Nescio

HC's rupees, DE's coin, and 0abc's silver are all basically the same resource. It would be really nice if a feature to restrict trading specific resources were included in A23.

That's something I've considered as well (it works great in Cossacks), however, it would also involve a farming overhaul etc., which is why I don't intend to try out human food consumption, or mercenary silver consumption, not yet at least. Interesting. It is no longer the case though. I tested it out earlier and checked it again now: when I have -10 food I can't train a female, and the tooltip states “Insufficient resources: 60 food”. Also, the AI is able to keep its food stock positive, at least in yesterday's test game.

0abc updated, changes include amongst other things: corrals can be deleted again (there was a typo: "2x4" instead of "4x2") all technology research times are multiplied by 1.5 (to make the game slower paced) all unit training times are multiplied by 2.0 (to encourage keeping your units alive) all military buildings each consume 1 food per 5 seconds (to make barracks spamming more costly) this negative resource trickle rate can result in getting a negative food stockpile (I think it's interesting enough to try it out, although I might change it later) changed silver trickle rates: wonders: 2 silver per 1 second (and no other resources) palaces: 1 silver per 1 second catafalques: 1 silver per 2 seconds more structure auras: 15 m from houses: females +1 crush, hack, and pierce armour 20 m from corrals: workers +15% food.meat gather rate 30 m from farmsteads: workers +10% food.grain gather rate 40 m from storehouses: workers +5% wood.tree gather rate 60 m from rotary mills: workers +20% food.grain gather rate 100 m, 75 m, 50 m, 25 m from centres: civic structures +10% capture points, workers +5% build speed, -5% resource gather speed, +1% movement speed these bonuses combine (so if a worker is within 25 m of a centre, i.e. practically adjacent, it builds at 121.55% and gathers at 81.45%) but do not stack (a worker within 100 m of three centres gets the 100 m aura only once) finally separated builders from workers: females can gather, but can no longer build citizen soldiers can both gather and build mercenary soldiers can no longer gather, but can build champion soldiers can neither gather, nor build many other tweaks I did longer ago and have partially forgotten by now Have a look at the 0abc-readme.pdf for more detailed information.

Usually this means there is a typo in the <RequiredTechnology> element, e.g. Phase_Town instead of phase_town. If this is the case, the entity will correctly show up in the tech tree, however, it won't be buildable in game, because its requirement can't be normally researched, hence the warning.

No, not the better player, the fastest player. The better player is the one who can survive an unfavourable situation and end up as the victor. If that's not possible in a game then I rapidly lose my interest. I favour games which are balanced and complex. Mass production, economy of scale, and learning curve are very modern concepts which form an essential part of our world nowadays, but were absent throughout most of human history. The larger the population and territory, the harder a state could be controlled. Small but efficient Macedon conquered the enormous Persian Empire.

This would favour players who control lots of territory (and already have the advantages of resources and space), penalize players who're slow to expand, as well as make it harder for players who're under attack, have lost a centre or two, and are now trying to rebuild their army. Let's assume a tiny two-player map; both players have two centres each, player A loses one to player B, the map is too small to build a new one, and suddenly B can produce soldiers three times as quickly. Do you really think A would still have a reasonable chance of winning? Instead of limiting the numbers of barracks, maybe buildings could ramp up in cost, making each subsequent structure cost e.g. 20% more than the previous? So your fifth barracks would cost 207%, the tenth 516%; the total sum of the first five barracks is 644%, the first ten cost 2496% together; average cost of first five is 129%, average of first ten is 250%. A farming household can be run with much less corruption and waste than a large empire. It works great in RoN (which also had resource income limits). Or simply assign a population cost to barracks.

The name of the bonus doesn't really matter (if it's the same the child's overrides the parent's, if it's different both apply). The <bonuses> element has to be put inside an attack, which can be capture, melee, ranged, or slaughter, e.g.: <Attack> <Melee> <Bonuses> <Cavalry> <Classes>Cavalry Ranged</Classes> <Multiplier>1.5</Multiplier> </Cavalry> <Elephantry> <Classes>Elephant</Classes> <Multiplier>0.5</Multiplier> </Elephantry> </Bonuses> <MaxRange>6</MaxRange> <Pierce>8</Pierce> <PrepareTime>750</PrepareTime> <PreferredClasses datatype="tokens">Human</PreferredClasses> <RepeatTime>1000</RepeatTime> </Melee> </Attack> To do that you have to manually add it to the tooltip, e.g.: <Identity> <GenericName>Melee Camel</GenericName> <Tooltip>Counters: 1.5× vs Ranged Cavalry. Penalties: 0.5× vs Elephants.</Tooltip> <VisibleClasses datatype="tokens">Camel Melee</VisibleClasses> </Identity> Not exactly; currently there are three different options available: <Loot>: if a unit is killed it grants these resource amounts to its enemy <Looter>: if a unit kills it gains these resource amounts as additional loot <ResourceTrickle>: this unit passively generates a constant flow of resources for its owner You could consider creating an aura for that (don't forget to include it under <Auras datatype="tokens"> in your unit files). Have a look at e.g. https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/special/player_athen.xml

Yeah, I don't really see the need for archery ranges either. In my 0abc mod I've distributed units as following: centres: females, one melee and one ranged infantry citizen, all heroes barracks: melee and ranged infantry (citizen and mercenary) cavalry stables: melee and ranged cavalry (citizen and mercenary) elephant stables: worker, melee, and ranged elephants (citizen, mercenary, and champion) hall (limited to one, plus one for each centre): champion units fortress: --- (purely defensive) siege workshop: siege weapons dock and crannog: fishing boats, merchant ships, barges, fireships shipyard and harbour: galleys Of course, different people have different preferences, which is why it's great we can have different mods Your suggestion to have three different blacksmiths seems a bit of an overkill, though.

It's not a complaint. I fully understand the team is very small and has limited time. Also, I greatly admire the content created in the past few months. My point is merely that if the choice is between creating a siege workshop or a hare, it makes perfect sense to put give fauna a lower priority. Also, quality matters as well, and it's probably better to improve existing, frequently used actors than to create dozens of "temporary" placeholders.

Yes, I fully agree, it would be really nice if someone who understand map file and has free time could move the metal and stone mines individually to a random spot e.g. 120 to 180 m from your starting centre, instead of always having both next to each other at about 50 m. The location of fruit bushes might be looked at as well. This... I don't think it's good that you can train 50 soldiers in a minute flat, from a handful of barracks. Assuming it takes more than a minute to conquer your enemies' base, your enemy could have an entirely new, and sizeable army trained by the time you reach their CC. If the enemy is already in your base, it should be waaaay too late to start training a defensive army. I'm contemplating doubling the training time of all units in my mod, 0abc; this would make the game more slow paced, encourage raiding and keeping your own units alive; however, batch training and barracks spamming would probably become even more common in late game.

Both hares and rabbits are rodents with long ears, but other than that, they're are quite different, simply reusing actors seems like a very bad idea. Until many more animals are created, most people will probably prefer alien species to no fauna; only a tiny minority (myself included) cares about historic realism. Fauna have a low priority, and rightly so. I've posted a list of animals which I think ought to be available in the long run at https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22944-domesticated-animals-livestock-and-other-fauna/ However, I certainly do not really expect anyone to start creating them. (Biodiversity would be a great way to distinguish 0 A.D. from commercial games such as AoK, though. Besides, animal actors could be used in any mod for any period in human history.)

Unfortunately there are no hares yet, although they lived all over Eurasia (and still do). Rabbits were historically limited to the Iberian peninsula and did not emerge beyond the Pyrenees until Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period. (Also, rabbits were considered pests, not food, as were mice and rats; hares, on the other hand, were considered food and were hunted and eaten.) 0 A.D., as with many other things, flatly contradicts historic reality and includes rabbits in India maps.

Constructing walls is difficult, and the AI isn't able to cope with this either. Not just people (human players can do what they like), the problem is that the AI has this behaviour as well. As for why, it's because it's the most sensible thing to do under the current mechanics. Which is something I don't like either. I tried out a building restriction in my mod, 0abc, e.g. farms at least 75 m from centres; however, structure distance is calculated from object centre to object centre, and shuttle distance is edge to edge, thus perhaps 40 m. More importantly, the AI continues to build farms as close to centres as possible (which looks even weirder), so I'll probably revert this construction restriction (I don't want to penalize the AI). Apparently the ugly "farms around centres" behaviour is hard coded in Petra. Another idea I have is using auras instead, e.g.: 50 m from centres: structures +20% capture points, workers -20% gather rates 100 m from centres: structures +10% capture points, workers -10% gather rates farmsteads and storehouses might get a slight gather bonus aura (cf. rotary mill) The AI seems to be aware of diminishing returns, so maybe it can also take auras into account, and decide to build farms around farmsteads instead of centres. [...] I was thinking that the CC could be programmed to only be able to store a nominal amount of each resource, like max 200 of every resource. [...] It seems you're talking about two different things. On the one hand, there is 5000 metal and 5000 stone within walking distance of your starting centre on about every map. Moving mines further away to or beyond the edge of your initial territory would be a great improvement. On the other hand, the suggestion to have maximum resource capacities, which worked great in Caesar III and Stronghold. This is an interesting idea to explore (e.g. no buildings mean you can not gather any resources; centres increase every resource capacity by 500 each; small houses increase food capacity by 100 and wood by 50, big houses double that; granaries food by 1000; storehouses wood, stone, metal by 300 each; etc.), although it would mean significantly more micro-management, which is not necessarily an improvement.

Congratulations, it seems 0 A.D. is one of the five real time strategy games which made it into the top 100. Now a new voting round has started, which will end in slightly over nine days and twelve hours. Currently 0 A.D. is ranked #57. It would be nice if we could end up higher. The voting link remains unchanged.

You don't have to if you don't want to, it's merely a suggestion. Apparently I misunderstood your question earlier; I thought you wanted to have, use, and display more than the default four resources; I now see your request is actually another, interesting idea. On the one hand it simplifies things (the gui can be left unchanged as it is, because it's designed for exactly four resources); on the other hand it complicates things (your novel suggestion requires changing how several underlying things work); it's neither impossible nor straightforward. Basically there are two issues: on the one hand, having different resources for different factions; on the other, displaying different resources for different factions. Let's start with the latter (your actual question). By default different factions have a nearly identical gui; the only difference is the faction emblem; you should have a look at the relevant code to figure out how that's done. What you probably should do is creating faction-specific resource arrays (e.g. Gorons: rupees, rock sirloin, wood, stone) and then telling the gui panels (top, trade, and barter) to load and display only the resources included in the new faction-specific arrays, instead of all resources. Now the former. Do you want to allow factions to have, acquire, and trade resources other than the four they use? If not, things which have to be changed include: Allow different starting amounts for different resources Allow different starting resources for different factions Allow restricting barter, trade, tribute, etc. Because it's likely you're not the only one who would want this, these three features should probably be enabled in the default 0 A.D. distribution.

In my mod I increased the limits and number of items, resized icons, resized panels, and moved around some things, including the mini-map; it could be useful as an example if you want to start tweaking the gui for your mod. Also, the summary at the bottom of the wiki page includes a list of files to be edited. How many resources do you intend to have in the long run? It's probably more efficient to properly redesign the gui once than it is to tweak everything every time you add a resource. PS Do you also have a location (e.g. github) where one could easily browse or view individual files of your mod? This would make it easier to help you if you encounter problems.

Besides having both horse and rider to feed, cavalry also has higher movement speed, health, vision range, and attack than infantry counterparts, therefore it is perfectly sensible to increase their population requirement to two instead of one. This is actually one of many things I implemented in my mod, 0abc, months ago. One side-effect is that armies have higher infantry to cavalry ratios, which is perfectly fine, since armies with 10% cavalry or more were highly uncommon in Antiquity.

Yes, phase advances require a number of entities with the Village or Town class to be researched, which are by default most structures but not to fields, walls, units, or other entities. However, you can easily change this in your mod and certainly do not have to follow this convention. You can add classes to units as well, if you like, or remove this requirement, or add others. Furthermore, you can easily rename, add, or remove phases if you like; you don't really have to use Village/Town/City. Actually I had this problem as well in my mod, 0abc, in which I wanted to add one resource. Being able to display it properly everywhere (including on low resolution screens) forced me to partially redesign the GUI. You can find everything I changed at: https://github.com/0abc/0abc-unified I also expanded and updated https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/ModdingResources

What happened in 2011, 2014, and 2016? Anyway, as of now: http://www.indiedb.com/games/0-ad : “Rank 47 of 45,079” (seems to be going alright) http://www.moddb.com/mods/hyrule-conquest : “Rank 180 of 31,399” (could use some help)

Thanks for posting, I appreciate feedback and bug reports, etc. 1. Animations, visual actors, etc. are things I typically do not touch, therefore they ought to be the same as in A22. I've standardized reload times (for human soldiers to 1000 ms) though, thus the animation might be out of pace with the precie moment when the damage is exactly inflicted, however, that is not something which is of high importance to me. 2. That's true. Creating twelve different versions of any soldier would make this mod unnecessarily large (it's supposed to be lightweight). Besides, using just one visual actor for all ranks has several advantages: it keeps the unit recognizable; it allows the other two existing visual actors to be used for other units of other factions; changing a unit's outfit mid-combat seemed weird. 3. Researching City phase ought to be unproblematic; I'll try to reproduce it later and see if I can figure out what is the issue. The high number of farms is probably the result of only of the latest changes, i.e. the introduction of a minimum distance of farms to centres; it's something which I'm trying out and might revert. 4W. “Captured women”? 4G. That's intended. The Gastraphetes was a hand-held siege weapon, not the relatively small hunting crossbow of Late Antiquity, those of Medieval warfare, or our modern lightweight plastic versions. 5. Could you be more precise? Maybe a typo somewhere, I'll have a look. 6. Annoying. I thought I had solved that weeks ago. I'll have another look at it. 7. New visual actors for new structures are being added to A23. Because I prefer to keep 0abc small (a few MB), I do not intend to include them; reusing existing graphics is an efficient temporary solution. When I have time for 0 A.D. again, I'll have a more careful look and try to solve the bugs you mentioned. I'm quite busy with other things these few weeks.

Try "add": -0.8

Yes, it can accept only one entry. It's because it's a boolean, i.e. either true or false. If there are several technologies which enable it, then if you have researched one of those, then why would you research another one? Anyway, if you would want to allow a single faction to have multiple technologies to enable vision sharing, then make the "unlock_shared_los" autoresearched with any of those multiple technologies as a prerequisite (an OR statement). And if you want different factions to have different vision sharing technologies (but only one each), you can do that by keeping "<SharedLosTech>unlock_shared_los</SharedLosTech>" in the generic "player.xml" file, and inserting into the specific "player_x.xml" file of faction X: <Player> <SharedLosTech>unlock_shared_los_x</SharedLosTech> </Player> (or whatever you want to name the technology for faction X). To figure out where to locate which file, have a look at: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/templates/special

The life cycle of A21 was over eight months, so if that's anything to go by, don't expect A23 before April then. Furthermore, time between releases seems to be increasing, so it's perfectly possible A22 will last even longer. The point is, the release date is not fixed, therefore we'd better avoid speculating on it. A22 has been released and therefore won't be changed any more. Adapting a mod to the development version is a lot of work, because A23 is constantly changing and anything can be altered at any time, potentially breaking mods overnight; nor do we know how A23 would ultimately look like. It's wiser to base a mod upon a stable release (e.g. A22) and only update it to the next version when it's released.

Managing a released mod is not necessarily more work than managing a local mod. If your mod works without errors on A22, then releasing exactly those files should work for everyone else's A22. It's completely up to you, of course. The next alpha is always around the corner, because work on the next version starts as soon as a stable is released. However, that doesn't mean A23 is about to be released right now. No asset freeze has been announced as far as I know and a lot of work is ongoing. Personally I would be surprised if A23 would be finished and released earlier than January (it's pure speculation, of course).

Yes, LaTeX is a typesetting language. You can use any general text editor (e.g. emacs, gedit, kwrite, notepad, etc) or a specialized TeX-editor (e.g. TeXworks, TeXnicCenter, LyX), but to compile it (create a proper pdf) requires a TeX-distribution to be installed (e.g. TeXLive, MiKTeX). The learning curve is quite steep; you need to invest a few hours to get used to LaTeX, but once you've mastered it, life becomes so much easier. When I started at university years ago, we were introduced to LaTeX on day one, and forced to use it for all assignments. I didn't like it initially back then, but now I'm really glad I had to. Since then I've never used MS Word, Powerpoint, or similar time consuming typesetting programs. So if you want to be able to typeset professional documents with very little effort, learn LaTeX. If you're not interested, perfectly fine. Many people aren't willing to invest time into learning it.