DanCar

I like strategic thinking. I typically play at 0.1x.

I'm hoping someday it will work on android devices so I'm against the proposed solution. Perhaps an alternate solution is to decrease aspects of the UI's size such as font size? Can this be done automatically if it doesn't fit a translation? Would scroll bars help?

I beat two AIs at medium level.

What do you think about an option for the android UI where player controls the AI? In other words the AI controls the game and you control the AI. Ideally there would be an option to turn off and turn on the AI. Either way should be possible to control the units directly as when the AI is off. I can define this further if people like the idea.

Thanks Josh for the info. If you document your plans, for example use a shared google doc, then you might find people willing to help out with the tasks.

Yes, pretty sure. Something is out of wack.

Odd, I've never been in a scenario where I have no more units. Is it easy to determine that from the commands.txt file? Or you have to run through the simulation to figure it out? Does the commands.txt you looked at start with this? start {"settings":{"PlayerData":[{"Name":"Ptolemy Eurgetes","AI":"petra","AIDiff":2,"Civ":"ptol","Team":1},{"Name":"Player 2","AI":"","AIDiff":2,"Civ":"rome","Team":0},{"Name":"Acharya Bhadrabahu","AI":"petra","AIDiff":2,"Civ":"maur","Team":1}], Notice that I'm not the first player. The first player is petra. If I look at commands.txt the last command was building a tower by me, with many units. cmd 2 {"type":"construct","template":"structures/rome_defense_tower","x":432.3590393066406,"z":604.5962524414062,"angle":2.356194490192345,"actorSeed":50244,"entities":[16711,16402,16373,16367,16359,16204,16157,16156,15591,15430,15395,15776,16360,16161,16051],"autorepair":true,"autocontinue":true,"queued":false} Hard to fathom how I can do that and all my units die quickly later. I had close to 300 units at the time.

Sounds good.

I was using the unstable version from the instructions on this page: http://play0ad.com/download/linux/#Ubuntu Here is a quote from the web page: Unstable version: You can try a more up-to-date but less-well-tested version from our development snapshot PPA, which should be updated each week. Follow the instructions above but use the ppa:wfg/0ad.dev repository name. Correction: this did not happen two weeks ago, happened last week, game started July 13. Version info: Build: Jul 12, 2014 (15513-development)

Link to commands.txt: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4ijp-kf8RV0aTZOMDBOSDg3MWM/edit?usp=sharing I was playing against two petra bots and they stopped fighting after I destroyed their expansion. This happened two weeks ago. I was playing using the unstable build: http://play0ad.com/download/linux/#Ubuntu

Does someone have a high level design how this would be accomplished? Brainstorming I'm thinking how to split up threads: 1. Different AI can be on separate threads 2. Graphics 3. Physics and path finding, simulation of the world Would be nice to have high level profiling information to more intelligently discuss how to divide up the CPU cores. What is most of the CPU time spent on? The design should encompass 16+ cores, since in the not too distance future, ARM chips will have this. Already exist 8 cores.

Units are what we spend the most time manipulating in the game. Thinking it would be funner if the unit sizes were 2x or 1.5x bigger. Everything else would stay the same such as path finding and collision detection. In other words some units might overlap. What do you think? This would mean less time looking for units and being able to play more zoomed out. I might not make the horses much bigger, but I would increase the hero size or make them glow or something.

About a month ago new speed options were checked in that have a 10x slower speed. You might find that speed easy enouph to catch up to computer.

Thanks will do. Changed the milestone Alpha 16, and added "review patch" to the keywords.

How do you define ugly? They look very good to me and with slower speed, you have time to watch and enjoy them. Anyways it is an option that people who want it will enjoy it, and those that don't want don't have to select it. http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2499

Hi Everyone, Thanks for your excellent work on 0ad, been having plenty of fun with it. Wondering if the community would welcome a patch to add some slower speed options. Currently there is: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/data/game_speeds.json?rev=13590 Adding slower speed options has the following advantages: 1) Makes it easier for newbies to figure out what is going on and to learn 2) From other game comments people like the idea not to pause but have a super slow mode 3) Some people just like a more thinking game and less of a click fest Suggestion is to add a couple of slower speed options: * 0.1 (super slow) * 0.25 (slow turtle) * Existing: 0.5 (turtle) It is only slow at beginning of game, then rapidly is too fast for some of us I'd also like to lightly suggest a deaccelerate option, where the game speed slows down automatically as the number of units increases. No idea what this means for multiplayer. Changing subjects: I found this about multi-core: http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15796 <quote> You should use multiple threads" 0 A.D. was designed when multiple cores were not yet common, and it would take too much work to program the game to get it to use multi-core processors efficiently. Still, it can be good to have multiple cores, because they may be available to other programs running while you play 0 A.D. </quote> A tad shocking given that arm based mini PCs that cost $80 are available with 4 cores and 8 cores are starting to be available. http://www.cnx-software.com/2014/04/25/amlogic-stb-socs-comparison-aml8726-mx-s802-s805-and-s812/ Is multi-core is too hard still the thinking of the team? Thanks so much! Daniel