alre

just change captured buildings behavior. I swear, the biggest obstacle I can see to 0ad progression is bogus features that won't ever get corrected because some random dev likes them in spite of all reason.

shooting wall joints were canceled because they didn't have any positioning restriction and this made it possible to cram a lot of firepower in a small space. this is what I remember.

I'm not sure how to read the results...

Gastraphetes also had very long draw length, don't get confused with medioeval crossbows that evolved into a shorter draw length. I don't think they were considered an "elite weapon", nor that they were used by soldiers of particularly elevated social status. They were produced as a mean of defending city walls and kept by the city guard, or produced before sieges by campaign engineers. I don't think they were usually sold. There are not a lot of sources or archaeological evidences though.

they were siege weapons

very good video and channel. I love a feminine take at experimental archeology.

corrals are slower than farms to set up

did you drop the "blood meter"?

it can be a map. maps allow a lot of variation on gameplay. no need to apply it to more maps, not right away anyway.

just curious about how are 0ad and python related.

this. wfg should realize that simply discouraging new accounts is the best strategy for enhancing the mp experience. to me, the most disrupting players are in order from most to least bothering: 1. smurfs 2. rage-quitters 3. players toxic in player chat, often ending in rage-quitting 4. players stealing in ladder 5. players toxic in lobby chat, and other unsocial behaviour like being interested in cheating, blatantly cheating, being racist or bullying I understand how others may see it differently, but nothing disrupts balance in games as much as a smurf.

that would be correct. in fact, the answer looks a lot like it's mosty allucinated while including some details found in real time from the web: Grok has access to context retrieved from the internet. well that seems wildly inefficient. what would even the output format from the LLM be like?

I think it's a mistake to take campaigns like those from starcraft or aom as a model for a historical game like ours. it can be quite awkward to attribute to historical characters narrative roles, including personal drives, flings and fights, character arcs and plot twists. The main selling point for historical RTS is to give players the chance to reenact big historical moments. Impervim GBOR understood that and introduced their scripted scenarios with effective short videos: https://youtu.be/9KNsYGoogxY?si=Cn6NvHu8nIb3aOOr Inside the scenarios, there are dialogues, but they are relevant for the game mostly, not for the story or for narration.

even in total war, the only real reason for manual switch is that ammo is limited. but still, soldiers do automatically switch to melee if engaged.

I agree with the results. personally I would rather have different stances that define the automatic switching logic, than let users do all the switching.