wowgetoffyourcellphone

You still benefit more if you use the extra effort to use control groups and separate formations of troops and positioning them and all that. I myself have been experimenting a lot with the right-click drag positioning feature (funneling enemy attackers to the center, arraying ranged troops to the rear, properly spacing cavalry flanking maneuvers so that they spread their attacks more efficiently across the desired target units, etc.).

Honestly that was always possible previously with one extra click by simply clicking the close order formation button. Nothing about the formation or the way it organizes troops by type has changed between A23 and A24. 1 click was removed from the equation.

Can I advocate once again for an "aggression range" that is separate from vision range? It's the range by which a unit will actively attack another unit or structure. It can be a separate number or a percentage of vision range (kinda like the relationship between walk speed and run speed). Stances would then adjust this range. So, Aggressive would be at 90% of vision range, Defensive would be at 50% of vision range. Point would be to make units easier to control and act less maniacally.

While including campaign code in A25 will be a big step forward, I hope people don't get too excited about it, as yet there will be only 1 simple tutorial campaign available. The kind of campaigns that people will actually want and expect will be some ways off. * *Speculation

Ridiculous comparison and you know it. Linux is capable of being run on very beefy hardware. Another non sequitur as the Windows UI isn't an RTS GUI. Congratulations. For the record, the reason I care about any of this is because some folks want to include all kinds of unit stats in the UI and I just can't see it all fitting in a UI with only 960 pixels of width, at least not without looking extremely ugly (and my mod would be stuck using this ugly UI, as I am no coder). I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

#1 Why "should" 0 A.D. work on a laptop clearly not built for gaming? Probably a Chromebook or something similar. #2 1366 pixels wide is clearly more than your proposed 960. 1366 pixel width is wider than the current 1024 pixels the GUI is crammed into. I would happily design a UI to fit 1366 pixels. I propose we make that our new min resolution.

I like what the shader does to Delenda Est's metal mines. The "metal veins" have a shimmer. I hate what it does to the terrain textures though. I forget, but did you say that will be worked on later?

Sorry to say, but this is pretty much broken. :/

Bug in the formation code I imagine.

Yeah, I don't understand the argument against them having this ability. If it looks "weird" for an elephant to do this on their own, then just add a driver?

No where do I say design a 4K UI and scale it down. I say design for 1080p [1920 width] and scale from there. With all the numbers and data you want to load the UI up with I don't see how you could do it any other way. How are you supposed to fit all the attack data and other stats you want into a 960px wide UI while also having a production panel, a minimap, and a garrison panel. Honestly you will have to start having things climb up the sides of the screen, but I have yet to see a serious proposal for that.

I believe the Iberians were to be the quintessential defensive civ. Hiding behind their walled settlements sending out raiding parties and wearing down their opponents that way. Along with ambushing/guerrilla warfare, the Iberians would be rather unique in this way. But as development progressed this kind of thinking fell by the wayside, culminating now in what we have in A24. Part of the problem too as you pointed out is that the wall builder js creates ugly inelegant curtains of walls. If you check them out in DE's skirmish maps they look nicer. And another thing that makes them OP is that they come with free gates. In DE they do not.

Part of the problem is that some folks insist that the UI fit to ridiculously small horizontal resolutions. IMHO The real solution would be to design the UI to the common HD resolution, then use scaling for smaller resolutions.

Yea but your solution is lame.

I like that render @Mr.lie

This particular helmet should hopefully be brought up to current helmet standards m, along with a couple variations (plume, no plume, neck guard, no neck guard).

Yes, they've been in Delenda Est as a concept for 3 years now. Keep getting refined and improved.

Do "top players" really think a 0.4 second firing rate for Scythian Archers is cool? I hope not.

In DE this would be countered by javelineers. But EA? Dunno. Bolt Shooters?

No, it doesn't have to be done with every unit. Just try it.

This is an alpha release (after 2 years), not a monthly gameplay patch for a Gold-released AAA game. Expect large changes.

I want human players to be able to play them, but if you set Petra AI to random there is a chance they are chosen and Petra doesn't play them very well. Same with Scythians.

The Delenda Est repo is fully compatible with A24. I just haven't finished hero selection for all civs yet (I have a few civs to go). And I'm debating removing the Noba civ for now until there's a way I can remove them from Random selection.