wowgetoffyourcellphone

A Village Center looks rural and rustic. Can have some haystacks, a fire pit in the middle or a well, and a rustic-looking town hall or rural approximation of the look of the current Civic Centers. These are not "stone aged" town centers or anything like that (no giant mammoth tusks for ornamentation), they are era-appropriate, but rustic and rural. A Town Center looks more built up, perhaps a little more mercantile. Walls are sturdier. Structural elements are taller. A City Center looks much like a lot of the Civic Centers we already have.

I like this, and it's not far from some of the ideas I have proposed in the past. Each CC should have its own territory that doesn't morph together like they do now. They start out as small villages and only "village" structures can be built within their territory. Upgrade each CC independently so you can build Town, then City structures within their territories. A Village CC would have a gathering bonus around it, while it loses this bonus as it's upgraded and perhaps different bonuses kick in. Now you have real provinces that are somewhat unique from each other, for instance, a couple of Village provinces where you do a lot of your farming and mining, etc, while owning a couple of Town provinces which may have a trading benefit and can build barracks and wooden towers nearby. Your City province allows the building of stone walls and fortresses. While your Capital province can grant some uber bonuses and unlock some unique structures, essentially more "Wonders" that give unique benefits. Now you're truly building an empire instead of some weird urban sprawl that makes no historical sense. The 3 major starting conditions would be nomad (of course), classic (start with 1 village center and some units), and empire (where each player has multiple village centers already congruently scattered around so that each player already has an empire of provinces and most of the map is already claimed by the players).

More powerful in what way? Be specific. That was a publisher banking on nostalgia, really. Sure, but first we must make defensive strategies rewarding at all before one can look for ways to balance them. Right now, in the core game, turtling strategies or defensive strategies in general are seriously hampered.

According to @stanislas69 the archiver will work fine on Linux but not Windows.

I desperately want to update the mod download to version 2, because I've fixed a ton of problems. The archiver is killin me though.

As far as the Companion Cavalry, for the Macedonians the "Companions" were the best cavalry they had, the most elite posting in the field army a soldier could attain. For the Seleucids, the Companions were a strong cavalry arm, but not the most elite. The Macedonians and Seleucids had the same name for different cavalry units. For the Kushites, yeah, I'd make the axe champ have a crush attack (for against buildings) and the sword champ have a stronger anti-infantry attack. I agree. In DE, there is a greater distinction between a Hoplite style soldier and a Spearman. They both have the anti-cav bonus and are vulnerable to missile attacks, but their stats are different and the Hoplite infantry get the "Shield Wall" aura that boosts the armor of nearby Hoplites. I am currently experimenting with making Persian and Mauryan spearmen into trashy massed Zerglings, with half the stats (including building and repair rates), but also half the total cost in resources, population, and train time.

C:\Users\Astrid\0 A.D\binaries\data\mods\ or C:\Users\Astrid\Documents\My Games\0ad\mods That 2nd one is where modders should be telling people to place it.

nono, that's in DE. Can't have that. j/k

In Delenda Est, the train times are as follows. While longer than EA's train times, DE's don't exactly mirror your suggested values: Citizens/Villagers/Slaves: 15 seconds Infantry: 15 seconds Cavalry: 18 seconds Champion Infantry: 18 seconds Champion Cavalry: 20 seconds Mercenaries: 5 seconds (but are only trainable in limited numbers) War Elephants: 25 seconds And so on. Values like these definitely give the beginning of a match a more deliberative pacing. While in the late game they don't hamper frontline reinforcement much, since by then the player is likely to have multiple training centers.

I honestly disagree (hi there). I don't think the heads need to have 300+ vertices or even 144. The current head could use some new UV mapping and some adjustments to the geometry, but the newer ones make the dude's head look strangely fat, IMHO. I think something halfway between the current head and proposed head would be more ideal, both in geometric shape, number of vertices (if absolutely necessary), and UV mapping.

A challenge to balance, but a welcome one.

https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/search/&q=POGs&search_and_or=or

There's also the view that how "heavy" the armor worn was also based on position within the Macedonian phalanx. Front rankers wearing "heavy" armor and face masks, while the rear rankers wore no body armor and merely a pilos-style helmet. It's not so clear cut as me staking a position ("They wore heavy armor or armor based on the mission") or you staking a position. There was position within the phalanx, as I noted, and then also actual rank. Higher ranking officers would (GENERALLYYYYYY) wear heavier flashier armor, while lower ranks would wear more basic armor. I would love to have battalions in the game so we can depict all of these conditions and variations as accurately as we can. Have a flashy looking officer in the front right, with a standard bearer behind him; most of the front couple of ranks wearing heavy armor variations, then medium in the middle, and no armor in the back (with a lot of variant bleed between the rows, not defined harshly).

POGs may be your solution.

looks good. Commit?

The Republican Romans here are during the 2nd Punic War, so if you can find references for allied or mercenary units the Romans used in this time period and we can see what we can do.

You could always just use that one here and there for a splash of detail.

Bello Gallico was the correct term. Or Bellum Gallicum. Any Latin experts here? To make matters worse, Google Translate says Bellum Gallico. lol Yeah, @elexis, I think this term fits perfectly my dude.

Bella Gallica.

The p-i-p was interesting. I liked it. Maybe as an actual engine option?

Nice.

Checked them out. Didn't encounter any error codes or anything like that. Anything in particular you'd like us to look at? I really like the Zapotecs. I think Mayans would make a great addition to Terra Magna as well (preclassic and early classic fit into the game's timeline, with plenty of awesome architecture). Incas and Aztecs can go into Millennium AD (and they all can be combined into the official game, under a new release "0 A.D. - Epochs", coming soon in 2025!).

I think the folder should be versioned too. Meaning terra_magna_02 or something, because it placed the zip into my git T_M folder. lol

I figured work on the unit AI first, then the animal behavior. But even now, the dangerous animals don't always attack. Sometimes they wander around before attacking, which is fine.

Well the reason I posted this thread the way I did was because I thought there would be broad and near unanimous agreement on this topic. Imagine my astonishment and frustration when that turned out to be false, at least from a few key people.