Palaxin

Oh yes, would be very nice

This is exactly what I want, too. See also this comment. Yes, I agree, but we would need some people willing to do new models and textures... I was always asking myself why you can't gather stone from the ground/pit in many RTS Shaft mining sounds also reasonable to me. I think you should be able to directly destroy the mine (i.e. the entry of the mine) no matter what the storehouse does. I'm really no friend of infinite resources, but mines could have large deposits and as time progresses gathering would get slower on the one hand (digging deeper), but you could garrison more units in them (more tunnels, mine system is growing). My mod actually introduces rare, but very attractive metal sources with a really high gathering rate to encourage riskier playstyle (but no shaft mining yet) Will not be changed in my mod. However, gathering at the initial sources will be much slower than now, whereas gathering at remote and rare sources will be faster than now. Not a fan of highly artificial "resources". I'd rather split "normal metal" from "noble metal" or "iron" from "gold" to have a highly rare and precious resource. I don't think we need that, though.

Yes, all mines will still provide the metal which the game uses now. The new mines differ in position: more valuable metals are found farther away from CC gather rate: more valuable metals are gathered faster amount: more valuable mines provide less total metal I'm still not sure if the mines should differ in the last point. Perhaps the amounts should be more equal. But a 4K gold mine otherwise would be an insane advantage. We will see in the testing phase...

I'm actually thinking about something similar and currently working on a mod that will introduce more variety for minerals (not more kinds of resources, just a system that should somehow encourage a riskier playstyle and add more strategy to resource gathering). Edit: sorry, I think you meant something different - what resources are most important in which phase of the game and which resources are needed for what, I guess.

How To Play update or downgrade 0 A.D. to fit the requirements of the mod version you want to play download the .zip file of the desired MinMod version extract it to <0 A.D. installation folder>\binaries\data\mods run 0 A.D. and navigate from the main menu to Tools & Options → Mod Selection (select the mineral mod entry in the upper field) → Enable → Start Mods start a new single player game with a supported map ************************************************** VERSION 0.2 ************************************************** ************************************************** VERSION 0.1 ************************************************** ********************************************** ANNOUNCEMENT **********************************************

Ok, thank you for the explanations. Lag is nothing you wish whatever you get for it :/ I've expected that not all ideas would actually work well, but I didn't know that it's such a great performance issue. Interesting to know... So all in all you would get a little improvement in gameplay but be heavily punished by performance. I thought the one big problem is always pathfinding (I once read it took 70% of the AoK resources) and LoS would be not that difficult to deal with at least using a dedicated GPU (which I do not have by the way ) Perhaps one day I will play around with the "simple" things, if I feel confident enough I need to understand the code much more at the moment. At least units hiding in the forest/trees/bushes is something mensioned in the design document, and is more easy to implement, I think.

Some suggestions, copied from http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3634 I would be glad to get some opinions, perhaps some of the described features may have been already discussed somewhere somewhen. Feel free to close the trac ticket, if it's annoying you. Note that I'm not able to implement the "Advanced" and "Fancy" suggestions nor can I say how easy it would be to do so. The "Simple" ones should be doable for quite some people, not sure if I would succeed. Overview It would be nice if the line of sight depended on the surrouding terrain, buildings and other big obstacles. Also the field of view could get a more realistic shape. This would provide a more strategic role for line of sight, I can think of situations like scouting an enemy army without being seensneaking from behind to an enemymore realistic guerilla warfare between (blocks of) buildingsTerrain Simple: adjust LoS like archer's rangeAdvanced: units cannot see behind hills/mountains, on top of a plateau (when standing on a lower place) or at the bottom of deep gorges (if not standing at the cliff's edge)Objects Simple: units get an LoS Bonus when garrisoned on a wall (also tower, fortress or ship if implemented)Advanced: Buildings and gaia elements like rocks with their height above the unit's eyes (human ~1.5m, mounted units ~2.5m, units on elephants ~4m, units on ships, buildings and siege towers perhaps even more) block the vision behind them.Fancy: even if the obstacle's height is below the eyes' height there should be invisible area behind it like shadow is not "visible" for the sun; also smaller objects like trees or large animals could partially block vision (I don't know if this would demand too much resources for a large amount of units and therefore lead to game lags)Field of View Humans have a ​field of view of about 180° with decreasing vision quality at the edges. Animals have various angles and therefore a field of view in the shape of circular sectors. Actually I think it is debatable if animals should have an LoS since they can't communicate and therefore can't provide information - perhaps they could show some passive reaction if they detect something interesting instead? Simple: LoS offset towards the current viewing directionAdvanced: semicircle LoS for humans and other circular sectors for animals (if they have LoS)Fancy: modified "semicircle" LoS with less vision range at the edges e.g. vision range is described by something like r(θ)=sin(θ)*R for 0<=θ<=π where R=r(θ=π/2)=r(θ=90°) is the vision range straight forward. For animals the sine function would have to be stretched to match the specific maximum angle.

As far as I have understood this mod dynamically handles the UI so you don't have to bother with UI programming... I still have to try it

I have been thinking of something similar, see http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20216 http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3634

Hello wraitii and Lion.Kanzen, thanks for replying Yes you are right. But there are still many cases where the building costs don't really make sense though. For example the basic greek buildings like dropsites do only cost wood though they are mainly made of stone. On the other hand, the Mauryans also use wood for their elephant stables, temple and fortress (less than stone) but this is not represented in the costs. I know this is a game and there will always be deviations from reality. I think there is still some room for improvement and I could actually make a mod or patch for this. I like your idea to split from the trading principle of AoE and AoM since it always seemed somehow artificial to me. I will definitely think about this further and support your proposals. Ok, yes I would advocate losing HP for fields, but in this case also dead animals would have to lose HP. However, an abandoned farm should be build up first before gathering again, I think. Reseeding actually makes more sense when seasons are implemented (which seems not to be the case in the near future). Has this been a final decision to not reseed farms no matter if the game will implement some new features? I agree that at the current state reseeding isn't necessarily needed.

I have read various opinions on this topic like 1. Metal and stone usually are placed directly next to the CC. It should be more risky to mine them and therefore they should be placed farther away. I agree, my suggestion actually is to encourage more risky gathering, but still provide the opportunity to gather savely in the base which will be punished by other means. 2. Balancing of food resources like fishing for villagers (is not really possible at the moment due to some citizen gather range / size of fish resource incompatibiltiy I think), fish and berry regeneration (don't actually know why it wasn't implemented - I guess some disagreement on design?) or making hunting more viable and nerf/change fields (also discussed, but again disagreement on design I think). I agree especially with the fields: they shouldn't give an infinite supply (and a reseeding queue really doesn't require that much work like in AoE2 if we allow batch "training" like for units - alternatively we could give the option to reseed automatically as long as there are enough resources). And till this day I really haven't understood why on earth something should grow on a field if you throw some wood on it. As seeds are no resource, I would say fields wouldn't require any costs except for a relatively long build time (perhaps 1.5-2.0 times longer than now) and some shorter reseeding time. This would also encourage hunting in the early game as building a field would be really demanding. I would also like to make field efficiency depend on the ground texture (buff on green and fertile ground and debuff/prohibition on desert, stony, snowy/icy ground). This would make decisions about building placement more interesting. I think Stronghold Crusader did this very well and this was also a reason why this game has been the most popular of the entire Stronghold series. Ok this is a interesting topic, but I won't focus on this further at least for now. 3. I think I once read a ticket about the option to make the amount of resources adjustable in the game setup. E.g. on "low" a tree provides 100 wood, on "medium" 200 wood and on "high" 400 wood. Sadly I couldn't find it again (still need to look at older tickets). If I remember right already some work has been done for it which should be finished and included in the main game because it's a great idea IMO (at least for non-professional / non-ranked games). A bit off-topic, but still affecting resources gathering: 4. Actually same thing as with the fields: why do I need wood to construct some stone buildings??? IMO building costs should be (more) civ-specific, e.g. greeks, persians, seleucids, carthaginians, seleucids, iberians and romans would have a high demand of stone whereas the celtic tribes and perhaps mauryans would use more wood for most of their buildings. The exact costs would actually depend on the current model used for the building. Of course this would need a lot of balancing, but I'm sure this can be done and adds to the uniqueness of the factions and thus leads to a better gameplay experience. Probably stone slabs would need to provide a bit more resources to fit this increased demand. Even more off-topic, but interesting: 5. Make trader garrisoning more viable, see http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3428. Actually trading is an extra topic, but I just want to raise some attention for this problem which is quite obvious, but still nobody seems to care about it. 6. "Mod for modders" to add/remove resources easily to/from the game. https://github.com/0ADMods/resource_agnostic I think it may be considered to include this mod into the main game (if it's finished?). Not because we need it but just for better modding support. 7. Starting resources vs. max population display in the game setup: either we should use numbers for both (e.g. resources: "300", population: "200") or descriptions for both (e.g. resources: "medium", population: "high"). Just for consistency. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thinking about point 1, some additional ideas came to my mind. Apart from treasures, we actually have a relatively huge variety of food sources (fish, fields, hunting, berries) and trees (different kinds of trees and also size, e.g. baobab gives more and some "wood bushes" give less). In contrast, you can just mine one kind of generic metal and one kind of generic stone. At least for stone there are also ruins and pyramids and I think it's OK if the stone mines just fit to the current environment as they do now (they somehow represent different kinds of stone). Still it would be nice to give them some specific names like "sandstone" for desert, "marble" on mediterranean maps, and so forth. That's not a big deal actually. Edit: IT SEEMS I CONFUSED SOME PEOPLE WHO THINK I WANT TO INTRODUCE NEW RESOURCES. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I JUST WANT DIFFERENT SOURCES FOR THE SAME METAL WE USE NOW. Have a look at my mod. Now, the intersting part is about metals. Metals have very different properties (much more variety as stone - if you speak about chemical composition it may be the other way round, but I mean the macro scale). They can be very rare, heavy and noble like gold or quite light, abundant and reactive like aluminium (though it wasn't possible to extract pure aluminium at those days). They can be even poisonous like mercury to a higher or led to a lesser extent. So all in all I think we should somehow represent that variety in-game even if we stick to generic metal as a resource (like we have differerent food sources, but one food re-source). My suggestion is to differentiate between gold, copper and iron sources/ores, at least by giving the existing ores appropriate textures. This would actually be the chance to introduce some advantages and disadvantages of the ores and thus add some strategic depth. My ticket http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3635 gives a bit more detailed description of what I think. In a nutshell: you should have to decide if you want to slowly and safely mine iron, which is quite abundant also next to the CC, but quite inefficient OR if you want to expand your territory towards risky places with gold deposits which can give you a strong advantage in metal gathering if you are able to defend your gatherers against attacks and distractions. For existing maps we could either exchange existing metal ores with copper (which should fill the gap in between gold and iron) or leave the generic metal ore as it is and use the new ores only in new scenarios/maps. Extra: there are templates for small metal ores, but I can't remember to have them found once on a map. At least in Atlas you can create them - the textures are not always fitting to the big ores. Is that the reason? So what to do? As historic_bruno said it's best to do a small mineral mod for this. More or less I have only modified templates so far and do not have that deep programming skills. However, I would give it a try. If the whole thing works I would probably need some guy for making textures (new meshes would be even better) because I'm not experienced with this topic either. Thanks for reading, I would be glad to hear some opinions about my points (numbers are roughly priority) It would be also be helpful to collect more links to the tickets refering to one or more of these topics.

I like this idea, too. As Karamel stated it would be still important to match the hero classes as close as possible to historical context. At least if you want to give your proposal a chance to be included in the main game (and not in a mod). It would be nice if we could get some dev's opinion - otherwise you can perhaps create a ticket if you are confident with your work.

It happened to me, too. I'm quite sure the problem occured when the elephant was hit accidentally by an arrow of the CC as elexis stated. If this behaviour is wanted or not is another question.

Hm... yes please "David A. Freitag"

I contributed the #3507 patch which was merged today...