Nescio

Or add rotary mills for Carthage, Rome, etc.

Yes, something like that would be nice, perhaps with some additional criteria: Does it fit in the 500–1 BC timeframe? Did they interact with at least one of 0 A.D.'s current civilizations? Are its files released under an appropiate licence? Does it have an unique architecture set? Is it complete? Do their quirks make sense? Is it available as a single-civ mod? Did people play-test it? Is it compatible with the current svn development version, without causing errors and warnings? Do its files follow 0 A.D.'s naming and style conventions? If yes to all, then I think the civilization in question ought to be considered for inclusion.

If I recall correctly, AoK only has one or two unique units and technologies per civilization, but no unique structures, or am I mistaken? The entry on Wikipedia is well-sourced and implies it's actually a Carthaginian invention. Moreover, archaeological finds in Pompeii and later classical texts (e.g. Apuleius' Metamorphoses “The Golden @#$%”) show they're commonplace in Roman Italy and Greece. And they could have been used beyond, in the Near East and India; people had oxen, horses, camels, etc. there as well. The most likely explanation I can think of is “Hey, the Celts need a special structure—let's give them a rotary mill!” To me this seems just taken from Age of Mythology's Norse/Thor. Just like the free houses are taken from the Egyptians. I believe 0 A.D. would be better of without such bonuses.

Skirmish maps are supposed to be something in between random and scenario maps. Skirmish placeholders can be found under `simulation/templates/skirmish/`, but their defaults can be redefined in the civ.json files, under the "SkirmishReplacements" entry, at the bottom ("StartEntities" are for random maps only); e.g. the default ranged infantry for skirmish maps is `{civ}_infantry_javelinist_b`, but `athen.json` replaces it with `athen_infantry_slinger_b`; melee infantry isn't redefined in the `athen.json` file, which means they have the default, i.e. spearmen.

But surely they must have been created and added at some point? Anyway, I agree, we shouldn't dwell on the past, 0 A.D. has evolved and continues to do so, let's take the present and focus on the future. Some auras are much better than others. To me it seems most were added on an ad-hoc basis, without much thinking things through. Personally I'd favour removing everything that doesn't make sense and afterwards start gradually adding things that are sensible and justifiable. Take, for instance, the rotary mills. Either remove them from the game or add them to all civilizations. It doesn't make sense that only Celts have them.

There we go again! It depends on what is wanted. Age of Empires II and Empire Earth have dozens of civilizations, but they're rather similar to each other. Age of Mythology had just three, but each of them was very different yet simultaneously balanced; I'd say AoM was a much better game than AoK or EE; more of the same is not necessarily better. 0 A.D. seems to be a compromise: similar civilizations but each with a unique architecture set (except Athens). Personally I wouldn't mind a few more (especially Arsacids (Parthia), Greater Armenia, and Han China), provided they're better than what's already in game. 0 A.D.'s civs are playable, some are better fleshed out than others, but none of them is really finished. Part II was announced when 0 A.D. was started about a decade ago, yet so far failed to materialize. I'd say drop the idea; finishing the 500–1 BC timeframe is more than enough work already. See https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Changelogs : A4 (March 2011) A5 (May 2011): Iberians added A6 (July 2011) A7 (September 2011): Carthaginians added A8 (December 2011): Persians added A9 (March 2012): Romans added i.e. four new civilizations and six alpha releases in just a year; and it didn't stop there. Given that the time between releases is now approaching two years, I suppose adding one civ per alpha would be doable; 0 A.D.'s standards have presumably gone up, though. Yes, I agree; the difficulty of getting gameplay changes reviewed and committed is problematic. Also, differentiating factions merely for the sake of differentiation is not necessarily a good idea (e.g. Iberian starting walls, Ptolemaic houses, Spartan population penalty). Indeed, one does not exclude the other. Personally I'd favour better trees and more animals over new factions, but if people are ambitious enough to create them and they meet 0 A.D.'s criteria (complete, unique art, 500–1 BC Eurasia), then I don't see why they shouldn't be included.

The purpose of the patch is to improve consistency in the public mod, and yeah, make classes correspond to templates. However, mods don't have to follow the same conventions, of course, you can do whatever you like.

0abc updated again, numerous internal changes, simplified hero auras, replaced Kushite pikemen with axemen.

What matters to me most is consistency; we already have Archer and Maceman, not Bow and Mace. Moreover, I believe having matching file names, generic names, and classes (e.g. `template_unit_cavalry_melee_swordsman` has Unit, Cavalry, Melee, and Swordsman classes and “Cavalry Swordsman” generic name) reduces the likelihood of minor mistakes.

Please copy errors and warnings from the `interestinglog.html` (see https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameDataPaths ); screenshots tend to be hard to read. Yours does suggest something other than <ResourceGatherer> is the problem, though. Also, A23 (stable) or A24 (development version)? If the latter, check yours is up to date (svn up). And if you copy templates, make sure its from the proper source. By the way, do you happen to have a public repository of your mod? It's not mandatory, but browsing your files could make it easier to help you.

You're right, Pikemen shouldn't have the Spearman class. I've included it in D1815 months ago.

Actually keep template_unit.xml unchanged (it allows you to obtain treasures) and remove the entire <ResourceGatherer> node from both template_unit_cavalry.xml and template_unit_infantry.xml. For buidling structures, see the <Builder> node in template_unit_infantry.xml.

Let's take the house for example. It has the following inheritance (see the second line (<Entity parent="">) of any template): template_structure.xml template_structure_civic.xml template_structure_civic_house.xml template_structure_civic_house_big.xml structures/athen_house.xml The structure and civic templates don't have a <TerritoryInfluence> node; it is introduced in the house template and modified in the big template. Now what to do depends on what you want: remove <TerritoryInfluence> from one or more specific templates (e.g. athen_house.xml), but not all: insert a <TerritoryInfluence disable=""/> line in the specific template file remove <TerritoryInfluence> from all big houses, but not from small houses: replace the entire <TerritoryInfluence> node (four lines) in template_structure_civic_house_big.xml with a <TerritoryInfluence disable=""/> line remove <TerritoryInfluence> from all small houses, but not from big houses: remove the entire <TerritoryInfluence> node (five lines) in template_structure_civic_house.xml and insert a <Root>false</Root> line inside the <TerritoryInfluence> node in template_structure_civic_house_big.xml remove <TerritoryInfluence> from all houses: delete the <TerritoryInfluence> nodes in both the template_structure_civic_house.xml (five lines) and template_structure_civic_house_big.xml (four lines) files

Source, please?

This is something that bothered me as well. The problem is not your aspect ratio, it is the required resolution. The session gui is designed for a width of 1024 pixels. Unfortunately the tech tree uses about 1600 pixels (Persians), more for mods that add more entities. A scrollbar would certainly help. I have a high resolution screen (3840×2160), but I tend to play it in a half-screen window (1920×2080), and with guiscale = 2 to keep things readable that means I have effectively a 960 pixel equivalent width. [EDIT]:

1. Yes, <BuildRestrictions/Territory> is what you need; options include own, neutral, enemy, ally. 2. Entities (e.g. structures) don't really need a <TerritoryInfluence> node; setting <Radius> to 0 is ugly; if you don't want something that is inherited, disable it (without the d); in your case, you could also simply consider removing it from the parent (`template_structure_civic_house.xml`). See `simulation/templates/structures/rome_army_camp.xml` as an example for both questions.

Another potentially breaking change: rP22797 moved `wallset_palisade.xml` from `other/` to `structures/`.

The purpose of the single legal waiver is to leave no doubt about individual files. (If you would have to state it for each one, it's easy to forget, and if a licence isn't explicitly clear, a file can't be used.) You can use a similar but different wording if you like, the crucial part is the CC-BY-SA-3.0 bit. And no, it does not apply to works you don't own the copyright of; you can safely show (or quote) images from others.

Oops, my mistake, I apologize. Here you go: https://github.com/JustusAvramenko/delenda_est/pull/23

As in other free and open source projects, the approach is very much bottom-up: people work whenever they have time and motivation on whatever they like. The officially listed tasks and tickets are to keep track of things that are needed in the long run; there is no rush, 0 A.D. has been in development for over a decade and is unlikely to be declared “finished” anytime soon. Moreover, if you stumble upon something else that is not listed but you believe you can improve, don't hesitate to go ahead; if others (the team) agree it's indeed an improvement, it can get committed.

Actually I highly appreciate comparative history (and comparative linguistics even more). Civilizations don't exist in isolation and history consists of continua. However, a critical attitude towards sources is healthy; also, what they actually say is far more important than what a modern reader wants them to say. As an example of the value of comparative history: looking at Swiss pike squares or Renaissance wargalleys greatly helps understanding the Macedonian syntagma or Hellenistic polyremes. (That doesn't mean they identical, or that the former is a continuation of the latter: they're reinvented independently; pikemen and polyremes clearly disappeared during the Principate, when Rome was the only remaining Mediterranean power.) As an example of the value of being critical at sources: the Iliad is by far the most quoted work throughout Antiquity; nonetheless, the Homeric descriptions of warfare are not reflective of the actual situation in Hellenistic times, certainly not. Even though potentates (e.g. Alexander) liked to model themselves after Homeric heroes and were depicted heroically naked in hunting or fighting scenes, they wore body armour and rode horses in practice. Yes, I fully agree with that! That something was the case in 13th C Egypt doesn't mean it applies to 3rd C Kush. Don't worry, the Kushites can still build the Nuba village in my mod; I don't implement everything I contemplate.

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructions

It makes perfect sense from a gameplay perspective—minimum walking distance and maximum protection—it's just not really historically accurate to farm in the middle of a city centre. A necessary evil, unfortunately. Imagine you don't pay attention during a raid, lose your units as a consequence, and are down to just a centre (I've seen it happen to AI players more than once). Now to rebuild, the centre needs at least to be able to do the following: provide sufficient population capacity for training basic units be able to train a unit that can gather resources required for basic units serve as a dropsite for resources required for basic units be able to train a unit that can gather resources required for basic structures serve as a dropsite for resources required for basic structures be able to train a unit that can build basic structures You can remove other things from the centre, e.g. arrows or metal dropsite (I actually did in my 0abc mod, but I still have to figure out how to make the AI build their forges near metal mines to save walking time). Also, units that can build and gather everything is indeed an AoE convention which could be easily dropped; there is nothing wrong with specialized units (I have fond memories of Knights and Merchants).

Exactly! Better helmets are certainly welcome, but critics tend to judge things by their worst aspects, not by what are the best assets. Animals certainly deserve more love! Most of those are merely more of the same, aren't they? If you really want to showcase the possibilities of 0 A.D., you ought to highlight a mod that does something completely different; e.g. Hyrule Conquest. Yes, that would be a great improvement, eventually. Napoleonic mods don't need Greek hoplites and Mars mods don't need trees.

Raster graphics are perfectly fine! Stan or someone else from the art team definitely knows more; my knowledge is limited to what is loaded by the session GUI files: Entity icons (portraits) are typically 256×256 or 128×128 pngs with coloured backgrounds; they're shrunk by the GUI to various sizes, from 128×128 (tooltip window) to about 32×32 (selection panel). GUI icons (icons) are typically 64×64 pngs with transparent backgrounds (with exceptions); they're resized by the GUI as well, some as large as 64x64, others as small as 16×16; many tend to be displayed on top of other things, e.g. ranks: E.g. this is a nice technology portrait, but re-using it for an aura or rank icon gives a poor result. After a bit of experimenting in my mod, I came to the conclusion that in order to be visible both when displayed above the health bar (terrains are typically bright) and on a quadrant of unit portraits (which have a dark background), it's best if the weapon icons I requested would have a black border and white interior. @Alexandermb