Nescio

Maybe the brit_wall_gate, brit_wall_tower, gaul_wall_gate, and gaul_wall_tower too.

Yes. Seleucids (and Persians and Bactrians) got their elephants from India, and Greek texts (e.g. Polybius 5.84) make it clear those were vastly superior and larger than the African elephants used by the Ptolemies. The Ptolemies obtained their elephants from what is now Eritrea and shipped them by sea (enormous facilities and elephant remains have been found in Berenice Troglodytica, a Red Sea port in southern Egypt). They also loaned some elephants to Pyrrhus of Epirus, who used them against Carthaginians on Sicily, Romans in Italy, Greeks in the Peloponnese, etc. Afterwards Carthage started its own elephant corps, capturing elephants from the forested Atlas mountain ranges (now in Morocco and Northern Algeria); after the defeat of Carthage the Romans took those elephants with them (Scipio kept them in reserve at the Battle of Magnesia (190 BC) against the Seleucids). Anyway, those African elephants were not African forest elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis, native to Congo), but simply smaller subspecies of the African bush elephants (Loxodonta africana). A modern audience is probably more familiar with the elephants from the East African savannas (Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa), which can indeed be larger than the Indian elephants (Elephas maximus). Ideally their turrets should be large enough for four soldiers (pikeman, archer, two javelineers). And maybe a lighter bamboo platform accommodating up to six archers to replace the Mauryan elephant archer. We probably have to wait until proper code supporting turrets is committed. [EDIT]: 0 A.D. could also use proper infant actors for the Indian elephant (currently baby African elephant actors are used as a placeholder).

Historically chariots were functionally different from both infantry and cavalry; upgrading from one unit type to an entirely different one is probably not a good idea. In 0 A.D. chariots are basically cavalry champions with a larger footprint. I hope that at some point in the future chariot templates will be properly separated from cavalry, and that scythed chariots become melee units, instead of archers. Neo-Cretans (Νεόκρητες) were indeed a thing in Hellenistic warfare, serving alongside Cretans (Κρῆτες) in the Aetolian (Plb 5.3.1), Ptolemaic (Plb 5.65.7), and Seleucid (Plb 5.79.10) armies, presumably also in others (e.g. Antigonid Macedon, Attalid Pergamon). Both Cretans and Neo-Cretans were mercenary archers performing the same function. Now ancient sources don't mention the difference between the two, allowing modern people to speculate a lot. In my view most interpretations are not based on anything; the most probably explanation is that the Neo-Cretans were young men (νέος means “youth”); different age groups are not something uncommon to Greek societies (as is also the case elsewhere in the world in different times). Regardless, I don't think 0 A.D. needs two different Cretan units. The design document is not always correct. Syrian archers are not explicitly mentioned in Polybius or other texts I know of. There is no need to invent something that is unattested. I think it's best to simply use Persian archers or Cretan mercenaries for the Seleucids. While the “silver shields” are well attested, the Seleucid “gold shields” are mentioned in a corrupt sentence (Polybius 30.25.5). I don't think including the latter in 0 A.D. is a good idea. B. Bar-Kochva Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids (Cambridge 1989) discusses his view in a footnote: Basically he argues that (i) “10,000 gold shields” must be inserted in the Greek text and (ii) that gold means brass. (i) allows him to deduce that the following silver shields were only 5000 in number, while earlier under Antiochus III they had a strength of 10,000, thus he concludes the 5000 Roman-style youths must be the other half, and therefore Antiochus IV must have been in the process of retraining his army from Macedonian-style pikemen into Roman-style swordsmen. (ii) is even more problematic: χρυσός means gold, certainly not brass, whereas χαλκός means copper or anything made from copper, hence bronze, arms, weapons etc. Treating bronze and brass as entirely different things is anachronistic, both are copper-alloys, and in practice metals contained impurities and had no fixed ratios; basically both bronze and brass are covered by χαλκός (cf. English “brazen”), as are other copper-based materials, though Greek does have a word ὀρείχαλκος (Latin orichalcum) “mountain-copper”, i.e. yellow copper ore, copper, or brass made from it. In any case, brass is not gold. To me Bar-Kochva's interpretation seems a case of someone really wanting to read a lot more than what's in the text. That said, others apparently accept his view, and the Wikipedia article presents it as fact. D2736 (@Stan`?)

Actually I didn't mean their helmets, but their body armour: I suppose my view on Scythian armour is largely based on finds from the Issyk kurgan (a royal tomb in modern Kazakhstan): The fact that the scale mail looks like a jacket corresponds with what is seen in Persian iconography, as do the trousers and pointy hat (which is probably ceremonial), e.g. I'm certainly no expert on things Scythian, though.

They look rather Greek to me ...

No, not yet; it probably will when @Stan` has sufficient time to finish the review. 23636 and 23638 were split off in order to preserve the file history and because phabricator sometimes has trouble with png files. Yes, it is. Currently the 32x32 and 64x64 are unused, the 128x128 is used for infantry etc., the 256x256 for units with larger footprints, and the 512x512 for the whale. The problem is that most units have oblong footprints. It's especially notable for animals, where about half use the 128x128 circle and half 256x256. With D2503 the situation will be much simpler: selection textures grouped as {size}/{shape} instead of {shape}/{size}, because many more shapes are conceivable, but more sizes are unnecessary 256x256 used by units with a large circular or approximately 1:1 footprint (e.g. war elephant, siege tower) 128x512 used by units with an approximately 1:4 footprint (e.g. warships, whales) 128x256 used by units with an approximately 1:2 footprint (e.g. animals, cavalry, traders) 128x128 used by units with a small circular footprint (e.g. infantry, healers) No, I don't, nor do I think it's worth knowing. What matters is that the selection texture has a sufficiently high resolution so one wouldn't be able to identify individual pixels when maximally zooming in. I believe 128 is sufficiently wide for all units. The line thickness of the 128x128 is relatively twice as wide as that of the 256x256, to make the selection marker for units with small footprints stand out more. The 128x256 and 128x512 shapes are added to ensure footprints are no longer much narrower at the left and right than at the front and back: Smaller and larger sizes (e.g. 64x64, 512x512) don't really serve a purpose. No units have oblong footprints beyond 1:4, so adding even narrower textures (e.g. 128x1024) is unnecessary as well. Image dimensions have to be powers of 2, that's why no sizes in between (e.g. 128x384) are added.

Thank you, I'll have a look at it later, and if the art files are fine, I'll add updated simulation templates, to allow properly building the new palisades.

rP23636 (redid existing shapes to ensure uniform line thickness) and rP23638 (new 128x256 and 128x512 shapes for units with oblong footprints) are split off from D2503, you might want to have a look at that.

It shouldn't be too difficult to make a mod that removes territory from the game. Basically you have to remove all <TerritoryDecay> and <TerritoryInfluence> lines and change <BuildRestrictions/Territory> to "neutral" in all relevant simulation templates.

The <polygon> points lie on a circle with radius 1000 (or actually, they fit in a 2000×2000 square). For the inner line (the one that will show up in player colour) I used a stroke-width of 100; to make it look good on all terrains, it needs to be surrounded by white; for this I used a stroke-width of 150; this results in a 1:4:1 white:colour:white line. <g transform="translate(128 128) scale(0.1 0.1)"> The translate because svg positions are by default relative to the top left corner, and I find it easier to visualize them calculating from the centre (all selection textures are symmetrical). The scale is necessary to fit everything within 256×256. I suppose I could have used a circle with radius 1, stroke-wirdth of 0.1, and scale(100, 100) instead. I didn't, because I slightly prefer integers over decimals, and because in my experience things look better scaled down than scaled up. Now, the above applies to generating the 256×256 png; for the 128×128 png output, double the line thicknesses. For the *_mask.png, comment the first <g> and uncomment the last <g>. [EDIT] The <rect> (rectangle, rounded rectangle, cartouche) and <ellipse> shapes are not scaled and use a stroke-width of 10, which is the same as 100 scaled by 0.1, or 200 by 0.05.

... along with the city walls, arsenals, shipyards, and everything else. Though since we don't have a Rhodian civilization in game, I don't think the Colossus ought to be buildable.

No, graphical software is too difficult for me – I'm very much a text-based person – just open those files in a text editor. svg is basically xml, so it should be fairly self-explanatory. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

As to how the Colossus would have looked, any interpretation is speculative, of course. What can be safely deduced: The statue was made of bronze, hollow with rocks inside, and 70 cubits tall, i.e. 32.4 m (a Greek cubit (πῆχυς) was 24 × 19.3 mm = 0.4623 m). It stood on a pedestal, covered in shiny, polished, white marble, overlooking the harbour. Work started in 292 BC, finished in 280 BC, broken in 226 BC, and finally dismantled in AD 653. It was technically impossible to reerect it (hence the convenient oracle). The fact it broke of at the knees implies the statue stood on two legs, i.e. there was not a third support point (e.g. a tree trunk, clothes touching the ground, a spear). If it had fallen forward, it would have blocked the harbour; that didn't happen, it lay on land, therefore it must have fallen backwards, thus Helios (the sun) was facing the sky (and the sun). Furthermore: There is no need to shout “censorship”; whether it was fully clothed, scantly clad, or heroically naked is unknown; each is a plausible possibility. The association of Apollo with the sun is Roman; Sol Invictus became a popular deity later during the principate. The Colossus of Rhodes would not have looked like a statue of Apollo, the Colossus of Nero (which gave its name to the nearby Colosseum), or Roman depictions of the sun god. Coinage from Rhodes usually features a rose (because of the name), though the head of Helios is also a common motive (see these examples on Wikimedia Commons), but never a full statue. The one thing we know is that it most likely had a crown of sun rays around his temple, like the Statue of Liberty (not a coincidence). Furthermore, Helios did not have a beard, as confirmed by this Hellenistic head of Helios, now in the archaeological museum of Rhodes: A relief found nearby shows an Helios (the sun) gazing in the distance with his head above his eyes (shielding them against sun rays). Such a pose would make sense, given that it was positioned at the entrance of the harbour, on the lookout for incoming ships in the distance. So maybe Dali was on to something. However, the Colossus stood upright for only about half a century and was a tourist attraction while lying on the ground for eight centuries, so that would actually be the more appropiate representation.

Let's have a look at what the ancients wrote about it, starting with Pliny Naturalis Historia 34.18: Then there is Strabo 14.2.5 on Rhodes: And Polybius 5.88–90 on the international response to the earthquake: Texts and translations taken from Perseus.

If you would publicly share your code changes, then perhaps 0 A.D. could have the same performance increase.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the snapping is supposed to align nearby structures, thus mandating the same rotation. So if you want a different angle, or a difference distance to a mine, then don't press Ctrl (or press it if you've the reverse setting enabled).

You mean single-player games start paused? That would be a nice addition, it's something I've wished for numerous times.

0 A.D. is an historically-inspired fantasy game. Superheroes and auras are just two examples of that. Anyway, previously elephants could build any structure, despite not being able to initiate any foundation.

Extra assets like this are certainly welcome. There is a gastraphetes in 0 A.D., though it's not trainable. Moreover, @Alexandermb updated all artillery recently, so there are probably things you could reuse for your manuballista. Development version (A24), mind, not the latest stable (A23).

All items in the lists have links. Click on them to see what the changes are exactly.

@feneur, could you split off the Colossus of Rhodes related posts from this thread and merge them with https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/28096-wonder-colossus-of-rhodes/&tab=comments#comment-395879 ? Let's focus the the discussion here on the Temple of Zeus at Olympia. Where did you find it? What changes did you make? How does the original creator like to be credited? How do you want to be credited? Did you point the author to this forum?

The last one looks nice, though it seems some stakes are missing on one side; the core shouldn't be accessable.

The palisade*tower actor (for walls “tower” means “corner”); the “*watchtower” is an ugly and misnamed thing that should be either redesigned or deleted; but that's another topic.

That is after you've enabled, saved, and started your mod, opened the scenario editor (Atlas), and clicked on the “Entities” dropdown button:

Leave it untouched for now. I wouldn't mind seeing it deleted, but that's up to @Stan`. Those new curved palisades look better than the old one! For the gate, could you try the following? Take the current palisade*gate at the centre, place a palisade*tower at either side, then add ordinary palisades at the ends to bring it to the exact length of your new long palisade. Also, if you're not bored yet, would you be willing to create a variant of the palisade*tower (i.e. corner), with the same height and diameter, but circular instead of square? In this case that's not a problem: the palisade art files were last changed eight years ago (12183).