hyperion

... which with limited vertices have roughly the shape of a sphere. Is the issue the snake line pattern? Or that the stairs are made from stone? Pretty sure they used stone for the base of buildings even back then.

I gave it another try. Well, it's hard to say much as I'm simply not used to the changes and all feels new and wired So some minor stuff mostly: an own logo on the start page would be nice default play speed should be normal me thinks scouts seem to fast cc still capture-able sele barack has tech to select either champion a or b but neither are available sele theatron should probably be dropped or a purpose be found As you went with the hide territory border approach I wiped up a minimal patch to hide them on the mini-map as well, unfortunately the c++ part needs recompilation. Use as you want. minimap_territory_borders.patch

Even if you had plenty of resources it won't be perfect and there is no need for it to be either. If Han is eligible to be added in principle, then just go for it.

Yes, what matters is efficiency (think of it as resource per second added to the resource pool you have available for spending). With increasing distance gathering rate loses importance as most of the time isn't spent gathering. In a simple model efficiency is a function of distance with parameters gathering rate, walk speed, carry capacity. Gathering rate defines max efficiency while speed and capacity how fast efficiency reduces with distance. So gathering rate mostly affects chickens and corrals and much less general hunting. As for where they currently spawn, well, it's map depended and as such there is hardly just one answer. Generally an additional patch of hunt around the territory borders allows you to create some early cav without being punished eco wise. Changing hunt may need adjustments to cav military potential.

It's obvious the initial idea was using the staring cav for scouting. And I agree with your assessment of the current role being a little odd. So you can be almost certain that under the current philosophy some changes will be done. So instead if hoping for a 200 IQ solution better to enumerate the possibilities and and gun for the one you prefer or it be late At least none of the close to a dozen ways to tackle this that come to mind have major UI issues or some performance impact unlike the cc and fields discussion, so I'm less concerned. As this thread is about gathering rates I stick to this alone. Gathering rate is something poorly understood if reading this thread. So I present another example. Distance D at which female farming becomes superior for gathering rate 1, 5, infinity for meat (upper bounds, as you have to kill first which I conveniently ignore, think rabbits and camel archers): DC1 = 150 | DC5=270 | DCinfinity = 300 DI1 = 50 | DI5 = 90 | DIinfinity = 100 Ergo hunting with cav is still acceptable just outside town borders, while inf is better off farming independent of gather rate in that case. Also luring is an essential skill.

If you don't want luck to play a minor role don't use random civ or random map. Also winning or loosing is a minor matter as long as the game is fun to play.

It's due to merging (I presume you use github mirror). This may result in anything but a linear history. Guess there was a bug in the script or some manual intervention with issues. See $ git rev-list --count A24b..master 2532 There certainly weren't that many commits to svn since then All the more reason to use git-bisect which is branch aware. In case you come across a commit (check with git show) which you think is pointless to test or you can't test (because it doesn't build etc) just use "git bisect skip" to get a new suggestion.

I'd rather see Mauryans get a 50% health penalty for all units so they are bottom feeders if that means they keep the worker elephant, better even get the one from a23. Removing uniqueness with a24 didn't work out to better balance the civs. The difference is just which civ is in which bracket. And honestly the civs are plenty close enough in strength for my taste. Also there are no statistics, if people are serious about balancing the first step should be to collect data properly. Loosing a game where my opponent used a worker elephant to collect resources near my territory is not what should motivate any changes at all.

@vladislavbelov suggest you do a binary search and git-bisect is the perfect helper for this task. You can fully automate the process but consider this advanced usage of git-bisect which is probably out of reach for now. Just use git-bisect for book keeping and picking a commit in between last broken and first fixed and do building and testing as you did already. Getting to know git-bisect is worth some initial mind gymnastic.

Instead of manually picking a commit I suggest you use git bisect instead. See https://git-scm.com/docs/git-bisect Example start: $ git bisect start --term-old broken --term-new fixed $ git bisect fixed master $ git bisect broken A24b After that git will checkout an appropriate commit for you to test and mark as either broken or fixed, this repeats till you found the commit you were looking for.

The length of a house is about 15, a barrack 20, me thinks chickens are farther away than that on average. Anyway it's easy to see that hunting anything besides chicken even with gathering rate of infinity needs to be done with cav. And even then hunting is not that efficient, just that it's better than having nothing to do for cav at all. They only cost 1 population, therefore the added health and speed for only 50 extra resources make them well worth it.

Guess a bit of calculation is required to show the point. Let's say the average distance for chicken to CC is 25 and ignore path finding and turn rate which make gather rate even less important for current gather rates, then currently cav has an efficiency EC5 = 20 / (2*25/15 + 20/5) = 2.72 and for inf EI1 = 10 / (2*25/10 +10/1) = 0.66. Increase Gather rate for inf to 5, 50, and 100 it's EI5 = 1.42 EI50 = 1.92 EI100 = 1.96 Ergo, distance to chickens is very relevant. Even with a gather rate of 1'000'000 the cav still beats the inf.

Looks like he was just scared of his neighbour.

Well, putting 3 woman on chickens means 3 less on berries. It indeed increases food gathering efficiency at the start slightly but I see little harm here. Currently up to 25 pop there is pretty much only one way to play. Some additional early food would allow some diversification as the limiting factor of constant unit production from the CC can be easier fulfilled. Bringing gathering rate up to 1.5-2 probably wouldn't make it viable alternative to berries or cav hunting due the walking distance. Gather rates are very high compared to carry capacity in 0ad, which is fine, just if you look at efficiency it makes walk distance (and path-finding) incredibly important.

Works especially well with elephants or giraffes in 0ad. As for the cartoonish looks I really don't like them. But then I don't like the modern American 3D animation film style either.

Thumbs up for asking in a public forum! Gather rates and carry capacity of cavalry determine if and what distance hunting makes sense. Besides hunting wild, corralling needs to be considered as well. My take is a slight decrease in gather rate and a slight increase in carry capacity would be acceptable, thou the current values are pretty fine already. Comparing hunting vs foraging doesn't make much sense to me, having different sources produce at different speed is fine and even desirable. What should be questioned is the relative speed of hunting of cavalry vs citizen soldier and woman. I don't see a compelling reason why there should be a substantial difference for very short distances (~20m). Having other units having the same gathering rate for hunting still leaves the cavalry as the optimal unit for hunting chickens by a bit due to faster walk speed and higher carry capacity but at least you'd have the choice of using the "scout" for scouting.

Just making gathering speed for food equal for all units will result in a noticeable paradigm shift. This should also bode well with the realism camp.

Well, as long as you must use woman to farm they will be around the CC, just like you can't use the scout for scouting as you need him to hunt chickens.

Shame, didn't think of that. Looking at the code, this is handled in the core and I don't see a way for a mod to hook into it. Well, I guess an argument can be made for the minimap to be configurable to some degree from within the game. Like toggling displaying some resources or not. I haven't thought about what people actually might want to be able to do but adding borders to such a list would be trivial. Guess it's time to ask @wraitii if there were such discussions before and if adding this to a25 would be an option. Maybe @nani is aware of a general wish list wrt minimap as well.

Well, had a short look at the AI and it seems there is no easy fix as the territory concept is used for planning in many places. Might be easier to leave territory as-is and just not render the border (replace territory_border_mask.png). Then the AI will mostly play as it currently does and as players can place anything anywhere there is no change for them. Long term this mod certainly would need it's own AI.

Gave it a try in SP. The AI doesn't build any houses or anything else for that matter, so not a challenge. Territory is still mentioned in different places like tooltips.

I don't see why this shouldn't be desirable. An alternative and/or complement could be a hotkey to cycle through the buildings of the same type as the currently selected one.

Most of all can be done if someone does the coding. Well, this suggestion doesn't seem well defined in the first place. For instance what happens when shuttling resources? Does patrolling give a bonus? There are plenty states to think through. Then the premise is questionable. Harassing does most of it's damage by forcing a reaction or even overreaction. How does slightly increased vision range of woman change anything here? DE has some outposts around the CC at start, so vision is guaranteed anyway. Something I actually wouldn't mind in vanilla. If added increased vision range for woman wouldn't change anything. Last but not least, this is a rather complex feature just to make it a tad easier to snipe a woman or two between minute 3-6. Reducing the default arrow count would be more effective.

Dropping number limits (for both in the same patch) and one for increasing minimum distance. Beside the two changes not being more linked than most other separate commits, the two commit subject can actually describe all changes.

As dogs and sheep don't count against the global pop cap a local one is fine. However 50 for sheep isn't enough. In a 300 pop cap game you may need over 40 corals to keep up with food production. So make it at least 100 if you really want to cap sheep unless you actually intend to nerf corral use. Beside those with hard distance limit like towers, there are also those with soft distance limit like lighthouse or Ashoka's pillars where a number limit is pointless. Add to that number limits for entities that are trivial to balance like embassies or juggernaut. Also your habit of adding in unrelated changes kicked in again . Please split such patches.