Frederick_1

Sure a scenario does not have that much configuration. But not all values are fixed either. At the moment you can change nothing but the game speed. Which population limit you want is more a question of hardware possibilities than map design, and depends from the number of players. I do not want to change the options defined in the map with atlas editor but those not defined. Not all scenarios define every value. For those values that are not fix in the scenario, the last values used in a skirmish map on the host are used. Including team options, and these can be everything, including things that are not suitable for the scenario. For my usage I have found out how to deal with a situation like this. For the game I think: Values from the map, defined by the creator of the scenario should be fix, all other changeable, and not last values on the host used.

Sure changing the art model. adding a foundation like harbors have. Some civilizations buildings have this, they look fine on a ridge. Romans for example do not. The problem of terrain over a building, I guess, would need some changes in the engine from a surface to a volume modeller.

The geese should be a watchman feature. They warned them for the barbariens attacking. What I would be good in any case is a better more noticable information when you get attacked. expecially when this is not in the context of your current fighting. It is almost normal for me that I didn't realize that my home civic center was attacked and is gone when I am fighting somewhere else on the map.

When setting up a match on a scenario map you can not change any game parameters except playing speed. The values are kept the same you used on your last game when you set up a skirmish map. I think game parameters not defined by the mapmaker should be select able like a skirmish map. Current you need to select a dummy skirmish map, select your game settings you want, and then change to the scenario map you want to play, and the values of the skirmish map are taken but not changeable.

Well, the Athenians, not only forerunner in democaca already had their guerillia gardening movement removing the tiles and planting them... well,serious... This are effects when not flat terrain and buildings are merged together. Where the terrain is higher than the building the terrain structure is visible. In this case the lower tiles were replaced by the grass texture. In other environment it is not that visible. There are extremly ugly outcomes when you place a roman civic center on a steep hill. On some other civilisations the builings have a "foundation" like harbours making the outcome not that bad, until the terrain is not "steeper" than the foundation. The templates should be overworked how to alter the terrain in vertical direction with basement and a bank, so that there are no remains of the terrain where a building is placed.

Interesting. I have to do some research about this battle. Although the description of the map battle for the Tiber says: "Rome battles against the Etruscan city of Veii for control of the Tiber River basin." Which implies that Rome an Vei battle against each other. But for all Vei is pretty handicaped on economy side, when you do not care about the walking distances your workers do. The workers always to for the closest drop side meassured in linear distance. Because sitting on the plateau this can lead to long walks besides another drop site would be less to walk.

On scenario maps I see a non standart set of starting units as variant to make the game more interesting, you can not stupidly use your routine. Problematic or challange is such a big difference. Hmmm.... but what is the way it was intended?

Well, an enemy entity is displayed in this outer vision range when it is moving, not when it is standing still. It helps to react on attackers which move. Not when you are running into a waiting enemy formation. When this distance is equal to all, it would help especially when woman are being raided. You would see the riders in the black, not just when they are out of the dark, which for a woman is practically the same when beeing attacked.

Some minor map changes I like:

The map is large. There are lots of treasures on the map (over 100). But they can be "guarded" by animals or gaia fighters, like here in the mountain. In Version 9 posted here, their xml-tags need to be added from the txt-file.

This is the Crossing why I altered the name to "Rome with crossing". In Battle of Tiber, the river can only be crossed over a bridge close to Rome. To be seen in the background. So Rome is inflicted in lot of fighting. I altered the terrain, so that the Tiber can be crossed in the center of the map, although no rams- But ships can also travel the whole river, some of the feeders, and also areas of the swamp when deforested.

The opponents of Rome do have a starting population. The Galic Invaders have a battle group of naked fanatics which can be nasty opponents. While Vai has an even stronger battle group. This is why I strengthened the position of rome.

I want to share some screenshots from the map. First enhancements for situation of Rome. More food resources nearby, because they start with zero population and less than low resources. Two towers and treasures nearby, but be careful.

I do have a pretty unchanged "Battle of the Tiber" map which I called: "Rome stands no Chance and Green Invaders win". The only change is, that each player is in his own team and these teams are locked. The only way I have not observed a defeat on the "Battle of Tiber" map is getting an ally. Though this is prevented here I took this name. Post this with a replay of 4 bot players on this map. Sure with the predicted outcome. Although the green army was trapped in the river bent when it first had superiority (Approx. Min 40). This elongated the game but the outcome is the same. metadata.json commands.txt Rome stands no Chance.xml 1519307388_RomestandsnoChance.pmp These art two charts from the game:

I would like to have comments about the wild animals and gaia treasure guards which were present in map version 8 I have posted. They are removed in map version 9. Here is a text file with the tags that add these map features to version 9 map. ... why can I add a file today with my standard browser, my trusty old waterfox.... was there an update in forum software tonight? Yesterday it still worked. RwC-Wilde-Tiere.txt

The maps are designed in alpha 0.25. Can be used in alpha 0.26 too. Altough I get an error, that there is no olive tree anymore in my installation. Seems open and saving it in the atlas editor v0.26 removed themin map Rome-with-Crossing9. But it is with older versions and other maps I have created, cause I like to add olive trees in Mediterranean maps.

In version 9 I did an addition to the map. An protected area surrounded with mountain on the border. Can be used as a last retread. This version is without wild animals, so you can gather rather worriless. It is possible to add the wild animals as another factor in game, I have the animal data seperated. Rome-with-Crossing9.xml Rome-with-Crossing9.pmp

In the map Gambia River ( 3 player, skirmish) the sections are separated with a waterflow which can be crossed at one of the two crossings. fisher boats are able to travel over this crossings but not bigger ships. On several games there have been trapped ships in a section between the crossing. I reworked the crossings. So now all ships can pass and all entities cross. An harbor will still trap ships because they block most of the waterway. gambia_river_3p_mod.xmlgambia_river_3p_mod.pmp

I played with norther Island. Some Bot duels and me against a bot. It does not seem that unbalanced to me. Main issue being in the mountains is placing your buildings. Sure on fast/normal 1x gaming speed this can be disastrous. I play in low speed, so it was not affecting me that much, nor the bots. Much more unbalanced is the scenario "Battle for the tiber" when you are playing Rome, starting with zero units, always being in the middle of the fight. This is why I made some modified maps. Some of them presented here:

Just thinking about this visibility range discussion.... would it be possible to implement that moving objects are visible from farther away. This is how the eye also works. Moving object gain more attraction. This could be a "enhanced attention"-technology. It would help to react to attacks without unhiding too much of the map.

Yes, the button: "DO WHAT I TOLD YOU AND NOTHING ELSE!!!" is a feature that I am missing too. On the other hand it is possible that a wild animal kills a dozen of workers building because they start to fight only when it is too late. Somethimes it would help when you could add units to working cluster. So when they get attacked all of them start to fight. Then starting to fight would make sense. But this stopping your work for an action that is "designed to fail" is often cumbersome. To be honest, 0AD troops complaining about enemy fire would be a laughingstock. Their affinity to run into enemy fire for anything is rather a hassle too. Usually 2/3 of the time I am busy calling them back.

This is how the Gear map looked from the replay.

The battle results vary when you use a formation. From what I tested flank gives the "best" result with 18 kill vs. 43 losses. Other formations I tested gave these results as number of kills with 42 losses: Box 16 Close order 12 none 9 Phalanx 8 This is the replay with flank formation: metadata.jsoncommands.txt

This one, is about 8 min till the defeat of the macedonians. metadata.json commands.txt

Next are two fights with more pullback. metadata.json commands.txt And the other one: metadata.json commands.txt