feneur

Yeah, the thing to remember is that this is a game That means that a great many things will not be directly included, but rather symbolized through more abstract things. For example the things The Crooked Philosopher mentioned about capturing horses can be seen in part as symbolized by the loot that you get when enemy units are killed. Directly it might just be an increase of resources, but looking at what it means it includes everything from direct loot (i.e. stuff) to more abstract concepts like capturing horses and sending them home and quipping them again and putting units on them etc. you could of course abstract things even more and just have statistics, but that would not be a fun game Generally speaking, of course there are people who enjoy statistics and numbers as well I do think RTS is a good middle ground between the number crunching/knowledge heavy strategy games and tactics games (and further on action/adventure/FPS games) in that there's room both for thinking and action. It does mean that it's probably the genre where people disagree the most about how in-depth things should be though

They count as cavalry heroes

Many of these are planned features/known bugs. Do you mean it should only show the garrison icon over a building? I think it's useful to have the gray mouse pointer as well as that gives you an indication that either the unit can't be garrisoned in the building/object your mouse is over or that it can't be garrisoned at all. Nope. We do have the concept of citizen soldiers though. That means that some of our fighting units can do economic tasks as well (to symbolize that many soldiers in the ancient world were both working citizens and fighters). If we find people who are able to create the animations for the siege operators we do intend to include them. That should be up to the individual players. Some people probably want even fewer, while many want a lot more, so it would be bad to limit it too much in the normal game. However, it may make sense to set the default pop cap to something in the middle of the available options. Also, remember that horse units, siege units, and ships take up more population space, so depending on which units you choose to create you can quickly reach that limit. Depends on what you mean by citizens. Female citizens are better at food gathering, but not as good at wood/stone/metal gathering, also, they can't fight. So you have to choose which you want to train. If you only focus on resource gathering long enough for a resource cap to be meaningful it's likely your enemy will have crushed you by that time, so I don't think it will be an issue. Better to let people gather as much resources as they want for those who like to play long games and create massive armies, if you want to have a quicker game just use your resources as they come in There will not be any items, but apart from that heroes will indeed play a greater role. The intention is to have them give a bonus, most of them aura bonuses for nearby units. Increasing their armor against certain units etc. Formations will be both simplified and made more important. Some will indeed be selected automatically, some will be removed, and all remaining should be made more powerful. As it is now they're little more than a way to make the units move neatly towards their target, but they will have different bonuses. Many want us to remove the cap entirely. I don't remember if that's the case currently or we just have it set very high, it's been changed pretty often But either way it's probably better to have a high/no group cap as that allows for people to both have small groups and big depending on their wishes/playstyle etc We might end up enforcing one eventually in any case because of performance reasons. Pathfinding is currently being completely rewritten, and balancing hasn't yet truly begun, but thanks for your thoughts As citizen soldiers level up they get better at fighting and worse at economic tasks. Not very likely. (And I'm guessing you mean train as in improve? Train is often used as in "create" as well.)

No, there is a limit to 10 fortresses per player/map, and unless testing shows that's too many or too few that number is going to remain Also, note that the Celts doesn't have two fortresses, rather there are two Celts so to speak =) Gauls and Britons. Most likely they will be split into two proper civs as we've done with the Hellenic ones, originally they were going to be "sub-civs" of their main civ. I.e. when you got to the City Phase you were going to be able to choose either Gaul or Briton if you were playing the Celts, and either Macedon or Poleis (city-states) for the Hellenes. Now it's very likely that Celts will be split as well Why is it ridiculous that it can happen in a game? It might be ridiculous in real life, but even then it might make sense to more heavily fortify some areas. Also, remember that if you put all your forts in one place you're going to have less defense in other.

Even less reason to do it imho. Then it would be almost the same amount of work, but just used for a limited number of units.

Seems like you should be able to already, just go to Pureons profile page and click on "Send me a message" to send him a PM

You can't yet. (Though since it doesn't seem too likely that you are a spam bot I'll go ahead and enable it for you already Otherwise you'd have to post one more post to be able to use the PM function, we figure if you have posted five posts and not gotten caught for spamming you're probably not ever going to spam But we have had problems with spam bots sending PM spam in the past, so that's why it's not enabled for new users.) I'm not sure whether .odt/.doc is a valid extension, probably best to include it in a zip file in either case though

A separation of rider and horse is very unlikely. Most importantly because it would add unnecessary micromanagement, without adding enough value in turn. Had 0 A.D. been a turn-based game or a war game rather than a war/economy RTS it might have been another thing.

Not sure what you mean here? Are you talking about a mod or something, because in the main game there will not be any such limit. A total limit is one thing, but a per territory limit cannot be done as we've done away with the idea to have a players overall territory limited in smaller provinces which means that all land owned by a player is one territory. It might not all be connected at all times, but if nothing else your goal should be to connect it

They shouldn't be, at least not in the development and technical discussion forum where this belongs. I'll move it right away (Click the more reply options button next to the post button to see the attachments options )

Thank you for your application. Our Art lead is a bit busy at the moment, so it would be great to have you work on something as a test both to have something to do while you wait for his reply and to get more familiar with the art files Since you mention the particles, why not that? Remember to use only your own or other resources with compatible licenses. How would you feel about creating icons? Looking at your first examples it looks as if you'd be good at that

Welcome to the forums!

Most likely a bit of both, either you follow development step by step (might be done as patches or as now with alpha/beta releases, but should all build on part 1 and go towards part 2) and end up with the finished part 2, or you install part 2 once it's finished. It's definitely possible that the engine will change quite a bit, so in that sense it should be seen as a new game rather than an upgrade. In either case, part 2 should include everything from part 1, civilizations, gameplay features, art, sound (apart from things which have been improved of course, and perhaps minor changes due to other bigger changes in part 2. Say we change the combat system to do things differently, then things like the attack types/armor types might change etc.), so there should be no reason to have part 1 installed once part 2 is finished (unless for nostalgic reasons, or if you want to be reminded how much better part 2 is I guess ).

More winning conditions is definitely going to be included, and since the game uses JavaScript for AIs etc it should definitely be possible to program your own triggers/use an AI to achieve your goals for starters. Sure it's a bit harder than using pre-programmed triggers, but also a bit more flexible, and most importantly it allows us to release part one a lot earlier. A very broad guess would be that including triggers/cinematics/story-based campaigns in part 1 would delay it with at least a year, probably more like 2-3 years. It's better to reach some kind of conclusion sooner and be able to get working on part 2 asap (Also, note that I say story-based campaigns, we do intend to include an "imperial campaign", kind of like the conquer the world gameplay in Rise of Nations, or the campaign mode in the Total War series, but with some unique twists of course )

The latter point is an important one. We will need separate dialogs for e.g. diplomacy, and already have it for chat, so I don't see why adding it for research would be any different. That doesn't say that's the only option, I just can't see what makes research so different from e.g. diplomacy/chat/objectives that it isn't an option.

The new sound system isn't yet added to SVN, and it will not be included in any builds before it is. It should be added to SVN soon though, so unless something unexpected comes in the way it should definitely be included in the next release

Hmm, I'm starting to lean towards wanting to have all technology be researched in one place, in a new tech tree dialog. I don't like to have to move it away from the the individual buildings, perhaps mainly because of nostalgic reasons, but given how complex we intend to have them (either or techs most importantly) it's probably never going to be very clear otherwise. We could still have the links to the individual buildings by requiring e.g. a farmstead to be built to be able to research farming techs etc, and display them as the "roots of the branches" in the tech tree, and grayed out until the building is constructed (perhaps with a red text over saying "Building not constructed" or something). I just don't see how we will be able to make it clear how the tech relations work without having them in a dialog of their own. About the new GUI ideas: in general I'm in favor. I'm a bit uncertain about the tabbed interface, it does definitely have its benefits though, so I guess it's more that it feels like lessening the importance (or at least the visibility) of certain features. On the other hand it does give more space for unit stats which obviously seems to be something a lot of people want to have immediate access to. What I don't like is the idea to have it auto-expand, not because I don't want it to be expanded, but because it would mean that players with bigger monitors would have an advantage over players with smaller monitors. One could argue that users with bigger monitors are at an advantage in any cased due to being able to zoom out more while still seeing things clearly, so it's not necessarily a too strong an argument, but still, giving users a different experience based on their hardware (apart from the obvious graphical quality differences, but I mean differences that affect gameplay) is not something I favor.

Oh That map should probably be removed =) It's really old now Iirc it was created way before the new territory system, perhaps early 2010 or something, it really doesn't serve any purpose now though so at least I don't see any reasons to keep it But thanks for the report

1. Did you set the players who didn't develop to something else than qBot or Jubot?

There isn't at the moment. Perhaps we'll have to add different hotkeys for different OSs eventually though as different OSs reserve certain key combinations for the OS. For now you can follow the instructions in http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Manual_Settings to set up your own hotkey combinations if some of the existing ones don't work for you.

You can see it a bit like how e.g. Age of Empires 1 and 2 and their expansions worked. Part 1 will be a completely playable game, but to be able to release at least some time within the conceivable future we've cut some features from it (things like seasons, units on walls, triggers/cinematics). Things which aren't necessary for a working skirmish gameplay, but at least some of them things we'd really want to have eventually. Also, part 1 will feature the civs which were prominent/interesting from the 500 B.C.-1 B.C. era, while part 2 will add the civs from 1 A.D.-500 A.D. (And that "add the civs" is important: part two will include all the civs etc from part 1, so once part 2 is released there's no reason to keep part 1. I should probably add the caveat that new features added in part 2 or other balancing etc might change things slightly of course, but it should all be for the better.) To say it another way, part 1 will be a playable on its own, but part 2 will be a lot more

Vlad123, as we've told you both in the other thread and other times before: we will not change the game from 3D to 2D. For many reasons as have been listed several times already. It just won't happen. As all the art is available under a CC-BY-SA license it's possible for someone else to do it though, so if anything you could try to gather support for that.

We will most likely not add logistics to 0 A.D. part 1 as it hasn't been designed to include logistics, and as we're getting close to having all the features needed it's a bit late to add something as big as logistics at this time. It's definitely something worth considering for part 2 though

That's the plan indeed. We'll have to see which way is easiest to do it though, the initial plan iirc was to have them able to hide in forests, but that might have implications for the pathfinder, so perhaps we'll have to do something like make Iberian units invisible under certain conditions (but definitely not when attacking of course).

That as well Those are some of the bigger reasons why the sound system is being rewritten after all