Heresa

Since I'm have some knowledges in C++, I may apply these changes in the SVN (Git ?) trunk but I guess it's not a priority for Alpha 19 and a beginner shouldn't dig into these core components, especially as a first task.

gosh, it's exactly what I was afraid of and since I cannot conditionally select a version of "territorymanager.xml", the borders will always be visible (or invisible according to the single living version of this file).

Yes, it's exactly what I need to do. As explained by "leper", some modifications regarding display are however required and may be performed at the terrority manager level (CCmpTerritoryManager) Thank you for the hints. When you say it's would be easy in a mod, does that mean I can modify CCmpTerritoryManager without adding the boolean variable in the C++ class ? It surprises me a bit but since I'm new, I may have missed some JS scripts focused on rendering.

Hello guys, I have recently started to create a mod for 0ad in order to remove territory restrictions. The first attempt has been quickly achieved since I simply edited "simulation/data/territory_manager.xml" and some building templates to avoid decay. Now, I would like to add an extra checkbox in the gameplay setting interface that would allow the user to disable/enable territories, before launching a game. That means getting rid of the xml overriding and, instead, relying on some dynamic logic (preferably JS). Adding the checkbox in the gui was easy. However I'm a bit stuck with dynamically setting parameters such as "BorderThickness" and "BuildRestrictions\Territory". My first attempt was to access and update "IDD_TerritoryManager" from "simulation/helpers/Setup.js" but I couldn't find the right methods to invoke. With the intention of being aware of the public variables and methods exposed by "IDD_TerritoryManager", I have consulted the description of its implementation class, i.e. "CCmpTerritoryManager" but I had the unpleasant surprise to note that no setters were provided and the instruction : CParamNode::LoadXML(externalParamNode, L"simulation/data/territorymanager.xml", "territorymanager");lets appear a hardcoded relative path which prevents me to select another XML file according to the checkbox value (ex "simulation/data/territorymanager_relaxed.xml". Do you known how I can bring such an option without altering the c++ codebase ? PS : This is an example of what I have tried in the "Setup.js" file : if(!settings.EnableTerritory) { var cmpTerritoryManager = Engine.QueryInterface(SYSTEM_ENTITY, IID_TerritoryManager); if (cmpTerritoryManager) { cmpTerritoryManager.m_ImpassableCost = 0; //public in impl class but no setters in interface cmpTerritoryManager.m_BorderThickness = 0.0; cmpTerritoryManager.m_BorderSeparation = 0.0; }}

Good idea. It would be nice to expose that feature as an advanced option in the "match" configuration panel. I'm going to give it a try

I have finally managed to create a simple mod that disables territory restrictions and... It led me to notice that modding has beeen designed as a masterpiece ! Great job team, it took me less than 5 min to setup what I wanted :-D Note that, for now, I have removed territory decay, borders and distinctions between enemy, neutral, ally and own areas. I'm going to test the mod in depth, in order to check side behaviors (e.g. with IA). PS : Once again, thanks for providing such a powerful modding feature !

Hello all, Since version 14, I regularly check what 0ad has to offer as new features and I'm really impressed to notice the game becomes more and more enjoyable as versions are released. However, just like the author of this topic, I would like to emphasize a point that I think it limits the "fun" of playing 0ad. Precisely, this point pertains to the territory zone which clearly constraints players to a certain type of gameplay. Actually, I have decided to create an account mostly to respond to this "heartfelt" topic. First of all, I would like to thank the whole 0ad team, I really enjoy the result that you guys have achieved with textures, environment, units, etc. Honestly, I think this game excels in the atmosphere it brings when you take the time of building a realistic village with walls, multi oriented houses, etc. Unfortunately, due to limited area, you are not free to expand without town centers and therefore you end up with "disseminated circular spots", which I think it breaks with the wonderful atmosphere and realism. For instance, you cannot build small villages on isolated island, neither installing remote fortifications on top of hills, etc. It's understandable that such defined areas prevent opponents of being too intrusive but armies are not exclusively designed to attack, they should also insure defense (or gathering), and hence should be responsible for preventing the territory to be populated by enemies structures. Actually, I'm not completely repelled by territory, but I simply hate the fact that it can only growth around roomy town centers. What would be a nice trade off, is a feature that allows you to upgrade your town center on demand , perhaps similarly to what has been achieved in Empire Earth 1. So we may imagine that you start with a small town center, then if your city is becoming more important, you upgrade it, afterward if your city becomes even bigger, you upgrade it one more time, etc. Each evolution increasing the area's perimeter and altering the building model. Note that changing the town center model would logically imply to consume more space which may be tricky to implemented due to surrounding configuration (e.g. very close buildings). Concerning population limitation (less than 300), it should only be temporary otherwise I'm afraid it will divert developers from performance enhancements.