Nescio

Why do you believe CC-BY is incompatible with CC-BY-SA? Hyenas are actually much closer related to cats than to wolves.

Personally I'd still recommend having a larger, better visible https://play0ad.com/ instead of Explain this please. People tend to look at flyers for a few seconds at most. If they would look at just one thing, that should be the url; from https://play0ad.com/ it's just a single click to the download page, the forums, trac, and the IRC channel. In the current mock-up the webpage is rather small, especially compared to the enormous logo.

Personally I'd still recommend having a larger, better visible https://play0ad.com/ instead of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) are basically the same thing. (0 A.D. is both libre and gratis.) Having slashes in running text (e.g. “and/or”) is ugly, though.

You can change the font Especially since it prevents us from using more than 3 fonts that way. Why not use only a single font for the entire flyer? Preferably the one used in game?

Out of curiosity, what is the font used in game? No “Empires Ascendant”? Personally I prefer “free and open source” over “free, open source”; the comma is hardly visible. (Also, I dislike that font; capitals having a lower baseline looks ugly.) There is no need to capitalize the .com; moreover, the download part seems unnecessary. The most important information the flyer ought to convey is the url of the main page ( https://play0ad.com/ ). In the current mock-up it's rather small and deserves a more prominent position.

If this is to be implemented for walls and towers, then perhaps you could also add upgrade animations for the following? palisade wall to gate cart house to apartment cart centre to palace sele centre to large centre There might be a few more. Personally I think there's too much dust when upgrading the tower.

First of all, I think everyone ought to read Xenophon's Anabasis (“The March of the Ten Thousand”) in translation; it is an eye-witness account providing valuable information on Greek, Persian, and Thracian warfare c. 400 BC and reads like a well-written adventure novel; Caesar's De Bello Gallico (“On the Gallic War”) is stylistically indebted to it. If one wants to read more classics, one could consider starting with Herodotus Histories, Thucydides Histories, Xenophon Hellenica (Xenophon's other works are worth reading too), and Polybius Histories, in that order. Mary Beard has written a number of books on Roman topics, combining up-to-date scholarship with accessible language; I see you already included two titles, but the others are worth a read as well, and they're affordable ($/£/€ 10-20 range); there is a list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Beard_(classicist)#Books Civilizations do not exist in isolation, they're all part of a continuum, therefore it's worth listing textbooks covering specific subjects extending far beyond our timeframe; (they typically provide lots of references as well). If you have access to a university library or can find a free download on the internet, I'd recommend: Lionel Casson Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Princeton 1971) Sarah Iles Johnston (ed.) Religions of the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA 2004) Philip Sabin, Hans van Wees, Michael Whitby (eds.) The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare (Cambridge 2008) Furthermore, if one is interested in Bronze Age diplomacy in the Near East, read the Amarna letters (14th C BC).

Personally I think cavalry, camelry, chariotry, elephantry, etc. shouldn't be able to gather any resources; they were the elite. Yes, sometimes they would hunt from horseback and kill some animals, but the actual butchering (and carrying) was done by their footmen.

As I wrote earlier, I think it would be best to give the Persians a champion chariot instead and replace their b/a/e chariot archers with horse archers (take the Seleucid's). Chariots weren't that common; at the battle of Cunaxa (401 BC), Cyrus had 1600 horsemen and 20 chariots (i.e. 80:1) and Artaxerxes 6000 horsemen and 150 chariots (i.e. 40:1).

Too much work to correct (to "quadruped"), I suppose?

Does your current machine still work? If so, then there is no urgency to replace it partially or completely, right? You can safely run GNU/Linux on ten-year-old machines. Modern Intel processors tend to have integrated graphics; if it's a cheap processor then it isn't great, but if it's a high-end then the graphics are actually quite decent and you don't really need a dedicated card. For what's worth it, my machine is nearly four years old and still runs as new; there is a separate GPU somewhere but I don't know how to use it and am not even sure if it's actually detected by my operating system (Fedora 30); at least it doesn't show up under “About”: The processor's integrated graphics are sufficient for everything I've done so far. That said, your budget is below what I've spent. Personally I dislike tinkering with hardware and prefer to pay a bit more to get quality. I don't believe I'm the most appropiate person to advise you, though.

Yes, historically chariots often served as a vanguard, whereas cavalry was typically for harassing, raiding, chasing down fleeing opponents, etc. There also appears to be different functions for quadrigae (heavy four-horse chariots), which were positioned in front of the main infantry formation (like elephants), and bigae (light two-horse chariots), which were positioned on the flanks (like cavalry). Currently in 0 A.D., chariots are functionally indistinguishable from cavalry, because they're statistically identical. But if they would have, say, twice the health and population cost and more armour, then chariots would have their own rôle. Also, I think scythed chariots ought to become melee units. You mean the scythes under the chariot bodies, pointing towards the ground? Yes. Xenophon doesn't mention blades attached to the yokes on the horse backs, though.

Though in ancient texts chariots (and elephants) were always mentioned separately from cavalry. The pawn, knight, bishop, and rook in modern chess correspond to the foot-soldier, horseman, elephant, and chariot in chaturanga, representing different divisions of Indian armies. Introducing chariot stables would be great, but I don't really expect that to happen.

Also, we have a reliable eye-witness account describing Persian scythed chariots at the battle of Cunaxa (401 BC), Xenophon Anabasis I.8.10: I.e. scythes on the axles and below the cart. In 0 A.D., however, Persian chariots have forward-pointing spears at the beams between the horses, scythes at the ends of the yoke on top of the horses, and scythes at the axles. It would be nice if 0 A.D.'s actors could be corrected to match Xenophon's description.

Presumably because chariots are currently still statistically identical to cavalry. Moreover, most chariots are champions trainable at the fortress (brit, maur, sele); only the Persian chariots are not; they count as citizen cavalry trainable at the stable. Personally I'd favour replacing the Persian b/a/e chariot archers with ordinary horse archers and introducing a champion scythed chariot (cf. Seleucids). And yeah, I agree the workshop could be a more appropiate structure for chariots than the stable. In fact, I've implemented that in my 0abc mod months ago.

Perhaps and adaptation of the Macedonian stone-thrower could be used for now? Unfortunately I don't know of any depictions or detailed descriptions of Indian siege engines, other than words indicating they existed, e.g. U. Singh A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India (2008) p 272: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra chapter III (translated by R. Shamasastry): and chapter XVIII (idem): Actually that is already the case: this aura. What do you mean exactly?

Interestingly, this is not present in A23; there trade gain is displayed as an integer. I don't now when or what introduced those decimals in A24.

For your information, workshops have now been enabled for all civilizations: rP22984 @Alexandermb, do you think you create a stone-thrower for the Mauryas?

`template_unit_fauna_herd_domestic_cattle.xml` and `template_unit_fauna_hunt_defensive_bull.xml`.

While at it, I think the cavalry walking speed is currently a bit too high (195%); horses can run very fast, but when walking they are not much faster (5-8 km/h) than humans (4-5 km/h); so perhaps 150% would be better? Also, what would be decent walking speeds for the siege engines? E.g. 90% for packed scorpio (donkey), 80% for packed bolt-shooter, 70% for packed stone-thrower, 60% for ram, and 50% for siege tower? Or would a single speed (e.g. 75%?) for all siege engines be better?

Thank you for your work, @Angen! It's a decent start, but there is certainly room for improvement: Could you number the instructions? E.g. "Step 1 / x". The red box at the top of the window is empty; why not put something in there? Perhaps the name of that step? Sometimes there is so much text in the window you have to scroll. Why not make the vertical size dynamic to avoid that? For the actual objectives, please replace the hyphen-minus with a bullet (copy-paste •), capitalize the first word, and end with a full stop. E.g. "• Order 1 Female Citizen to pick fruit.\n" instead of "- task woman to collect fruit\n". Not everyone is proficient in English; be precise and try splitting long sentences into multiple shorter, succinct ones. Please follow the English style guide: Use "Structure", not "building" Always capitalize classes (e.g. "Cavalry", not "cavalry") Check for typos, e.g. "comming" [sic], "Excelent" [sic] Check interpunction, articles (is your native tongue a Slavic language?), grammar, etc.

Though each armour level means the entity takes 10% less damage; the percentage is merely a way to convey that information.

Here you go: D2300

Yes, but is it really a problem for ordinary players if the technology tooltips says “+1 armour level” and the unit tooltip then only displays the resulting percentage? E.g. the resource gather rates displayed in the tooltip are also not exactly the same as the resource gather rates modified by technologies?

Great initiative! I'll have a critical look later.