Nescio

The permanent alpha stage is actually one of 0 A.D.'s greatest assets. I hope it'll never be finished

Yes. The Seleucid Empire is the state ruled by the Seleucid dynasty, named after Seleucus I, who founded it; and all Seleucid heroes are Seleucid kings from the same family. The dynasty's symbols are the empire's, and vice versa. Out of curiosity, what do you mean by “most popular”?

The Athenians also have a coin with several of their symbols (olive, owl, ATHE[nai]) as an emblem, so it's not unprecedented.

It partially is, yes. (I also think the “Iberians”, an amalgam which includes many non-Iberian peoples, is too insignificant, yet it is included nevertheless.) However, why ought e.g. the Yayoi period be included, other than being Japan in 0 A.D.'s timeframe? Did they heavily influence their neighbours? Did they construct lasting monuments? Have any literary works survived? Have their cults or language reshaped large parts of Eurasia? I fear the answer to these questions is no; merely “being there” and nothing else seems just insignificant.

The current emblem looks more like a shield, although it's derived from a tetradrachme coin. If it is to be redesigned, this one might be useful: The right coin has three symbols of the Seleucid monarchy: the bee (top), elephant (centre), and anchor (bottom), as well as the text “King Seleucus”. (The horned horse on the left coin is another symbol of their dynasty, but I personally like the elephant + anchor better.)

The Xiognu/Hsiung-nu (Mongolia) and Han (China) were important civilizations with a lasting influence on eastern Eurasia, including our present world; eventually both ought to be included in 0 A.D.'s main distribution, ideally. They deserve it as much as the Parthians and Romans. On the other hand, although they fit 0 A.D.'s timeframe, the Go-Joseon (North Korea), Jin (South Korea), and Yayoi (Japan) archaeological periods are probably too insignificant to be included.

Is it possible to make the mountain slopes less steep, covered with vegetation, and walkable, but not buildable? That would make the map more realistic and playable. Also, I don't like those two solid land bridges. Perhaps you could replace them with half a dozen shallow spots in the water were the river can be crossed? A few rocks or stepping stones would look better, I think. To make it even more realistic, water should stream downwards; the river should have cataracts etc and one end should be visibly higher than the other. I guess that's currently not yet possible though.

You need the `interestinglog.html` file; its location depends on your operating system; have a look at https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GameDataPaths

A zip, great, now I can finally have a look at what you've been doing You have to correct your mod.json file: right now Hyrule is listed as "game", but it's not a stand-alone game, it's a mod; if you try to run Hyrule without 0ad you get lots of errors. To prevent that, replace your mod.json file with e.g.: { "name": "Hyrule Conquest", "version": "1.01", "label": "Hyrule Conquest", "url": "https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22638-hyrule-conquest/&", "description": "A Real-Time Strategy mod set in the Legend of Zelda universe.", "dependencies": ["0ad=0.0.22"], "type": "mod" } Also, when loading the tech trees, there are quite a few warnings. No and no (I'm assuming this mod doesn't overhaul armour mechanics). AoE uses linear armour. AoM uses percentage armour. 0 A.D. uses exponential armour (if I recall correctly; there was an explanatory page on the subject somewhere).

That looks much better! However, something weird seems to be going on with the camel's hind leg.

Nice! But a camel will kneel even further:

Yes, it looks nice. Ideally there should be three variants: no reins, a single rein (which can be very long), and a loop rein (as shown; loose but short enough to be reined in). Camels: occassionally. Chariots: certainly. Horse: typically yes, but it depends; Greek cavalry often lacked shields (or carried them on their back) because they needed one hand to hold the reins, whereas Dahae horse archers were skilled enough to guide their mount with their legs and needed both hands to shoot arrows. Sitting with your legs crossed is that your left feet is at the right, and vice versa. A camel is not a horse; you can sit on it in a number of ways. E.g.: https://www.lindydavis.co.nz/?lightbox=dataItem-ivzutjhc or:

Addendum: during the later Roman Empire the Romans did have “dromedarii” (camelry units); but they were an auxiliary corps, i.e. recruited from non-Roman peoples or local tribes (i.e. Arabs). The same applies to the camelry occassionally listed amongst the Persian etc. armies.

You're right, I could have expressed it a bit more subtle. As usual, my knowledge is limited to the Near East and Mediterranean. Although I know a few things about ancient Africa (modern Tunisia) I know next to nothing about the ancient history of the continent we nowadays call Africa (ancient Libya and Aethiopia). Therefore thank you for correcting me (and please continue to do so; I like to learn new things, and I do hope Kushites and other significant civilizations will eventually be included in 0 A.D.'s main distribution). The primary motivation for me posting was to distinguish between Arab (a term already used by the Assyrians) and Arabic (which did not yet exist during Antiquity). And the idea behind my controversial statement was that there is clear evidence desert peoples (who were typically called Arabs in their own time) fought from camel-back, whereas there is no evidence for other people who did have camels. E.g. the Parthian army at the battle of Carrhae reportedly consisted of about one thousand cataphracts, nine thousand light horse archers, and tens of thousands of supply camels, but no camelry units. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if dromedary camels existed in and around the Sahara thousands of years earlier; even if the first literary references are from Roman times, it doesn't mean they weren't there long before. There is clear evidence the Carthaginians used both bigae (two-horse chariots which served on the flanks alongside cavalry) and quadrigae (four-horse chariots which were deployed individually in front of the main infantry formation, just like war elephants later). The bigae were gradually being phased out in favour of true cavalry, and the quadrigae were replaced by elephantry shortly after Carthage' conflicts with Pyrrhus. I'm unaware of Punic camelry (and ancient writers are interested in exotic things). “Troglodytes” means “cave-dwellers” and various ancient authors apply that term to various peoples. Yes, I'm aware camels were and are guided by loose reins, sticks, both, or neither; besides shouting. I'm not objecting to loose reins, I was pointing out they were too loose; if they can't be reined in they serve no purpose; I'm asking them to be shortened somewhat (but not to be tight).

Saracen is the Medieval term for what we nowadays call Arab. Names which had different meanings in the past are unimportant to be aware of in daily usage, but do matter when talking about specific historical contexts. E.g. modern Calabria (the toe of Italy; called Bruttium in Roman times) is a completely different region from ancient Calabria (the heel of Italy; the modern Salento Peninsula in Apulia).

Arab, not Arabic. “Arabs” were the only ones who fought from dromedary camel back in Antiquity, although neighbouring peoples also used camels as supply animals. The word has shifted its meaning too. Before the 7th C A.D. Arab was the demonym for all nomadic and semi-nomadic desert peoples and tribes; those we now call Bedouins, Nabateans, etc. were called by others and called themselves Arab in their own time. And in the Quran (Koran) Mohammed frequently fulminates upon the detestable Arabs (meaning the Bedouins, who were not interested in converting to his monotheistic movement). Nowadays Arab means someone who has Arabic as his mother tongue. Arabic is derived from the Arabian Peninsula, which derives from the Arabian Desert, which came from the Arab (peoples). To summarize, “Arab” is nowadays an ethnic adjective, “Arabian” a geographical adjective, and “Arabic” a linguistic adjective.

The rein is much too long; if it were pulled, it would have no effect. Also, the rider's arm probably should be resting on its lap (keeping it stretched out for hours is unnecessarily tiresome). Cross-legged should actually be the default for the Arab (Bedouin, Nabatean, etc.) archer. A (Arab) camel spearman (without armour or shield) is something I'd really like to have.

Fishermen in boats typically used cast nets to catch fish. Fishermen standing in the water often used spears, harpoons, or hoop nets. Or empty traps they set up earlier. Clams were picked up at low tide or occassionally dived for. Angling is a modern hobby to pass the time (and not necessarily to catch fish).

Yes, I'm aware the current situation is quite incoherent, however, ideally it ought to be one language for one faction. If you think you could make it more consistent or historically accurate, great, feel free to go ahead

Consistency is important. It's a bad idea if one faction uses words from different languages (Welsh, Gaelic, and Gaulish alongside each other). However, it's a great idea to use different languages to differentiate Britons and Gauls from each other, e.g.: Britons: Welsh Gauls: Gaulish (if possible)

Great! I was asking because this topic's title doesn't include your “===[COMMITED]===” tag You mean camelry (cf. elephantry); cavalry implies the use of horses; “camel cavalry” is a contradiction in terminis. Other than that, I'm looking forward to it, a lot of great work has been done recently. Many thanks!

Have these updated siege actors with animated crews been included in the svn version? If not, will they be added (eventually)?

That horse (eight posts up) looks really great! Legs move, tail moves, rider moves, even the cape moves. One thing could be improved though: right now the horse's head, neck, and body is one solid block, which looks quite static. If it would consist of at least three separate elements which could move independently, the animation would look more natural And perhaps the horse could occassionally look around or graze some grass when idle?

Happy New Year! 0abc has been updated again: Ships cost 0 population Fishing boats are limited to two per dock Merchant ships are limited to five per market Warships are not limited but consume a significant amount of silver each 30 seconds Centres have +20% build time, health, and territory influence radius per phase; furthermore: no phase: base cost is 500 wood; 25 m and 50 m auras enabled; no silver trickle rate village phase: +500 food cost; 75 m aura enabled; grant 1 silver per 7 seconds town phase: +500 stone cost; 100 m aura enabled; grant 2 silver per 7 seconds city phase: +500 metal cost; 125 m aura enabled; grant 3 silver per 7 seconds metropolis phase: +500 silver cost; 150 m aura enabled; grant 4 silver per 7 seconds Upkeep: Military structures consume 1 food per 7 seconds Lighthouses consume 1 wood per 7 seconds Libraries consume 2 silver per 7 seconds Harbours consume 1 food and 1 silver per 7 seconds Fortresses consume 1 silver per 7 seconds Warships consume silver, mercenaries consume silver, champions consume food Fanatics no longer benefit from armour technologies Females can no longer be trained at the centre; houses no longer count towards town phase requirement; unlock research requirement is removed, females can always be trained at houses Changed a few civilization bonuses from autoresearched technologies to permanent global auras Various minor edits As usual, have a look at the 0abc-readme.pdf reference document for more detailed information. For your information, I tried it out and subsequently reverted it, because if units are garrisoned on top of the gates, the doors are permanently gaping wide open (even if you command it to be locked).

The issue is actually rP20677 : cart_champion_cavalry.png was correctly moved to cart_champion_elephant.png, which succeeded cart_sacred_band_cavalry.png ought to have been moved to cart_champion_cavalry.png, which failed As a result the icon used by the sacred band cavalry is a copy of the one used by the elephant. To fix it, delete the “new” cart_champion_cavalry.png and afterwards move the old cart_sacred_band_cavalry.png icon to cart_champion_cavalry.png