real_tabasco_sauce

Ok and????? I think we have a good idea now that fits 0ad and is cool. It brings interesting hypotheticals and conveys some of the unknowns in the civ description. Where are you going with this?

Certainly not the most prominent but one of the earliest. Sure the teutons were likely similar, but we have units from the teutons in the civ and a certain leader called "teutobod" as a hero. So i think "Germans" is appropriately nonspecific. @Genava55 What do you think the name should be? I haven't seen your proposition, only critiques. Maybe "Crimbrian Alliance"

Is this about the name? Germans vs Cimbri? Well "Gauls" is, from what I understand, quite a generic term as there were many gallic tribes. In this case, using "Cimbri" would be a little at odds with the other cimbri allies that are included in the civ. Its true that some of these allies are better described as gallic or celtic, but as we have seen from the ambiguity around the Cimbri themselves, they too could be described as celtic. But since these groups participated in the well-known cimbrian wars and were referred romans as germanii, I prefer Germans. Although lets not let this hold up development: the name should be simple to change if a little labor intensive. are we set on that face as the civ emblem? And using some geometry for the standard flag?

Hey, I just saw the button. It looks and works great! Thank you!

@guerringuerrin @Philip the Swaggerless @chrstgtr @roscany @ValihrAnt @BreakfastBurrito_007 @Dizaka @SaidRdz @ffm2 @Norse_Harold @PistolPetethoughts on more fish for these water maps?

Yep. As long as you were near that unit immediately after you first got attacked.

If players want that, they shouldn't force their vision of how the game should be played on other players that don't have the same advantage. I expect few to 'play underground' like you mention, maybe half of current users. But I concede that more options like I outlined above is better for everyone. Shoot, it could even be under a dedicated tab, called "mod allowance", "fairness", or something else.

A problem 0ad has faced for a long time is that of overshooting. Since the range of a unit's target is checked after attack completion, as long as the target was in range then, ANY attack afterwards will work. This is not so noticeable in many cases, but for slow attacking units in particular, enemy units can travel a long way in that time, leading to things like this: Untitled video - Made with Clipchamp (3).mp4 Also, this problem is very clear with siege units, which have a slow fire rate, and crossbow units. In @ValihrAnt's recent video, you can see that ram ships are annoyingly able to damage units that are far away, resulting in chaotic and unpredictable gameplay. What I propose to fix this is 2 additional range checks that occur during the unit's repeat time. https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7178 This doesn't completely solve the problem, but it greatly reduces it to where it is basically unnoticeable for pikemen: 20241103-1845-03.6204650.mp4 The additional range checks do slightly impact performance, but its actually less than I expected: After the recent improvements to performance, I think we can "spend" some performance cost for nice things like this. Players, would you accept a small performance cost like this in order to get more responsive and intuitive gameplay? If not, I could limit this to slow-firing units which are the biggest offenders. However, I do think faster firing units stand to gain from this even if the problems are not as noticeable for these units.

It seems like the proposals are not mutually exclusive. We could have user mods visible under the player profile, and even in game setup, a button that requires users to use signed mods, and a similar button that activates a mod whitelist which could be determined by the user in settings. Between these options there would be good options for hosts to determine what mods are allowed or not including a user friendly and intuitive option, and an more customizable option.

stockfish was also pretty open about his use of cheats.

It’s true you can do a lot of one turn clicks if it’s laggy. But this was a 1v1. And 70 clicks in one turn.

Ok the place you most often want to be is the repository home. Near the top you can see “issues” which is where all the tickets are that were formerly on trac. you can also click commits where you can see a big list of all the commits. Searching commits here is a lot better than in phab. in order to make a pull request you first make a “fork”. You can do this by simply clicking the fork button and filling in the prompts if you’re signed in. then over on your fork 0ad/My_username, you should make a branch named after what you want to change. then add some changes to this branch (either directly online, or by cloning the repo, committing changes, and pushing them) then you can make a new pull request based off of this branch by clicking a new pull request and setting the target repository to 0ad/0ad Alternatively, you get a prompt to make a new pull request when you return to 0ad/0ad, and I prefer this way as there are less clicks.

Its true that you can get quite a few clicks in while its lagging, but in a 1v1, I would be shocked if 70 actions in 1 turn is possible. At first I assumed it was the garrison/degarrison pathing system, but it looks like essentially (dare I say it) autosniping. Unless @ffm2 ur using a bin size of more than 1 turn?

Eh, I kinda prefer without the extra contrast. IMO Some details are for when players want to zoom in I only made 9 textures but they carry over pretty nicely with the square, rectangle, and oval shields. Overall it looks pretty diverse. So with the shields done for now, all that remains is armor tweaks on Boiorix and the hero portraits!

Is it 10%? I don't know how many use the regular UI. I would have thought plenty of players prefer the regular UI. I do at least. Of course not all games need to have the option checked, and i think it should be unchecked by default. I'm sure solutions can be found for certain mods. For autociv, which is certainly the most popular I think the main features (exect for the in-game data table) should be merged.

Ok, there we go. We have some for each rank. I incorporated an ochre color and yellow/gold for some symbols. Other than that its just player color and white.

Sure, but i would expect fewer players to commit to the efforts you describe here. Also the fact that such efforts are needed to play with proGUI "underground" might tip people off that its not ethical/allowed.

this is inspiration for the wolf skins, like on lugius and the axe champion infantry.

No, its a more a mix (not melting bot) of cimbrian and gaul culture. Suebians were much later as I understand.

Maybe someone can work on turning this into an emblem? Needs to be a bit more circular, maybe needs to be desaturated some.

yes especially with the animal on top. Also we know that animal symbols are not common. That being said, the Cimbrian wars were almost in the first century. Tbh, I think it would be cool to either go really simple or use a captured roman helmet.

Ok well with that information I can come up with some new ones instead of just converting Celt patterns.

Some progress. I'd like to restore the woody texture of the white portions, like look like marble rn. Managing player color is not what I expected. Is there some file I should know about? I am aware of the shield texture and the "base" texture for celt shields for example: celt_shield_spec.png