Grautvornix

Do we have to decide for every player? I am not so sure: If it is too much info for small screens, and on larger screen users feel there is too much unused space why don't we introduce a config switch to enable it? (there is also settings for slower graphics adapters/slower CPUs, together with the corresponding tooltip). Default would be off so thte game is by default well playable. Enabling means testing it on your screen. If you like it, then keep it, if not, don't.

Will you share the zip-file?

Maybe while "default automatic capturing" was their official complaint, and now "default attack buildings", the actual issue people had was that own forces would automatically turn their attack towards buildings instead of focusing on the enemy? Have seen my soldiers attacking fields instead of enemy soldiers. Not sure how we can make buildings a secondary target unless commanded otherwise.

Would it make sense to introduce an option in the settings menu to select from (similar to formation control): Enemy Buildings: default capture/default attack ?

Let's all calm down and discuss things with arguments. I believe we can all accept valid arguments and I do understand concerns about the potential "unhistorical" mix of civs in the game. In fact playing kushites or ptolemies in arctic biome maps does not really make much historical sense (poor elephants! Oh - and even trying to grow crops and rice in the arctic is rarely providing much yield). So plenty of examples for unhistorical, unrealistic combinations. If looking for more realism, it is indeed possible to select which map is played with a selected biome and also which civs exist in a game (at least for SP ). A very valid counterargument is certainly, that certain entities/roles/unit rosters, building types and technologies did not exist in all civs and as a consequence it is more difficult to establish the right balance (as an example, personally, I am not really sure that gauls or britons had a navy able to even nearly match roman or greek warships). So, indeed balancing civs of such different levels can be a challenge for establishing good gameplay. A clear counter tech needs to be identified and implemented for such cases if one can be identified. What I personally also do like, however, is the approach to re-use the game mechanics and framework for another focus on another region or try combinations for the fun of it. Anyhow, it is fascinating reading about different more or less well-known ancient civs that are being discussed in this forum. I feel really motivated in learning more about those, so I clearly welcome such opportunities. And if someone even intends devoting some time in developing this civ into a mod, very welcome! I would be interested in seeing and playing these. As already discussed in this forum, at some stage it may be desirable to split the game into different scenarios or phases (a bit like AOE?). I believe XIIIAD mod already made a move into that direction, as well as the Aristeia mod if I remember correctly.

Nice - trees now in a plant tub!

Actually each player is well able to select the civs that he believes fit to the same timeframe and geographical region, together with the right biome and the correct map, thus creating a more or less historically correct setting. I just don't get the point why we should not have all this variety available to chose from. Some may consider it fun to also play in different regions with different civs. I guess the reference to "Orcs" was to name a non existing civ like "Klingons" or "Vulcans" or the like. Nobody is stopping anyone from introducing this a a mod. There were some interesting non-historical civs available in past versions (just I never played them).

IIRC, Sokrates was not a very popular philosopher, but he brought the method of questioning "truth" to some perfection. Wouldn't it make sense to give a bonus on education similar to the library for the Ptolemies?

Can you please be a bit more specific? If you are referring to the fact that while you pause the game is continueing in single player mode, then you might want to go the settings menu, select general settings and activate the third item from the top (background pause).

I guess the issue is to define buildings that can be walked on. What if we "re-use" the mechanism (not the art) of fields? They can be built and be walked on and they might have an aura. Unfortunately they can be destroyed as well. Could that work?

Looking very much forward to that!!!!

(shame on me but I am not really able to do so)

Thanks for the good ideas! I don't know what we should do with all the great ideas - ideally we should create a repository for ideas for future discussion. These may currently look complex to implement but possibly at a later time they may become feasible. Anyway the game being only in its 20s; I am sure there is still a lot of potential Here is another collection and discussion hidden inside the forum: ... Says somebody who never contributed any thing to the code.

Beautiful! I like it!

But ... isn't this somehow suggesting - in addition to the subjective player view who is my ally and who is my foe as per my own diplomacy settings - that we have a way to show the actual/de facto alliances independent of my personal settings? My diplomacy settings express only my wish or my belief that I am neutral with or an ally to someone. It would be good to have a way to actually see who is related and how as factual status. I acknowledge this is now getting complex. Obviously, there is a difference between desired or perceived alliance and actual alliance. So it seem that either we need to enter into that additional complexity or we need to update diplomacy settings automatically when the status changes.

OK. Still thanks for asking!

Thanks! Sounds indeed kind of related. The diplomacy system is something possibly using different actors - human players and PETRA. When you as a player start a diplomacy process the game has possibly kind of a timer and never checks if the process itself was not applicable anymore or some state has changed substantially? Could I as the initiator of alliance building change my state and the AI would react correctly? (like switching from alliance to neutral and back. Would I get the same request for tribute or a different one or would PETRA deny an alliance?) In my reported case I would guess that there might be two competing processes that both don't really consider status change: a diplomacy process initiated by me asking for alliance and in consequence having to pay tributes. a second, independent process initiated by PETRA AI that is asking for an alliance for free (randomly triggered?) Does anyone know? Otherwise I would be curious and will be testing what happens in various cases. Will keep you posted.

Unfortunately that did not work as I get the exact same error message by eventviewer (error 0xc000007b - cannot start application...) Hope that my finding on my exploit filter settings helps debugging, if needed at all. Most likely I am the only one stupid enough to change these settings without knowing about the consequences Sorry for the trouble!

@Itms@Stan` Many thanks for your hints and willingness to support me in this issue! Suggest to close #7576.

In fact, within Windows Security/App & Browser Control/Exploit Protection/Program Settings, I needed to add "0ad-0.27.0-win32.exe". Within the program specific exemptions, I had to override the system setting "Force randomization for images (Mandatory ASLR)" forcing it to OFF. (They say this is "forcing relocation of images not compiled with /DYNAMICBASE" whatever that means...) But that fixed it. I believe it might be my mistake as I tampered with the exploit protection previously, putting "Force randomization for images" to "ON by default". (Default seems to be "OFF"). Hopefully someone can make sense of that; it might be obvious for the programming team. Apologies for the big story! As usual the bug is located between screen and chair... I guess we can close the thread as well as the ticket #7576.

Did a lot of testing and it seems it has something to do with the exploit protection on my Win10 system. Most likely not an error of the installer or but of my local config. Will keep you posted...

Isn't that somehow done via the nightly build (SVN-Version) ? (Ok no big changes but this is how new version get pushed)

Thanks for trying to support! Really appreciate it! None of the rc worked; only the svn version and previous A26 install. I am on Win10 home Version 22H2 build 19045.5440 including latest update 2025-01. No update seems to be missing. Would like to install to my D: partition (more than 1 TB free), but C: has only 220 GB free. RAM: 8 GB. Installer just does not start (also not as admin). Potentially an issue with my security settings. Just there is no prompt or the like except for the error message itself.

Yep, general Win 10 error 0xc000007b cannot install application. No problem for SVN, but since the RC's and for the released version it shows that error. Interestingly, on Win 11 (another PC) it works like a charm. Edit: Oops, error number is 0xc000007b

Frankly, I have the same issue - while I am able to play SVN version 143 (should be identical to the release) the A27 release won't even install on Win10 (not as user, nor as admin. All updates done incl. visual C++ environment and .net environment, chdsk, sfc, dism, etc.) Thought this could be related to some application security settings but did not find anything I'd consider unusual. Fortunately the SVN version is working well, so I can survive .