Andrettin

I think the idea has quite a bit of promise. My suggestion, though, is to make the older civilizations be able to develop into the new ones, instead of making bronze age civs unintuitively balanced with e.g. medieval ones. For instance, the Mycenaeans could develop into either of the classical Greek civilizations, and those in turn could develop into the Byzantine empire.

I am not quarreling. You made a claim, and I asked for sources, that's all. This is common procedure in projects that strive for historical accuracy (like 0 AD). Usually when someone makes a proposal for a change that relates to historical accuracy here, people ask for references. That is perfectly reasonable, as otherwise how can people know that the claim is substantiated? Consider for instance what happened to the Europa Barbarorum project. For years they added content to their mod based on the say-so of a team member who they trusted because he was a friend. That team member claimed to do primary research in an Irish monastery. When that person was asked for sources, he would tell that his research was too bleeding edge for there to be published sources, and other reasons. Eventually people caught up that he was inventing things wholecloth, and that him being a researcher in an Irish monastery was a lie. For a project to protect itself against such things (or against innocent misinformation), it is important to ask for sources. I am NOT saying that that is the case with you, note, I'm only mentioning the story to emphasize the relevance of sourcing.

Academics discuss the nonexistence of things all the time, and in any case it should be perfectly possible to provide sources to at least corroborate what you just said on your second paragraph. "Go look it up on Perseus" is hardly proper sourcing, you didn't even say which entry there would contain the relevant information. In my opinion, since this is your suggestion, it's up to you to provide specific references, rather than asking others to invest hours in looking it up when asked for sources. I know this is a game forum, so academic rigor is not to be expected, but nevertheless references of some kind are still important, specially for suggestions that are supposed to improve historical accuracy. There's also the question of artistic license. Sometimes it's ok to have a bit of (intentional) historical inaccuracy (or exaggeration) if it makes a building or unit more interesting, or more recognizable.

IMO that is a pretty radical change to make without any sources being provided. Would you care to provide any?

There is some cool mech concept art in OpenGameArt.com which could be used for the design of such an easter egg unit for 0 AD, e.g.: https://opengameart.org/content/sci-fi-vehicles-collection

This is true. It's something I've been considering for Wyrmsun, too. But doing pathfinder multithreaded is very difficult to do without either 1. losing determinism or 2. losing the performance improvements multithreading would provide. Losing determinism is not as big a deal for single player games, but for multiplayer ones it is essential, or else different players will end up with different game states. The UI could certainly be handled in a thread of its own, though (if it isn't already).

As you know, the Page Down and Page Up buttons rotate entities in the scenario editor. Unfortunately, this also happens even if the scenario editor window has no focus. So, for example, if you are making a map, Alt+Tab to your browser to post on a forum, press Page Down or Up a few times while viewing said forum, and then come back to the editor, the entity will have been rotated.

Farm queues aren't in? Oh darn... I hope there'll at least be an idle villager button. EDIT: Eh, there's filter to replace with "darn"? A bit too much I think, the replaced word is hardly a vulgar one

Indeed, I feel the same way. And saying that higher APM being necessary to play well is something *good* is a bit too much for me as well. The more a high APM is required by a RTS game, the less strategic it actually is, the more it becomes a fight against the interface.

IMO "Population Limit" for A and "Maximum Population Limit" for B work well.

Happy New Year! Much success with the further development of this wonderful project!

I'm not sure how the Pyrogenesis pathfinder works, but wouldn't it calculate the "cost" of moving through each "tile" (since IIRC it uses an A* pathfinding algorithm)? If it does that, it would just be a matter of changing the "cost" depending on terrain speed.

There doesn't seem to be any license attached to it? Under "License", it just says "Free (Personal and Commercial)", which is not really a license. Nor do their terms of use explain much more about that: http://www.cadnav.com/help/disclaimer.html The possibility of that model being compatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 seems rather bleak to me...

Do you mean the file I linked to, which describes the license of DE's artwork, isn't accurate?

All Delenda Est art seems to be under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license: https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est/blob/master/Contributors and License.txt

Stratagus has the same license as Pyrogenesis, so it wouldn't be any different in that regard It does, actually. Stratagus is just the engine, and there have been new, open-source games made with it (Aleona's Tales, Bos Wars, Wyrmsun). But it is a 2D-only engine.

AFAIK it just means you have to credit them somewhere.

Ah, okay. Your original post made it sound (to me at least) like you wanted to take 0 AD itself and sell it, rather than use its engine for your own game. One thing to keep in mind is that you can use an open-source engine, but still have closed-source assets. Games like Frogatto do that, for example.

AFAIK: You could sell the code with the game, but you wouldn't be able to prevent people from redistributing it for free. So effectively it would be free.

Isn't it GPL 2.0? EDIT: It apparently indeed is GPL 2.0, according to this file: https://github.com/0ad/0ad/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

At present the names are already heavily mixed. The Gaulish Fortress is named "Dun" (a Gaelic word), while other structures/units have Welsh names, and others, like the Taberna and Cavalidos, use neither Gaelic nor Welsh names. I don't think using Gaulish names would decrease consistency, specially since they fit reasonably well with some of the names already used (like Melonas and Amoridas), which are either in Latin or in Gaulish itself. For the Britons, Welsh is a bit too modern IMO, and using actual Brythonic where possible would be better.

Thanks for the explanation! I have a few Gaulish words noted down here, based on which I would suggest the following specific names: Temple: "Nemeton" (means "temple"). Source: H. Munro Chadwick, "The Oak and the Thunder-God", 1900, p. 34. Field: "Olca" (means "arable land"). Source: Guus Kroonen, "Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic", 2013, p. 125. Woman: "Geneta" (means "girl"). Source: Guus Kroonen, "Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic", 2013, p. 288. The current name for the Temple is "Addoldy", which is supposedly Welsh, as said in this topic: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/317-celtic-stuff/&tab=comments#comment-2916 The current names for the Field ("Varmo") and for the Woman ("Bodu") are not Welsh-sounding, but I could not find an explanation for them anywhere. Should I create a pull request?

The Gaulish specific names for structures and units seem to mostly be in Welsh or Gaelic, instead of in Gaulish. Are those languages used for the specific names just because it was simpler to find names in them, or is there a deeper reason to it?

A simple solution to barracks spamming would be making certain buildings (like the barracks) increase in cost exponentially for each building of the same type that the player already owns. For example, the barracks increasing 25% in resource costs for each one built (the 25% being compounded with each other, not added to one another).

I'm not sure I am familiar enough with the code base to produce one, but I took a look at the code, and this could work: float((m_PitchLower * 100.0f + source % (int((m_PitchUpper - m_PitchLower) * 100.0f) + 1)) / 100.0f) (replacing the call to RandFloat in line 207 of /source/soundmanager/scripting/SoundGroup.cpp)