feneur

Would it be possible for you to add that in with a .cfg toggle? The dream has always been to be able to toggle it on for e.g. screenshot purposes, so if it's not too hard to do it would be nice to have that included. Would it even be possible to toggle it on/off in-game with a hotkey?

Well, I'll leave the actual issues to the programmers (though sure showing them in the FoW would of course make things work, but could present other issues: you would still get info on what goes on in FoW by seeing where they cannot move etc, true it minimizes the issue, but my point is it doesn't remove all issues), but the main thing is: do we want to complicate things just for a tiny bit of added "realism"? Which isn't all that much of a point if you look at things for what they really are, sheep in 0 A.D. are hardly representing individual sheep. If you look at things in a more metaphorical way (which you have to with the game in any way since it's not a simulator) you can argue that the sheep represent a herd of sheep together with a shepherd. So to me the issue is more that taking things a bit too literal will complicate them without making the game any more fun (or really any more challenging, after all the LOS of sheep is pretty small as your screenshots show, and even now without the ownership change they are easily killed).

They are meant to be controllable yes. And it would add other issues if you wouldn't have LOS of your sheep. However, until capturable animals are implemented (then they will change ownership to the enemy as soon as they are within LOS of one of their units and not in the LOS of one of your units) they definitely are a bit more usable as scouts than they should I think it's fine for the moment though, especially since you in one sense are providing your enemy with a free food source (as long as he sees it and kills it of course).

Another thing to remember is how do the roads work once they are created? Can you build other things over them? Are they destructible? One of the biggest issues I had with roads in EE (I think it was EE, I don't remember if it was 1 or 2 though) was how once the roads were built they were stuck where they were. There was no way you could get rid of them (maybe destroy them with siege, but still even that was cumbersome and I don't remember if/how well that worked), which might be ok in some sense when you had built the roads as it was your decision to put them there, but not so much when the AI ally decided to put a road right through your city And if the roads are destructible/removable that presents its issues as well in terms of pathfinding etc. I just don't see how roads can add enough to the game to justify the issues that comes with them. Maybe for part 2 if we include logistics/morale it could be a relevant addition (less attrition on roads or something).

No, it will probably still be a couple of releases before that is done. It is being worked on, but it is such a big thing that it will take a lot of testing to get right, but hopefully within a couple of releases a first version will be included.

As far as I can tell you mean "then"

I have a feeling those objects that work are, while more than one part, still one mesh?

Well, I would say those are two very different things. The button/hotkeys are finding-and-selecting (with the focus on finding imho) while the others are ways to select what you already have in front of you. Apart from perhaps the control groups, so for them it would make sense to have the same behaviour imho. I'm not too concerned about it either way to be honest, so I guess I'm mostly debating semantics

In what way is it inconsistent? I'm not saying it absolutely isn't just that I'm not sure what you're comparing it with.

Are the stone-mines (!?) supposed to be that shiny? Or is it just something about that screenshot that makes them look more like rocks wrapped in tin foil than anything else For metal mines it's one thing to make sure one knows what they are, but this is far too much imho.

(The easiest way to record a map without territory borders is to record a map where there are no buildings Or if you want to have buildings I guess you could use Gaia, though then you'd not get any player color on the buildings. These would just be workarounds though, there could already be a way, or otherwise it could be done Generally speaking it's hardly a priority, but since it sounds relatively easy, and would be a huge difference for anyone taking screenshots I think it could be worth looking into at least.)

Well, you were gone, now you're here. Isn't that enough for a welcome back? Plus, everything done is something done, whether it's a lot or a little (at least as long as it's good quality so it won't have to be redone, but your stuff is good.)

Does this happen with all civs/on all maps? Is it one of your units or an AIs? (I assume it's one of yours, but it's better to look stupid asking unnecessary questions than to avoid helping when a simple question can change things ) Also, have you checked e.g. "when it happens"? E.g. does it do it in the middle of gathering, just after it has finished gathering and tries to go back, etc. It does seem like it might be a unit that's just been at a drop site, then come back, found that there were too many gatherers and thus it couldn't get to the trees, tried to find some other tree nearby (behind the houses), and then there had opened up a spot in the first place. But I doubt that's what happened, again I just want to get the stupid questions out of the way

Cool. And Welcome back!

Sounds like it's time to get it in SVN so we can have it tested before the release

There is a chat room: http://webchat.quake...g/?channels=0ad For a more advanced system I'd say it's probably better to wait until later, and for now do something simpler It doesn't have to be perfect, it's not like we're going to determine who's absolutely the best 0 A.D. player ever

Ooh, that would indeed be a nice way to do things. I would suggest we do it in the City Phase though, so you still need to build houses etc earlier to keep producing more units, but to get a way to free up some pop space in the late game

Apparently someone has changed it since you wrote that, now it's definitely set as allowed (One do need to use the "More Reply Options" though, which might not be apparent to everyone)

Healers can not, and will not, convert enemy units.

Ok, done (Btw, is there a reason you don't have "Enjoy the choice " as part of your signature rather than adding it manually to each post? )

In 0 A.D. there are two aspects to the units strength: individual stats and overall bonuses. The individual units strengths may vary from civ to civ, but the unit bonuses (shown when you hover your mouse over their icons when you create them for example) are the same between all civs. So a unit of one kind is always better against a unit of another kind, but the same kind of unit from another civ might be slightly more or less effective against it.

As has been said elsewhere in the forums ( http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16389 ) it's mostly a temporary effect until we have proper corral behaviour implemented. Also, the gather rate for the sheep is greater and because of that they should be a great way to gather food quickly in the beginning of the game (Especially since you then should have time to create new sheep etc, later in the game when you have more units to keep track of etc it's definitely easier to rely on farms/trade for your resource gathering )

That's more or less just for fun So not much significance at all, just a way to tell if your opponents have done any hunting(/or later used corrals) or if they've only gathered from berry bushes/trees/farms and other vegetarian food sources

That's just http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/XML.Actor but in forum form instead. Note that it's outdated, so http://svn.wildfiregames.com/entity-docs/ and in your case probably more specifically http://svn.wildfiregames.com/entity-docs/#component.VisualActor should be more relevant It might be a bit outdated as well, but if so it's more of "missing information" kind, the page you linked to might actually contain inaccurate information.

...