Nescio

Is it also possible to add hotkeys for structures not in your list (e.g. Elephant Stable, Pillar, Workshop)? Also, "placeSeigeWall" probably should be "placeSiegeWall" and "placeCivicCenter" possibly "placeCivilCentre" (at least that's how the templates are called).

Democracy is unworkable for anything larger than a town.

There are four different hyena species: striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena) brown hyena (Hyaena brunnea) spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) aardwolf (Proteles cristata) I don't know which one you've been working on, and all four would be nice to have, but the first one is the one we probably want most, given its distribution range:

Well, I'm neither an artist, nor a biologist, nor a mathematician, however, has anyone tried Fibonacci numbers? They avoid the repetitiveness of fixed angles and approximate the golden ratio. Besides, “Fibonacci sequences appear in biological settings, such as branching in trees”, according to its Wikipedia page.

Thank you for your dramatic response. To clarify, I didn't intend to complain, nor am I saying 0 A.D. is doomed; what I wrote was “if”. I too have observed this project grow and improve over the years, which is likely to continue for years to come. Personally I don't care how fast or slow development is; it's already a great game and can only get better! I don't know what could – or should – change, but I do hope new people will come and join the project eventually; having two dozen people who do a little is preferable to a situation where one person does so much he's become irreplaceable.

Yes, people come and go, which is perfectly fine. But if more people leave than join in the long run, then the project's doomed. And yes, the review backlog is also problematic.

It might be tedious, but it is something that will be useful for factions and mods beyond 0 A.D.'s timeframe. Ideally there ought to be the following (41) sizes for both rubble and foundations: (1) for towers: 1x1 (25) for ordinary structures: 2x2, 2x3, 2x4, 2x5, 2x6, 3x2, 3x3, 3x4, 3x5, 3x6, 4x2, 4x3, 4x4, 4x5, 4x6, 5x2, 5x3, 5x4, 5x5, 5x6, 6x2, 6x3, 6x4, 6x5, 6x6. (15) for wonders: —, 6x8, 6x10, 6x12, 8x6, 8x8, 8x10, 8x12, 10x6, 10x8, 10x10, 10x12, 12x6, 12x8, 12x10, 12x12. Currently existing rubble (`destruct_stone_`): 2x2, 3x3, 4x2, 4x4, 4x6, 5x5, 6x4, 6x6 (8) Currently existing foundations (`fndn_`): 1x1, 2x2, 2x4, 3x3, 3x6, 4x2, 4x4, 4x6, 5x5, 6x4, 6x6, 8x8 (12) [EDIT]: approximate wonder sizes: athen 6x12, brit 11x11, cart 6x12, gaul 11x11, iber 8x8, kush 9x12, mace 6x12, maur 11x11, pers 12x12, ptol 9x12, rome 8x10, sele 6x12, spart 7x12.

Chariotry and cavalry coexisted for centuries. Libyan, although Libya could be applied to basically everything west of Egypt. Presumably their chariots followed basically the same design as the Bronze Age Egyptian chariots. Herodotus mentions Xerxes' army included Libyan (and Indian) chariots: And their weapons:

Things I'd like to include in my mod if someone (@Alexandermb, @LordGood, @stanislas69, anyone else?) could create them for me: Seleucid palace Roman rotary mill Gaul infantry archer (b/a/e) Libyan infantry pikeman (b/a/e) [Cart] Libyan infantry javelinist (b/a/e) [Cart] Numidian infantry javelinist mercenary (b/a/e) [Rome] bigae (light two-horse chariot): Kushite biga archer champion [Kush] Libyan biga archer mercenary (b/a/e) [Cart] Libyan biga javelinist mercenary (b/a/e) [Cart, Pers] long and narrow field plots with a 1:10 width:depth ratio, e.g. 9×90 footprint instead of current 28×28 rubble/destruct_stone_{2x4, 2x3, 3x2, 3x4, 4x3} (4x2 already exists) foundation/fndn_{2x3, 3x2, 3x4, 4x3, 6x3} (3x6 already exists) and {8x10, 8x12, 10x8, 10x10, 10x12, 12x8, 12x10, 12x12} (for wonders)

What if an unit has both?

Doesn't sound too bad. BuildingAI fires in any direction and can have multiple arrows, UnitAI attacks only forward, or are there other differences?

The default fortress has a footprint of 30×30, which means its range ought to be increased by √(15²+15²)≈21 in order to be able to hit archers; the Roman centre has a footprint of 40×40, thus requiring a range increase of √(20²+20²)≈28. However, bolt shooters and stone throwers have a MaxRange of only 80. Speaking of which, structures need a vision range of at least (structure footprint radius + siege weapon range), otherwise they won't be able to see their attackers. Ideally, ranges (attack, aura, heal, vision) ought to be calculated from the footprint instead of its centre. Then entities with the same MaxRange will always be able to attack each other, regardless of their size, and melee units can simply have a MaxRange of 1 (right now the siege ram has a MaxRange of 6.5, because the Macedonian and Roman rams have a footprint length of 12). However, I guess that's difficult to implement and might affect performance as well (a circle is a simple shape). For comparison, MaxRange from footprint (blue) and from centre (magenta): It would also solve things like this:

Currently structures and archers have a MaxRange of 72. Because attacks go from centre to edge, this means archers (red) can hit centres or fortresses (blue) without those being able to shoot back:

Yes, I don't quite understand how it works, therefore a lengthier explanation would be appreciated.

Do you mean TotalRange² = MaxRange² + ElevationBonus² ?

Yes, I assumed so; but what's the result exactly? E.g. do the following give effectively different results? 80 max range + 0 elevation bonus 40 max range + 40 elevation bonus 0 max range + 80 elevation bonus By the way, the range visualization seems to ignore the elevation bonus; is that intentional?

How many different shield shapes do you have and how many pattern colourings for each? Which ones will be used by the Britons and which ones by the Gauls?

The Romans used liburnians on the Lower Rhine and Danube, but not triremes or larger polyremes.

Stirrups did not yet exist in our timeframe.

57. How does elevation bonus work exactly? I've given template_structure_defensive_tower.xml a <MaxRange> of 18 and an <ElevationBonus> of 6. The outpost has both multiplied by 2.0, the small tower by 3.0, the large tower by 4.0, so I'd expect their respective ranges to be 36+12, 54+18, and 72+24; instead, they show up as 36+10, 54+16, and 72+21. Furthermore, the siege tower has 60+10 in my mod, but it shows up as 60+9.

Xenophon wrote a short treatise on horsemanship, which is worth reading. Here are some excerpts where he mentions the manes:

Actually I do not claim to be always right – nobody is – but when I see something I believe is incorrect I feel obliged to respond. If you look at my posts, you'll see I didn't quote Wikipedia. Let's take a step back. I believe we agree on most points: θ, φ, χ were pronounced /tʰ pʰ kʰ/, respectively, not /θ f x/; we also agree on the other consonants ο and ω were different sounds a number of sound shifts occurred in Hellenistic times (e.g. iotacism) ου was eventually pronounced /u/ The thing we seem to disagree about is the Classical Attic pronunciation of 〈ει〉 and 〈ου〉. I provided a number of arguments (Plato, LSJ, epigraphy, comparative linguistics) why I believe they were (still) pronounced /eː/ and /oː/. However, I don't think I'll be able to convince you; you seem to be entrenching yourself without providing real arguments; which is your good right. The fiercest discussions are typically on minor issues. I believe this one to be no exception. Personally I don't care how people pronounce Greek. If people want to pronounce 〈φ〉 and 〈ου〉 as /f/ and /u/ that's perfectly fine; in fact, I do so myself, because the purpose of language is to be understood, and to a modern audience /pʰ/ and /oː/ often sound indistinguishable from /p/ and /o/. Well, we all agree on that, don't we?

How to transcribe Greek into the Latin alphabet is a separate discussion that belongs elsewhere. The purpose of transliteration is to stay as close as possible to how something was written; the purpose of IPA is to stay as close as possible to how something was pronounced. The exact pronunciation of Greek is irrelevant for the transliteration of Greek discussion. Perhaps it's better if you record how you think the Greek vowels ought to be pronounced and then ask @GunChleoc to convert your audio into IPA. As has been pointed out before, looking for English equivalents is problematic. Although 〈ου〉 became /u/ in Hellenistic times, it was indeed not yet pronounced so in Classical Attic. The fact that Plato and others call 〈ο〉 οὖ indicates they were the same sound, i.e. /ο/; mutatis mutandis for 〈ε〉 εἶ /e/; feel free to look it up in your LSJ. Another argument is to compare Attic inscriptions with Attic literary texts after the spelling reform of 403 BC, e.g. EXΟΣΙΝ = ἔχουσιν, ΕΠΕΣΤΑΤΕ = ἐπεστάτει. We could also look at spelling differences between Ionic and Attic: Ion. ξεῖνος / Att. ξένος; Ion. μοῦνος / Att. μόνος; Ion. οὐδός / Att. ὀδός. Or one could look up how these spurious diphthongs emerged. Answer: by compensatory lengthening; e.g.: PIE *h₁e-men-sm̥ → *emenha → emē ̣na = Ionic/Attic ἔμεινα Doric ἄγοντι → *ἄγονσι → Attic/Ionic ἄγουσι All of this indicates that 〈ει〉 was the spelling of /eː/ and 〈ου〉 was /oː/ in 4th C BC Attic. Yes, I'm fully aware of that. There were dozens of Greek alphabets, not yet a single one; nor were Etruscan, Latin, and other Italic scripts different alphabets. Again, the transliteration of Greek is a different issue from the pronunciation. E.g. Ἀθῆναι is Latinized as Athenae and Anglicized as Athens; its Classical pronunciation was /atʰɛ̂ːnai̯/, its modern is /aˈθina/.

? Modifying the GUI is time consuming and frustrating; I was hoping to avoid it. The difference is Delenda Est has a fourth phase for all factions, whilst I want it only for three.

When I say something doesn't work, I mean it causes errors. And yes, it seems the problem is primarily with the structree. It did work in A22, though.