Andrettin

Beautiful units!

Parallelizing logic which is using the same data is often problematic, as even with mutex protection you might run into issues. For example, you might protect the data from read/write collisions, but the data might not be in a state that you want to display to the user instead. You could put mutices at the level of larger operations to prevent that, but then they quickly become very expensive performance-wise, possibly entirely denying any gains from parallelization. Additionally, it is MUCH harder to see what is going on if you have multiple threads accessing the same data, making it easier to introduce bugs into the game, and harder to debug them. Parallelization usually works better when you have well-defined inputs and outputs for what you are running on the extra threads, i.e. when they don't affect other threads while they are running, only their outputs are consumed at the end; and the input data is copied for each thread if it could otherwise change.

I really like "0 A.D." as the title, personally. A lot more memorable than "Empires Besieged" IMO.

Is it possible that the mod may be included with the base 0 AD itself in the future? A single-player campaign is something I'd personally wished was present in 0 AD for a long time.

Yes, Aristeia is about the Bronze Age. Adding Bronze Age Celts to it would be great IMO. @Gurken Khan did you think this was a suggestion for the main game?

I'm a bit confused by the difference between Nubian and Noba. In the game, the Kush have Nubian units which they can recruit in their Civic Center. From what I understand, Nubian there is equated with Kushite? And then the Noba are a separate people altogether who rose to prominence later. Is that correct?

How about Zenobia?

IMO it depends on the time it takes for trees to regenerate. If they take 20-30 minutes to regenerate or more, then you will still have to cope with wood overuse, while still having forests be reusable at some later point, especially if the match drags on. About building locations, that could be solved by making it so trees don't regrow if a building was constructed on top of them. Or that trees don't regrow within a certain range of buildings, so that the latter don't get surrounded by regrown trees.

There's a pretty interesting RTS game on Kickstarter right now, Liquidation. It looks like a cross between Warcraft, Starcraft and Warhammer 40,000. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/liquidation/liquidation-a-rts-rpg-hybrid/description I backed it, and hope they get funded! We really need more quality RTSes like in the golden age of the genre. PS: In case it's not allowed to post links to kickstarter here, please let me know and I'll remove the link.

IMO: even if feasible to implement people dying from falling trees, I'm not sure I see a gameplay advantage to doing it... it would be cool the first time to see it, but then it would probably either be ignored (if units deal with it on their own) or get tiresome (if the player has to micro their wood gatherers).

Take care, and all the best to you, friend

Thank you, that's informative

In Portuguese there is a specific word for "barter" ("escambo"), though the more generic "câmbio" ("exchange") also exists. Is it different for Spanish?

I think it's quite good, yes, though clearly not as lovingly done as AoE2: DE.

@Lion.Kanzen What did you mean by a "vassal system"? You said "like the Seleucid colonies", so mini-settlements?

I got this, and I must say, it is an excellent remake. Probably one of the best remakes of older games, even, and a good deal better than AoE1:DE.

Has thought been given to the idea of players gaining "experience" (or similar) during scenarios, and accruing persistent bonuses? Similar to the various persistent bonuses in Age of Empires Online, or the commander levels for Starcraft 2 co-op. I feel this sort of thing enhances the player feeling of achievement when playing the game. For 0 A.D., it might be better to keep such bonuses for single player only (and stored locally), so that the server does not need to keep track of that for players, and so that competitive multiplayer isn't affected by this.

I just started "start-shell.bat", since the "start-shell-msvc2015.bat" described in the readme wasn't present. Doing as you say could well fix the issue. I've already deleted the files from my previous attempt, but when I try again I'll do that then.

Thanks for the info! I tried using the latest version of mozilla-build and NSPR, but to no avail: I still got the same error when building NSPR (I didn't even get to building SpiderMonkey itself). I'm clearly doing something wrong, but I'm not sure what...

Thanks! I had seen the instructions in the repo, but I haven't got past trying to build NSPR (the "configure" step fails, even with the patch listed in the readme). I've also got some other unrelated errors in the compilation of Pyrogenesis (related to the core CRT). What is SpiderMonkey used for, by the way?

I was trying to build the engine, and I managed to do it like you did (using the 2015 toolchain with VS2019), but since VS2017 has been out for a while I wondered why it wasn't an option. Thanks for the info! I looked into it, and I got it to work mostly, except that there are unresolved symbols from SpiderMonkey. I guess rebuilding it with VS2017 would fix the issue, though of course that would also take some effort.

Is there any particular reason why only MSVC2015 is supported in "update-workspaces.bat", but not MSVC2017? The latest alpha release of premake5 (which is used to generate the projects) does not support MSVC2019, so I understand why that is not supported, but the latest alpha of premake5 does support MSVC2017.

GH is controlled by a private company, but AFAIK given how git works (your local copy has the entire repository information) that is not an issue, since if they change their policies to something intolerable, you can just move the repository to be hosted somewhere else. I think it would be advantageous to host it in GitHub, considering the excellent UI it possesses (both in the desktop and web versions), which IMO makes development much more convenient.

This looks pretty good It could work well as a base for a more grand strategy-like kind of map.

Well, yes, but by making contributing less convenient (e.g. by not taking GitHub pull requests) then you turn away potential contributors.