feneur

I think it would be a lot easier to just open up Atlas, paint a large area of the terrain with a single color (see the "Special" tab), put in the building, and then do a screenshot. Then it's just to Select-->Color range, or maybe even just use the magic wand if the building layout allows for it, and delete the selected area and you have the building on a transparent background

I think it's going to prove impossible to do everything in one screen, and while having an options box does mean that you can remain on the same screen while still giving access to more options there is a limit to how much you can put there as well. Imho we should probably start thinking about doing things in tabs at this stage rather than having to do it later when we have more options. An option is to have e.g. the map description in an overlay, but that of course doesn't allow for as much formatting/information, so I don't think we should do it that way.

Portforwarding only allows access to that specific port, as long as you have a firewall/antivirus software you should be safe enough. Especially since it's not very likely that something will target that specific port. It is not recommended to open up more than the specific port needed to host the game though And no, only the host will need to do the portforwarding, both players should make sure that any firewalls/antivirus software isn't blocking 0 A.D.'s access to the internet though

That's the thought here too, it's just a question of when/how/how much You should still get more resources when trading with an ally, just that you need to wait for the trader to return with that model. As long as you benefit more from trading with an ally than with yourself I'm pretty much ok with either model, though I prefer to only have the profit for the market you reach so to speak so that there is a greater risk combined with the greater gain for the foreign trade In other words, you'd have a steadier income rate when trading with your own markets as you'd get income at both ends, but it would not be as much in total as when trading with an ally's market.

That's already planned The health decay is just a placeholder until capturing is implemented Buildings which aren't in territory that is connected to the enemy's city center but are influenced by your territory will start to lose loyalty until they either are down to 0 and all yours or the enemy changes the situation again I don't recall what we said about buildings which are completely disconnected to any players City Center though. Maybe just have those decay in health.

Do you connect to the internet via a router? If so you most likely need to make sure the correct port is forwarded (see the document above for which, and just search the internet for "port forwarding" and then add the name of your router to the search), and make sure that any firewalls allow 0 A.D. to connect to the internet. We hope to have a lobby server later which will make finding and connecting to other players a lot easier, but for now it can unfortunately be a bit difficult to get everything set up correct.

So essentially it's the same principles as we have in the game now, but the player would have to spend an immense effort micromanaging the units It might be fun in some games, but in a game like 0 A.D. you don't want to have to micromanage units while your enemy is attacking you. To make this relevant we'd either have to simplify the war aspect of the game or make it a lot slower.

That's already in place There's a big symbol for the civ right in the middle of the top bar

I think battle sounds should be louder than gathering sounds/be heard over larger distances, but I would imagine that can be done via volume levels rather than specific behavior

Ah, yeah, it's definitely not a bad idea for some games, but not for 0 A.D. We're going more for a balance between war and economy, and then we can't go into too much detail in either area

That's been discussed a ton of times before, but just for the sake of discussion, can you give one good reason to do this? And I don't count pseudo-realism (this is a game, so full realism is impossible) as a reason, though you're of course still free to argue that it is

Very much intended indeed I guess you could perhaps gather apples from horseback, but in general being on a horse isn't very useful for gathering vegetables =) I know you have to get off the horse to actually get the meat from the dead animals, but in a more general sense it makes sense for cavalry to hunt but not e.g. farm. I guess it could be argued that only infantry units should be citizen soldiers, but for gameplay reasons that wouldn't make much sense (it's useful to have cavalry available for scouting early in the game etc).

Sounds splendid Looking forward to seeing it.

Snow will probably not be properly included in part one as it would require a whole new set of textures for all buildings. And in other words, if/when snow is included it will require a whole new set of textures (maybe as an extra layer above the current, but still), so we shouldn't let thoughts of snow hinder anything now.

Hmm, maybe we could remove the zoom capability from the normal - key (and only have it on the numpad - key) and have - as a "find idle everything that doesn't fit in the other categories" key (I.e. use it for healers, cavalry, and maybe trade units/ship and fishing boats). Wouldn't be the prettiest solution, but would at least remove the current issues, and avoid us having to create a ton of select idle ... buttons

Just as a general comment, the developer tools are not meant to be balanced and part of normal gameplay, so glitches there are less likely to be fixed. In the final game you will only be able to have one hero alive at a time, this limit is not yet implemented so we made the decision to not make heroes available at all in this alpha as they are very overpowered and previously you could create a lot of them. Work on implementing the "only one hero alive" limit is underway, so unless any unforeseen errors are found you should be able to train heroes again in the next alpha

Where should they show up then? They do have a gathering role, so imho it would be weird to only have them selectable via the idle military hotkey, but it does seem a bit superfluous to create a new shortcut key just for them

A screenshot would be useful yeah. Can't confirm it either (using the 12726 revision, custom built, on Windows 7).

If you don't get any errors it's hard for us to say what's wrong. It would probably be useful if you list the exact steps you are doing and what isn't working. Earlier you said that you could follow the instructions up to the update-workspaces.sh and then run into the error you posted above. After that you say that you "installed with patch", does that mean that you ran the update-workspaces.sh again? And without any errors? If so were you able to keep following the instructions on the http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/BuildInstructions page afterwards without any errors?

Why would you want to change that? I'll leave it to those with more knowledge about the history to comment on that, but from a purely aesthetic point of view that's great Looks both powerful and refined at the same time I really like the "progression" over the squarish crenelations on the Roman/Greek/Carthaginian towers/walls/fortresses, the triangles of the Persian ones, and the "stepped triangles" of this Mauryan fortress, so I would at least want to see that in a new design if you decide to change the overall layout

As far as I understand it (note that I might have misunderstood some details, but I think not, if so Ben should correct me asap ) it should be possible to just create a building that would have a "rubble pile with resources" object as the actor that is created after the building is destroyed. (Seeing as there exists a model of a destroyed Greek temple which you can mine it should even be possible to do just using content that comes with the game You need to create your own XML files to tie them together of course, but apart from that.)

Hmm, any actors (i.e. non-gameplay impacting entities) shouldn't be as much of an issue as entities. I would say that e.g. stones which doesn't have alphamaps could be used a lot more frequently though. Big maps will have to be worked more on anyway, so don't let that concern stop you from making the maps look good. And as far as I can tell the OOM issues are when generating the maps rather than playing on them? Speaking of that, would it help to have objects which consists of several smaller objects? If the issue is that there are too many objects for the game to go through in the RM generation phase that should help I would guess. Michael had some ideas for what I believe he called POGs (I think it was short for predefined object groupings or something similar) which would essentially be small "scenes" that a scenario designer/RMS scripter could include in his maps. That should work even for less ambitious things like a bunch of stones and grass objects.Hmm, did a quick look among old mockups and found the attached image, seems like POG is short for premade object groupings =) At least I wasn't too far off

Ok, done

Well, apart from any recent changes which might have made this an issue it's intended for cavalry to gather more quickly than other units. Partly because it is their only non-military role, and partly because they are more expensive than other citizen soldiers.

I think the "don't turn in place" restriction is mostly something we've hoped to have for the ships. Slowly turning would probably work fine in that case as well if it turns out to complicate things too much to do them otherwise. I would think that at least rowed ships could even move backwards though, but I'm not sure if that was practical with e.g. biremes/triremes/etc. (I doubt it would be possible to implement well since it might be hard for the pathfinder to know when the ship has to move backwards and when it can turn around etc )