feneur

There's no reason to complain about the future of a feature based on the present of another =) That said, perhaps implementing it separately might be easier. However, we already have stances, so however search and destroy/auto-explore is implemented it will have to take them into account in one way or another (if only to ignore them ). Search-and-destroy/auto-explore shouldn't need to take player orders into account as they should cancel out previous orders and later orders should cancel search-and-destroy/auto-explore. I wouldn't call it different behaviour for different unit types (most of it at least), part should be user controlled (you should never try and use infantry to catch up with cavalry for example), part should be things like ranges. And the part which is behaviour would have to be fixed for normal stances use anyway Hmm, looking at your comment again I guess you might have been talking about stances apart from search-and-destroy/auto-explore all the time Ah well, either way, I still think there is a value for stances. I think there might be reason to differentiate melee infantry/ranged infantry/cavalry speed even more though running should change a bit once we have it, that way cavalry should be able to get close enough to fleeing infantry units etc. And I don't think the unit type issues are mostly related to stances anyway. Perhaps part of the issue is that we try to have units be too exact? I.e. if archers would fire even if it's not 100% sure they would hit their target it's probably more likely they will actually hit something than if they're moving around to get to where they'd perfectly hit the unit they're trying to hit. Either way I'm almost starting to lean towards Michaels old pet idea of using battalions for everything =) Most of the unit behavior issues seems to stem from the the way individual units interact

I agree No reason to complicate things more than necessary imho Maybe we could display a dialog the first time a user clicks the explore button telling them the difference between exploring in passive/defensive/aggressive etc (though stand ground should probably not have any effect as it's usually used to have the units remain in place (though ranged units can still attack)).

There should be a crash handler already, depending on the nature of the crash it might not be working though =) Also, to help debug the present issue, are you using a release version of the game or the SVN version?

The game only uses one core for now (partly because of historical reasons: when the development started multicore computers weren't as common as today, if at all, and partly because keeping things on one core makes things like profiling easier), but there are ideas to at least try to put things like AIs in different cores. (For more indepth explanation you'll have to wait for one of the programmers to explain ) In the water games you've played, have you played against AIs? AIs don't yet support water maps, so in addition to the water effects that might be part of what makes things slow. Have you tried disabling water reflections? (In the in-game settings dialog to quickly toggle it on/off for testing, or by disabling fancywater as per http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Manual_Settings )

The short answer is no and no. But just saying that isn't fair to you, so I'll offer a more indepth explanation as well: Generally speaking 0 A.D. is an RTS that focuses on both economy and war, that means that you get to do a bit of both, but it also means that neither side can be as indepth as in games that focus on just the one. So at least for the main game it's not likely that there will be any city-builder features added. That said, for a special game mode, perhaps created by modders, adding features like the ones you suggest definitely makes sense. Construction of roads isn't likely for 0 A.D. part 1 at least, if nothing else because the benefit isn't likely to be big enough to make it worth spending time on for now. Features will have to be reconsidered once we start to plan for part two though, so perhaps it might be included then

Done

Gates are likely to be implemented before patrols though =) (And unless someone has changed something without my knowledge palisades should be available from Phase 1 So you're not completely without the ability to build defenses in Phase 1 )

A general "Patrol" command is planned, both for boats and other units As for whether they will attack or not: there is a "stance" system already, which should take care of that part I doubt we will have a "circle patrol" though, I'm not saying I'm against it, but it doesn't seem to me like it would add too much (apart from being a bit easier for the user to set up than to set waypoints in a circle), so the time that could be spent on it is probably better spent on other things And in other words: there won't be a "line system" either as just being limited to two points would be sad The user should be able to set as many points on the patrol as he wants to

More/changed textures/props sounds like a plausible compromise yeah. We'll see what Michael and the others come up with though, I don't want to promise anything on their behalf Also, imho it's one of those things which are nice to have, but imho isn't a priority if there are other things to do that will further the game more I do think that some visual indication of the phase progres in the main GUI (i.e. apart from the one you get when you select the CC) would be nice to have, again I'll leave it to Michael to come up with the best idea though They sure can as far as I understand it (Michael or Jonathan who actually knows the details will have to correct me if I'm wrong ), exactly how many will have unique illustrations will depend on how much time the Art people are able to put in though. Knowing Michael et al I presume they will at least have some kind of pregenerated images like most of the current unit portraits For the second question see my reply to wraitii above

If you mean whether or not the look of the buildings will change when you upgrade to a new phase: no. (There will be new buildings available though, so the look of your city will change of course =) ) If you mean whether or not the phase upgrade process will be shown in the GUI for the building where you started it: yes. It will be displayed in the same way unit creation is displayed with a percentage and gradual removing of overlay (or however you best describe it in words But the visual effect is the same regardless of how well I describe it or not ).

My reply was to Marcello66, I know you're aware of these issues

One of the bigger things is that the game terrain is essentially 2D, and to get the units on walls to work properly you will have to work around that. It should be a lot easier to add than e.g. ships going under bridges though (as units would in such a case have to exist at the same spot if there is a unit on the bridge and a ship underneath at the same time, and that will of course make pathfinding harder), so at least in a later version it should be possible. Just adding the possibility for units to be on walls and walk around on walls shouldn't be too difficult, but that on it's own isn't really much more than a visual effect (it's effect is more or less the same as towers apart from perhaps that you can move the untis around). For units on walls to really have an effect on gameplay there needs to be the possibility for units getting onto and off the walls in a multitude of ways, most importantly via siege ladders and siege towers, and that is probably what adds the most difficulties as far as I know. Especially if you want it to be more interactive than e.g. "garrisoning" the units from the siege tower to the wall or something, actually having units moving from the ground, up a ladder, and onto the wall, would take a lot more. (And of course would need new animations.)

http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15796 In other words: it's something we're aware of and that we will work on to fix before the game is finished

As mentioned in the post two posts above you yes, it has been abandoned due to real life taking up too much time in the life of the TLA contributors. If enough interest exists once 0 A.D. part one is done, and most importantly enough people with enough time to work on it are available, there exists a possibility that it can be restarted. It should be noted that the legal status of TLA is and has always been debatable, so perhaps the best option would be to do something more generally fantasy-oriented to stay on the safe side. But that remains for the possible new TLA team to decide once/if it exists.

Which of those doesn't give the same result being played on a local machine? If there is no additional benefit it seems like a waste of time to me to put in a lot of extra work just to be able to have two AIs play over a network (especially since you could just add a human player as "observer" and it would work).

Hmm, expect to have him do that honor to you You'll have to be extremely good not to lose, even if you would be as good as him in general he still knows the game a lot better than anyone else, so it takes a lot to even survive for any longer amount of time against him

F11 opens the profiler unless it's been changed very recently F9 opens the console though

I wouldn't count any of the edge cases mentioned (trade, is the one I'm least certain about since they do after all increase the amount of that resource steadily over time; units gathering loot, mainly because it's done as a side effect of fighting, but also because it only happens every now and then and not steadily; buildings, well, mostly because they're not units =) and their "gathering" is also indirect in a sense). Mainly because the current gatherer count is useful as a tool to see if you gather enough of each resource for your current goals, thus something that comes in irregularly like loot (and to a lesser degree trade as the resources are only "deposited" once the trade cart reaches the market, which can be quite a while in between if the markets are far away from each other) or cannot be changed like the Satrapy tribute, isn't all that relevant to be included imho.

No worries about thinking these things are important, they are It's just that it can get a bit much when you post about it everywhere It is nice that you are so active in the forums though, just remember that the time spent reading/replying to your post might slightly reduce the time spent on actually working on these things

Not sure what that's got to do with anything mentioned in this topic, and definitely not sure what the connection is to my post that you quote. But either way, all three are being worked on and at least an initial version should be included in Alpha 10 or 11.

Hmm, to some extent yeah =) But mostly I just meant that at the moment only a set number of civs are included in 0 A.D. and then I explained why I did not say that the civs included now are the only ones that will ever be included

Press the Alt key and click-and-drag with the left mouse is another way to say it

The script hasn't been run since the Romans were included, and before the changes in Alpha 9 there really wasn't much of unit relationships (indirectly of course it was, but not any direct "this units is set to be good at fighting that unit").

That's not what I said I said to put your reply outside the comment, and that's what you did here so that's fine If you don't want to include the quote at all in the first place you can click the "Add reply" button at the bottom of the topic page instead of the "reply" button directly underneath an individual post