wowgetoffyourcellphone

Guys, the Princess Camp is a fantasy element that takes the civ so far removed from the other civs that you jeopardize their inclusion.

People want battles. People want formations to mean something. People want Delenda Est.

Yeah, the current SVN setup needs adjustments for sure.

Okay, I add you to the DE team. XD

I could see some kind of "Marriage Alliance" diplomacy option in a Grand Campaign. Or even such an option in an expanded Diplomacy settings.

Frozenheim is how I wanted AOEIV to look. :/

These kinds of units are super fun, but better for scenarios and campaigns. I'm not sure how much attention players would want to spend on such a specialized unit.

Steal some from Delenda Est.

The walls conforming to terrain is a definitely improvement 0 A.D. needs.

I like the symbols over the buildings (if they're burning and other states).

With a bannerman in the right front of the formation, you can always tell which direction the formation is heading or facing.

No, just the way it was historically. lol

My ideal would be to have a bannerman unit in the right-front corner in most formations.

A way point flag can be used for bow, but that's not ideal in the long run.

Yeah, a "Weapons Workshop" would work. As Lion said, same basic shape it is now, same props, except no fire or anvil and no smoke stack. "Metal" tech costs could be converted to stone. Or they could use a completely different paradigm, perhaps using the Upgrade feature to change the Workshop over from one version to another, each having unique auras that boost soldier attack or armor.

Yeah, if no one else objects.

Get rid of cavalry spearman. The cav halb is more interesting. Same with champion cav spearman and champ cav halb.

ERROR: CXeromyces: Parse error: simulation/templates/structures/han/farmstead.xml:1: Start tag expected, '<' not found ERROR: CXeromyces: Failed to parse XML file simulation/templates/structures/han/farmstead.xml ERROR: Failed to load entity template 'structures/han/farmstead' ERROR: CXeromyces: Parse error: simulation/templates/structures/han/field.xml:1: Start tag expected, '<' not found ERROR: CXeromyces: Failed to parse XML file simulation/templates/structures/han/field.xml I would fix this easily, but I don't have push access to this repo.

I see some potentially either missing or normal-flipped geometry inside the outer wall of the fortress. You see it? (the problem is present in the original Fortress model as well, I don't think you introduced it).

Updated first post

We need to find a Scythians expert to help parse all of the reference material. I don't think it has to be super granular, but I would like to separate everything into some categories: Western Scythians Cavalry Infantry Potential Hero References (Ateas and Skilurus) Eastern Scythians Cavalry Infantry Potential Hero References (Tomyris) Support Units Healers Peasants Males Females Structures Specific Buildings Materials Need to try to find era-specific reference materials: 6th-4th centuries BC.

A dual release would be fitting. Either that, or release Han for A26 and have an Alpha 27 "Nomads" release with Xiongnu and Scythians. DE's Scythians already create a strong framework. I'd go ahead and make Xiongnu a playable civ. That doesn't mean some China maps can't have Xiongnu raiders and brigands (perhaps with triggers).

While this may not directly prevent the inclusion of these civs, it may make the historians want to "fix" the existing civs before adding more civs with additional "inaccuracies." I would say though, historians, speak up if you want to make fixes. Else, the civs could be added without your (historians') input. I agree with you though, that the Han are super close, maybe even ready right now. Add them now, so people can play them via SVN and balance them before A26 is released. Zapotecs are close too, just need some more realistic Forge techs. Garamantes not yet. Xiongnu need their "nomad" gameplay tweaked a bunch first IMHO. Them and Scythians (and maybe Huns later) are a big departure from the "Standard" 0 A.D. gameplay, so will need special attention. But I agree, "historical inaccuracies" are not really a deal breaker for me, since the mentioned civs are already as good "historically" as the existing civs.