Frederick_1

Now I tried this. dragdelta was set to "2" (dont ask me why). Now that I changed to "4" game is much smoother. Albeit I have to try it in a big battle. At in built up an some skirmish it feels much better. Maybe I need to try new Debian. Hope my graphic card is supported now. But system update always need more timeand preparations, don't want to do this in a rush.

There is an annoyance when you garnison units into a building which is full when you command them to go into the building. They run go to the building -response is looking fine- and on arrival they stand there waiting for better times. They do this even when you have made the building empty. you need to give them another command to go in. Would be nice if there is another check to go in, when they arrive at the building. When a empty building has gotten full at arrival, a second check works, so this should be possible. Just lost a group of promoted archers due to this, albeit I thought they were secured while my attention was needed otherwise...

I use autociv, this really enhances game altough currently I do not use all features, I noticed no difference at install of autociv. Did not bother because I adressed the problem to my old mouse.

Where was my test gone??.. oh it is in the quotation. I use Ubuntu 20.10. Generic nvidia driver, because this was only on supporting 1650super on install. My desktop environment is mate. I feel no difference in windowed or full screen mode, excpbt some Hotkeys which are used in mate. userreport_hwdetect.txt

I do observe this anytime. Altough it is not always that bothering when in combat.

When I want to select an entity I often do need to do this twice or three times, until I get the control panel. I see the entity is highlighted but I get no response to my try to select it. 0ad is a time critical game, especially horses often get lost, because I can not select them in time to draw them back. I play in 0.1x turtle speed and do a lot of micro managing especially in small battle situations, and this unnecessary losses are annoying. I thought this was due to my trusty PS2 mouse which served me well in non gaming tasks several years. So I bought a "gaming mouse" (GEM SPG 147) but it is the same. Or is my hardware unsuitable? I do have an Intel 9600k which is mostly running around 4.4 GHz and a nvidia 1650 Super on medium graphic displays.

This replay the javelineer take out did not work. I had to go into a pullback. I had some more issues with the 0AD user interface. To get town phase soon enough did not work as inteded because screen refresh was not fast enough and time was over when would have to do a "recklick" 0AD is awfully lugging to user interaction. At least on my intel 9600k@ 4.4 Mhz. Also the destruction of my barrack was not intended. I wanted to enable autoque.... (The game crashed later, so only commands.txt. At least here I can do the replay anyway) commands.txt

I guess this is my fastest victory in minute 5. The strategy to take out the enemy javelineer group worked out well, despite the good result I am still unhappy, because of the uneccecary losses in Minuit 3. I thought using formation close order brings distance fighter to the back. But it did not work out well enough. as usual they ran into enemy too fast. commands.txt metadata.json

This is a game where I just tried a start which came out mediocore, but I played to the end and finished with a rather short built up phase. Instead of waiting for an attack of enemy I was attacking as soon as my army was regeneratetd, which led to a victory in minute 13. commands.txt metadata.json

This time, I tried to just walk home to fight with help of infrastructure. A win in the end, but a build up phase was necessary. commands.txt metadata.json

This is how I do it. It is a time consuming iterative process. From my observation I'd say fisher boat and merchantman need a tad less water depth than warship. But this is observation from real maps. Not a precise examination with test layout. I am not IT enough to examine the code.

This is a replay where I lost only 5 entities in the battle against the Macedonian until a victory in min 5. In 0ad alpha 25 it was possible to outdistance the group of 10 javlineers of the Macedonians which went to work. Making the battle much easier. In Alpha 0.26 this is not possible any more. So I was surprised over the overall outcome of this match, as good as my best fights with alpha 0.25. I must admit this was only possible with the help of the autociv-mod. And sure it was only possible in turtle speed, to have enough influence on the game evolvement. This is a graph of this fight: commands.txt metadata.json

Yes I know about this tools. They show ship area. but it is not precise in the question which ship type can pass on shallow water and which not.

It is the same for land based entities, when a map becomes mountainous. It is sometimes hard to guess which path is cross able and which not is sometimes surprising. For ships I have reworked some maps for better ship passage. When the seafloor is flattened enough in atlas, and the stream wide enough, there is a small band of water depth where all ship and all other entities can pass. It would be helpful, to have better aid in Atlas editor to design waterways the way you want. At the moment it is a litte try and revise process. It is the same with building land. When atlas could precise indicate how a design works, this would be helpful. There are tools, in atlas but they do not indicate the details. These are the maps where I improved ship opportunities, because of this reason of "trapped" ships:

you are welcome, explaining something in "foreign" language is not always precise.

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.