Nescio

Yes, we do, I'm aware of that. Suppose we would have the following mod structure tree: modmod + pyrogenesis/engine ++ public/gaia/shared stuff +++ EA (500-1 BC) +++ EB (1-500 AD) I'd imagine both EA and EB would want to use the same maps and AI, as would other unrelated mods (e.g. Hyrule Conquest) therefore it would make sense to put those in the new public mod. However, AI and maps also have civ-specific content, therefore the game would still require EA or EB or crash otherwise. A separation might be wise long term, but will be an enormous and troublesome task short term without immediate benefit.

Yes, separating the engine from the content certainly makes sense. I never dared to propose it myself, though :) Where would you put maps? They include both gaia and civ objects. And the AI? It requires both classes and hard-coded templates. On the other hand, you might want to avoid duplication.

That wouldn't be a bad idea; taverns are more something of Medieval and Early Modern Europe.

Then why are you pushing for the implementation of a specific interpretation? I didn't look up Ellis 1975 and Markel 1977, but I've just downloaded Williams 2004. Interestingly the article repeatedly calls Alexander's hypaspists heavy infantry, e.g.: on page 265 and again on page 270: Again, please find me some recent sources that support your view :)

It's worth noting that book was published in 1958 and academic views change, so your source might be outdated. Also, J. F. C. Fuller (1878–1966) was a British officer involved with organizing the first tank attack (in 1917), a dominant advocate for armoured warfare (hardly surprising), and a prolific writer on a wide range of subjects, from military history to mysticism; his views were already controversial in his own time (thank you, Wikipedia). I'd highly recommend you to look for a few more (recent) sources.

Yeah, I also did that in my 0abc mod. Others might want to try it out too, which is why I proposed D1323 months ago. Maybe after the feature freeze is lifted :)

People should keep in mind the only thing that has been decided Wednesday is that the proposed articles will go to the European Parliament to be discussed and voted upon, probably in about six months.

Please use `snake_case`; most content in the 0 A.D. folder already does; consistency matters; and getting files renamed after they're committed is cumbersome.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/what-personal-data_en

Forums are separate from the game itself, as are the IRC Channel, trac, and Phabricator. The contributor credits lists are on an opt-in basis. As for the lobby, you should inform users what you collect and why, anonymize the data or store it pseudo-anonymized (e.g. encrypted), send users their data when requested, and erase it when reasonable. Can I be personally identified by my post?

What kind of personal data are you collecting then?

And here are those colours as defined above: I'd say they are tan, orange, and olive. However, the screenshot colours look somewhat different.

Are we looking at the same thing? Half of them seems to have grey hair; only the left most and perhaps the one in front could be called blondes.

Lack of interpunction is also slightly unpleasant (I didn't write "difficult", mind) to read Also, "the" standard is relative; I have dozens of 20th C books and even a few from the 19th C, however, I just checked, none of them is typeset with two spaces after a full stop. On the other hand, typewriting is a category somewhere in between manuscripts and printed media; yours is an interesting suggestion. There is no need to apologize. You did not cause distress. At least not to me. I was just curious. Therefore I asked. To me, using more than one space suggests sentences do not belong together. As if they all could have been in separate paragraphs. Like this. It's not difficult to read. But it's unusual. Therefore it catches the eye. And somewhat distracted me from the words itself. Unconventional typesetting can have that effect. Anyway, it might just be me. Thank you for your reply.

In both A22 and A23 the Seleucids have the following unit roster: barracks: infantry spearman, infantry pikeman, infantry javelinist, and cavalry javelinist (all village phase) and horse archer (town phase) military colony: infantry swordsman, infantry archer, cavalry spearman (all town phase mercenaries) fortress: infantry pikeman, infantry swordsman, cavalry spearman, chariot, and war elephant (all city phase champions) and stone thrower and siege tower (both city phase siege engines) They have no battering rams, bolt shooters, infantry slingers, or cavalry swordsmen, however, the game would be a bit boring if all civilizations would have a fully complete unit roster.

Aren't there already? (own ally neutral enemy - how is the territory of "neutral" players called, by the way?) Additive bonus damages (e.g. +3.0) would be nice to have too. As would de-hardcoding damage types to allow modders to add, edit, or remove damage types, rather than forcing everyone to stick to the hack/pierce/crush scheme. Another thing I'd like to have is the ability to have units occupy more than one garrison space slot (e.g. infantry one, cavalry three). I could go on, but ignore me; I'm sure you already have more than enough to do. Besides, there is still a feature freeze, right?

Why do you type two spaces after each sentence? It's slightly unpleasant to read.

Personally I'm in favour of letting the game evolve and see where it goes. Although 0 A.D. is far from perfect, it is promissing nonetheless. Every alpha is a significant improvement over the previous. Gameplay and balance are not great, true, but we're still in the alpha stage. Besides, people will always be complaining, myself included Luckily it's quite easy to modify the game and to distribute modifications. The problem is not a lack of vision or a shortage of ideas, but an abundance of different overlapping and conflicting visions. Radical changes will please some, but alienate others. I'm not in favour of the tyranny of democratic dictatorship. Getting consensus is often hard, but if you fail to convince others your suggestion is an improvement, then it might not be a good enough solution. Is the svn version still in feature freeze, by the way?

Why would you want statistics? Get yourself a dictionary if you want to look up a definition

Certainly not! It means general agreement.

A majority in votes is not the same as consensus.

Today it was announced Microsoft intends to acquire github.com ($7.5bn). I might move to gitlab.com in the future.

Update: it's now available for download via the mod selection menu in game. This would not have been possible without @Itms.

Yes, I'm aware; we've already established Britons shouldn't have archers (and Gauls should). Caesars frequently mentions the Gauls using archers. However, he also invaded Britain (end of book IV, start of book V) and describes several battles there; he repeatedly states the Britons use chariotry and cavalry, spears and javelins, but he never mentions they had archers, bows, or arrows. It's not a fair comparison, it's an exaggaration My intention was to show why I prefer "there is evidence they had", instead of "there is no evidence they had not".

Right now we have two distinct unit types, archers and slingers, in game and it works. So why is there a need to merge them? We might as well merge horse archers and cavalry javelinists or bolt shooters and stone throwers. I'm not saying archery completely disappeared, I'm merely questioning whether it was still being used on the battlefield, and asking for a tiny bit of evidence. Let's exaggarate it a bit for the sake of argument: there is no evidence the Britons did not have quinqueremes or war elephants, some of their contemporary trading partners did, so they might have had them as well, we don't know, therefore give the Britons quinqueremes and war elephants in game. True, but the resulting society and culture is very different from what it used to be before the population influx.