Nescio

Also, please remove those gilded shields from the architrave (above the columns). They're a Roman addition to the temple of Zeus at Olympia, part of the spoils from sacking Corinth in 146 BC.

Thank you very much, I certainly do appreciate that! And no, the structure shouldn't become larger. I actually how the porticoes look. (The frontal entrance still needs to be improved, though.) Could you make the veranda lower and narrower and give it a simpler roof? Or make it perhaps a simple fence? Please read http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/HellenicMacedonia/en/C1.1.1.4.html again. I don't think you should make the structure lower, it had two storeys and the front was tall and meant to impress.

Have another look at this frontal view, I find it particularly helpful: It also shows the platform on the right side of the building, upon which the veranda may have stood. Of course, there is a risk of confirmation bias, with people making new reconstructions looking at the reconstructions done by others (like we're doing right now ). Maybe not. [EDIT]: go to .4: http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/HellenicMacedonia/en/C1.1.1.4.html The columns of the right portico of the front side, I believe so; all maps and reconstructions I've seen so far display them.If you meant columns of the veranda along the right side of the building, not that I know of; hence why I'm speculating they may have been wooden. I can be wrong, of course; I'm neither an archaeologist nor an expert of the site in question. Yeah, I know, I'm actually fine with omitting the secondary courtyard at the back. When I first suggested it, I didn't know how your model would compare to other structures, but your more recent screenshots make it clear it's large enough and there is no need for the extension. Again, I'm speculating, yet I doubt it was as monumental or durable as the central courtyard. My guess is the veranda was made from more perishable materials. Perhaps it's best to include the platform on the right side but omit the veranda (which we don't know how it looked like). Getting the number of columns of the central courtyard (and frontal porticoes) right is more important to me.

Yes, I was talking about the columns of the central courtyard. As for the front side, the porticoes to the left and right of the entrance had twelve columns each . You might want to have another look at the last image in this post.

Another minor detail: could you indicate the back doors at the left and right sides? (Doors are just a different part of the same texture, right?) You can find the correct locations in e.g. the first image of this post. (The following is also true for many other archaeological sites.) What we have today is the platform, the foundations of the walls, and the remains of some columns. It is therefore known where the walls were, how many rooms the building had and what their sizes were, the locations of the doors, and also that it had two storeys. What we can't say for sure is how tall all of the walls were, how high the roof was, how many windows it had or where, and not even the locations of the internal stairs (which were made of wood, not stone). The purpose of reconstructions is to give an idea how the author thinks something may have looked like. A critical attitude and making up your own mind is always healthy. Indeed, that specific reconstruction does not show the veranda. Nor does it include the extension at the back with the secondary courtyard, which is excavated and the dimensions are known. Consequently your model doesn't include it either. That's fine, we could justify it by assuming the extension was a later addition that did not yet exist when Philip II was alive. As for the veranda, we know it was there and that it extended along the full length, from back to front; the platform upon which it stood is there. What we don't know is how exactly it looked. It may have been entirely wooden (I'm speculating here). I suggested adding it because it would make the building more interesting to look at when rotating the view. (Symmetry is nice and all, but also a bit boring.) What you do with all this information is up to you.

Perhaps @feneur or another moderator could merge this thread with your earlier one? There is no point in creating new threads for the same question; it can only fragment the discussion.

Yes, the Macedonian and Roman fortresses were designed many years ago and are rather lower, whereas more recent additions such as those of the Kushites and Spartans are much taller. Also compare the Kushite civic centre with e.g. the Athenian.

Forum discussions are nice and all, and there is certainly no shortage of good ideas, however, what matters is how things work out in game. Because using the development version and applying patches is challenging for many, I've decided to bundle several related patches proposed for A25 as a mod for A24. Their purpose is to address the frequent complaint that defensive structures are too effective in A24 and therefore attacking is too difficult. The eight patches included here are: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2845 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D2854 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3601 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3602 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3668 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3672 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3684 https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3686 I sincerely believe each of them is an improvement on its own and also that they work nicely in combination with each other. Nevertheless, I'm biased by my own ideas and different people may have different opinions, of course. Hence this mod, to broaden the audience and have more people play and test. Feedback is appreciated, especially from people who've played at least several games with it. Anyway, here it is: balancing_defensive_structures.zip I've also uploaded it to mod.io to make it available via the in-game mod downloader, but I'm not sure it's working (@Itms?): https://0ad.mod.io/balancing-defensive-structures

That's quite close! There are not that many people who count columns, but for those that do, it's a nice detail to get right. Perhaps you can make the courtyard a bit larger and the rooms on the left and right a bit narrower? Compare your top view with the layout posted on an earlier page. Also, the frontal entrance (not the rest of the portico, nor the second storey) should have two rows of two columns, then the (open) doors, then another row of two columns, and finally the courtyard, giving a nice look-through.

The shape looks good enough. I also stumbled upon a bit clearer image of Wikimedia Commons: I'm not sure you can fit in 16 columns on each side of the central courtyard, but it would be nice to give it a try and see how it looks, if that's not too much trouble.

No: Ionic etc. have a foot, Doric columns don't. There are also differences in the shape of the shaft and the ridges, but those things are probably too small for use in game. If you're making a new column specifically for this wonder, then make them smaller (more slender) than the ones used in the temple and current wonder and use more of them in the porticoes. For comparison, the barracks is a much smaller structure but has quite a few (Corinthian) columns. And bonus points if you have three sizes, for the ground level of the frontal portico, for the storey above, and for the central courtyard . Yeah, I'm not too fond of them either, but I've seen people complain about undecorated structures being too boring, and random pottery is better than random trees.

Yes, that's correct:

Yeah: those steps on all sides. It's not a temple. The palace is fundamentally a very large house.

Thank you for your detailed analysis, it's appreciated! A few of the things you listed were actually not changed in A24, though. For instance, the Carthaginian and Persian trader bonuses were implemented nine years ago (11349) and the international bonuses five years ago (18108). What has changed in A24 is that a lot of work has been done on correcting and improving the information displayed in game. As with everything, this job is not finished, 0 A.D. is a result of nearly two decades of work by dozens if not hundreds of people and there will also be things that could and should be improved. This is indeed problematic. Part of the problem is expensive technologies (which can be easily changed), part of it is generally poor map design. I fully agree. Age of Empires II is a very popular game, yet that doesn't mean it should be followed blindly. One can look at other games for inspiration, of course, but in the end what's done in 0 A.D. should be what makes sense for 0 A.D., regardless what other games do.

Not just Celts and Romans, phalloi were everywhere: Greece, Egypt, the Near East, India, Japan, Papua New Guinea etc. It's a fertility symbol and wards off evil.

Thank you for sharing those screenshots, you made some great progress! The size is great, it's clearly wonder-like . Some more things, though: The columns in your courtyard look Corinthian; they ought to be Doric. Could you add the veranda on the north (i.e. right) side? There is a problem with a wall: I also stumbled upon an earlier post written by @Sundiata two years ago: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/25207-hellenistic-royal-courts-valuable/?tab=comments#comment-366920 Most structures in game are essentially fantasy designs and that's perfectly fine; artistic licence etc. However, if and when something is based on a specific building and it is roughly known how it looked like in the past, then it should reflect that closely in 0 A.D. People care about historical accuracy and wonders should showcase the best. Hence why I'm more critical than towards other structures. One doesn't embellish the Eiffel Tower with cherry trees just because it has a boring colour. Those marble flower beds with tiny trees on the outside corners are a bit nonsense, as are the large marble pedestals in the courtyard. If you want some green, why not put some ivy on the south (i.e. left) wall? As for other decorations, how about some baskets, pottery, and perhaps weapons in the porticoes of the front and the courtyard? Yes, I fully agree! Use a solid block as a platform to erect the building upon. That also applies to other structures. Bundle your work in a mod so people can try it out in game and wait for @LordGood or @Stan` to review it; once they're satisfied they'll commit it.

If a technology affects only cavalry, then I think it should go to the stable, whereas a technology affecting javelineers belongs in the forge, since we have infantry, camel, cavalry, and chariot javelineers. (Perhaps we should introduce elephant javelineers too, though that requires art.) Well, if the technologies are available in the village phase but the forge stays in the town phase, then usually it's effectively the same. But if players start with a forge in a certain map (e.g. Fortress?) or if one faction can build a forge in the village phase (e.g. Gauls?), then the technologies could be researched earlier. And yes, the new forge technologies should be cheaper. Perhaps a 1:2:3 ratio? Perhaps, I'm not sure. We could give it a try, of course. However, there are already many structures in the village phase and few in the town and city phase. Maybe the barracks should be postponed to the town phase then?

Yes, I fully agree the technologies are too expensive, which is why I wrote https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3679 about an hour ago . Fine by me. Village phase requirement? That depends on what others want. I myself generally prefer smaller, cheaper technologies, e.g. we could consider splitting ranged attack into one for archers and another for javelineers. Perhaps something for a future patch.

Only partially: observers get notified whenever any player has advanced to a new phase; players only when they do themselves or an ally (with shared vision technology), but not for other players. If there are notifications for wonders (“X started building a Wonder.”, “X completed a Wonder.”, “X's Wonder has been destroyed.”), then there should also be similar notifications for phases (“Y started advancing towards the Town Phase.”, “Y cancelled advancing to the Town Phase.”, “Y has advanced to the Town Phase.”). And also notify players whenever a relic changes hands (“Z now has 3 catafalques.”). While I'd like to have these notifications for all players by default, I think there should be a game set-up setting to opt out (cf. “Disable Spies”).

Actually the Athenians need an entirely new wonder (the Parthenon). The actor they're using right now is the temple of Zeus at Olympia. Something for a future task.

Ideally I'd like to see each wonder give an unique bonus.

Yes, please! Also for phase advances.

https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3565

@Alar1k: https://code.wildfiregames.com/D3666

(reserved)