the attention it deserves. It is already exceptionally great for a free game in Alpha!, and has the potential to become even greater. The creme de la creme of free gaming.

I had some free time and drawed some Africans on paper. I'm not a professional on faces either. I have trouble with noses, which I think you do very well. Might improve them in Flash and share them, even for fun.

I'll tell a little personal story. I gave all of my classic games (Age of Empires, Lords of the Realms 2, Knights and Merchants, Empire Earth, I might forgot about one) away to a second hand shop, because it did not appeal to me anymore, not because of graphics, but the gameplay. The only game I still have is Seven Kingdoms, because while the graphics are worse as all the games I gave away, it has depth in it and so I want to keep it. When I first heard of 0 A.D. I was very interested. But my interest kind of went away, because I felt like it was nothing new compared to Age of Empires. When I thought, let's try it out, and saw it had some new features. I was sold. There are enough people who would be fine with 0 A.D. if it keeps very true to Age of Kings. But if you do that you might lose other players. (note the underlying of very true, keeping true to the game is a good thing!) So what I advice to the developers to 0 A.D. to get the best out of this project keep true to the original games, but make it possible to also enjoy new features. I feel like we can please both type of players. And I'll be honest. I can play something very intensely for several months, but if the game is repetitive and does not have that much depth, I could forget about it for a longer time than I played it intensively. (Fun fact: sometimes I am very passionate about a particular subject, I research much about the subject, post on the forum a lot, but then; I'm vanished from the forum and possibly on another doing the same thing) New factions and units are always nice, but does not change that for me. I always try out mods for Company of Heroes that do this and are very enthiousastic about them when they are new. But what I do: I might try the mod in multiplayer a few times until I get bored (if it's the same as Company of Heroes but in a different setting (Modern Combat mod) or if the gameplay does not appeal to me (Blitzkrieg mod; a "realism" mod). What I do with new factions and units; I play a skirmish, check out and try out all the new goodies. When I'm done with the new stuff, I uninstall the mod. My little story is not ment as a warning and certainly does not apply to all players, but I thought it was good to at least tell how I react.

Fair point. Hmmm. How could we please everybody? I'm fine with the themed buildings but I feel like they are a bit too obvious. But yeah I don't want to force developers into making yet another thing that would be distinct enough to add variety, but fitting enough for the Carthagians. But yeah it's just a preference. I am fine with the distinct buildings. Anybody knows if my hero limit + choice idea is do-able?

Yes, I edited my above post for this. There are a high percentage of people who like what I think Alpha123 likes. But there are also players who would like new features/more depth/something new/something from another game like AOE 3, Praetorians, Empire Earth 2 etc. I feel like both type of people (and if there are, other people) should be pleased. As long as it is doable or possible of course! My idea might be a bit too difficult/demanding to make.

I forgot to say, I prefer it in the gameplay rules too. Though I can understand some people do not want it on their scenarios so I would like to have it both having it in the options for players and for scenarios optional for the scenario maker. One reason for prefering Spahbod idea, is a very good one; when the capturing is implemented in the game it is much more easier to do it this way. I prefer my own (second) idea. Because while I think it takes much more time to do, it has more depth in it. You have much choices: -do I destroy, to gain some resources and or deny it to the enemy (Note that I shamelesly took this idea from Spahbod) If not: -do I give them resources, which means I need to pay but I won't lose soldiers -do I attack, which means not having to pay but I could lose soldiers -do I put the outpost there and wait till they alliance me? I might lose them if the outpost is destroyed. Maybe someone has some good ideas to improve these two ideas, or ideas from other games. Or has a completely different idea. Feel free to share! I can understand you. Tell me if I get this wrong, but you want the game very basic; gather, build army, destroy enemy. No "side missions" so to speak. No other options that distract you from the task. I think you could like more depth in combat, but more depth as in things like diplomacy and such "side missions", it's not something for you. Do I got this right? I got the impression you are a hardcore (if I may say that) old-school Age of Empires player. Age of Empires 3 is something that would less appeal to you. I personally feel like the game could have more depth, so instead of; gather, build army, destroy enemy, I prefer the game; gather, ally that, let those kill those, trade with them, attack them, etc. I hope you understand I'm not belittling you or something (if I did, sorry, not my intention). I can understand your view, I hope you also take into consideration some people would like more depth. But I feel you do, otherwise you would have said only no. I do my best to take into consideration people that would like more depth like me, and people that prefer a more static game with certain gameplay. I said in another post I feel like 0 A.D. could use more depth, but that I feel like the depth should only be as deep as you would like to make it. Say it if I got something wrong! I am making assumptions after all.

I agree with you. Do you also mean the embassy would be Carthagian looking? (but with unique props, shields reflecting the choice you made) Because I would agree with that too. The current embassies seem kind of out of place. I mean if I were to make a embassy in Ancient times, it could possibly have some cultural influences from my own culture, but since there would be a different climate, different or other available materials and such it would look very much like the buildings in the city I would be in. (but Celtics on a map in North-Africa still look Celtic! Yeah I know but let's ignore that. One reason being that changing that is not doable let alone worth it.) The current embassy buildings could always be used for scenarios, but for the factions that they belong to. I do not see it as a issue, but this is my personal preference. EDIT: Though it seems kind of a trouble to make a new Carthagian embassy.

I can compliment about many things of 0 A.D. The design, the art, the gameplay, the modability, the communication with players etc. Not to belittle any other stuff, but the water is one of the prettiest things, and it doesn't outshine the other environment. Great work! A bit off-topic, so don't respond to it here: The most important thing, besides things like performance, I think 0 A.D. could use is more depth to stand it out more (and being able to make it as deep as you want yourself; so casual gamers to hardcore gamers can both enjoy it). Additions are always good of course (I'm mainly talking about new factions and stuff like that, and I mean it, I enjoy additions. Not the most important but always good).

While the first post includes some incorrect English I understood it well. This is a thread for loading screens art. Some loading screens can be explanations, or tips and strategies. Especially explanations of features that are not in other well-known real time strategies. Any artist can contribute to this thread. If I may give some criticism (nice work by the way); The lips can be improved. Right now they are a bit big. EDIT: I wanted to say more but I had to eat. I actually like the Roman (?senator?) one with the full lips, because there are men with such full lips. But I would personally edit the other ones with a bit less full lips. Otherwise I like them.

So I made a research/concept thread concerning a African minifaction. I first had the idea of just making it a handicapped regular faction but I do not like it anymore. Anyway, I want to know what the developers and players think how the minifactions should be implemented when they are done. So here's a poll. Two ideas from here: By Spahbod: By Unarmed: With both these ideas there are settlements which do nothing unless you attack them (unless I misunderstood Spahbod). I think everyone agrees that's the settlement looks like several houses bunched together in these ideas (there could be some eyecandy in the settlement, little pieces of farms, animals, people, props whatever). If not speak out, but I don't think it's worth to make a poll for. Maybe I forgot some ideas, or they were not clear enough for me to share. Note that minifactions, better said natives, are not officialy planned. This is for if they would be implemented. Notice how I underlined if. EDIT: though I guess the Theban faction could be considered a mini-faction.

I'm not a Steam fan, since I had issues with the program, however I suggest to join the 0 A.D. Steam group. A mod I play has such a group and it is a great way to start games.

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain this clearly to me. I appreciate it. This I would not have thought of. Thank you for pointing out. It seems even more complicated than I thought.

Even Seven Kingdoms had secondary attack. But you could not choose really. Units that could also do melee would only do that when someone was attacking them in melee.

I was thinking of a poll for how the minifactions should work. But scenario options is good too. (Make another thread for it) I would think there are three types of programmers concerning 0 A.D. : 1. People who can program and like 0 A.D. and want to improve it 2. People looking for a way to improve their programming 3. People who can program and look for a challenge Advertising 0 A.D. through youtube, Facebook, twitter (which is done) seems the best way to get these people, and make good lists of what needs to be done. I think number 1 people will always contribute to 0 A.D, but the other 2 people need to know what they can do for 0 A.D.

It isn't really high priority. (the population for scenarios we talked about is) But yeah, it is a good thing to ask. What I think: -fire is already available -animation could be available (javelin animation could be used) -secondary attacks are not yet available I think, and even if they are, can a secondary attack work for only one type? (torches would be for buildings and siege engines) -stick needs to be made but seems easy

Ok, as I understand I am free to modify anything from 0 A.D. without asking, I have made some simple transformations of some existing textures (some need improvement) that I want to share when I have finished a reasonable amount. I also want to modify existing models, I understand that is fine, for me it seems like a good way to learn. I hope of course to someday make my own things, it is necessary for what I would like to make down the road. But modifying seems like a good way to learn and some of the things I want to make are better done by modyfing existing stuff; I want to mainly make subspecies or species from similar animals. I'm not sure if I understand the attribution thing, this is what I think: -If I modify something I must name the original makers. -If I use a image, the image must be under the Creative Commons license of course and it must also say I can modify it, I must name the original maker of the picture. So if I use CC art or modify CC art, I must make a notepad file listing all original makers? Here are somethings I have made, are working on or plan to do: FLORA -Blackberry bush (food) -Raspberry bush (food) -Scots Pine (wood) -Common Hazel (edible hazelnuts) (both wood and food) -Small English Oak (edible acorns) (food)] -Fly amanita (poisonous mushroom) (eye candy) -Penny bun (edible mushroom) (food) -Wild cherry (food) -Rowan (food) -Sweet chestnut (food) -Dandelion (?food? or eyecandy) FAUNA -Indian wolf -Iberian wolf -Syrian brown bear -African wolf (not the Ethiopian wolf, but the Egyptian wolf recently discovered) -Iberico pig -Brown goat variation -Chital deer -Goitered gazelle -Dorcas gazelle The boltic ones I have done, but they are not finished. When they are I will show it so I can improve them, and will tell a little about the (sub)species; how they look, where they live. Some might think there is no difference between a Indian wolf and a Iberian wolf but there are, Iberian or European wolves are much thicker and have different colors. One of my dreams is to make stuff for a Ethiopian highlands biome. The Ethiopian highlands are in my opinion one of the most beautiful of ecosystem with very unique wildlife. But I'm not capable to do that yet and maybe I never will. So I'm starting with relatively easy stuff. By the way I am on a laptop otherwise I would have done more. My computer is being repaired. Tips and tricks much appreciated, I am after all a noob, though I quickly figure things out.

That's a fair issue. But Iberians already have flaming javelins.

I just thought of something. The red part is actually already used, but I don't think it would conflict with eachother.

Ok, like this: -Pick A nothing happens (the upgrade would say: choose from x and y instead or something like that) -Pick B you choose Iberian If you choose B, it works like the hero limit, if you pick A nothing happens When you have choosen you can choose again: -Pick C you choose Celtic -Pick D you choose Roman However these and the Iberian upgrade work like the hero limit, only one available. So if you picked Iberian in the first double, you can't choose Celtic or Roman. Celtic and Roman can just be choosen like a regular double upgrade choice, but you must have picked A which does nothing (and is free). No idea if this would actually work.