Grautvornix

Awesome! Unfortunately I am not a programmer either...

Frankly, I had imagined a cistern mostly underground with a small opening on top (covered of course, ver much like in your photographs), but not a tall structure to be mounted only by a ladder. This tall "barrel-like" structure is used to generate hydraulic pressure but how to you get the water "piling up" without natural/eternal hydraulic pressure (aquifer with artesian well or the like)?

Beautiful! Just went through your thread - it is all there (almost) already!

But...that's phantastic!

Great idea! That would be an important tech for desert civs (various techniques for irrigation available) as well as for romans (aquaeducts). Yet, it does not solve the issue of where to best place fields unless the cistern would have an aura.

The point is just that currrently we have "fertile land" (looking like empty fields providing a certain bonus - definitely in DE but also in vanilla) and "general land" (whatever the structure/cover - even paved land, rocky areas and desert areas can host crops. The latter is really a pity: we have such beautiful maps with fertile land (e.g. green areas forming an oasis) and not so much fertile land surrounding it (mostly sandy desert). Currently, it just does not really seem to matter where I put my fields. Also the strategic placement of fields around CC (on paved areas) - while strategically a valid option - looks not very realistic to me, as discussed previously. Potential options are: - distance to CC bonus for fields (increasing with growing distance) or a negative aura of a CC on crops yield. - use water as an additional resource as proposed earlier. This appears too complicated to achieve and would change the game mechanic considerably (building a whole bonus system around rivers, ponds, irrigation pipes/wells/aquaeducts, etc.). - fertility derived from soil type / soil cover could thus create some interesting strategic aspect for gameplay without costing too much effort (I hope) To be further discussed, I believe...

In other words, we don't want that much attention, but just some? Should 0AD stay a hidden jewel? (which it is indeed) The point may be that the smaller the player base, the less contributions we can expect from the community. The entire burden is then placed on the shoulders of a few enthusiasts. (Let me repeat that I am extremely grateful for all that work that went into this beatiful and fascinating game and that I admire your dedication!)

Sure, but first, this is in DE and we should also have it in Vanilla ( I believe), and second, this does not solve the issue of green land vs desert areas. In all the desert maps, the oasis does not make any difference except for some wood and animals to hunt. Placing farmable land is therefore something that needs to be planned for when creating a map, and cannot be automatically derived from a map attribute (type of soil/surface cover).

@wowgetoffyourcellphone: not so sure the player base would revolt if that feature was not totally banned. Should we instead consider incentivising the distance to the next own CC? (or ideally create different levels of farming effectivity depending on the soil type, my little dream, just cannot do that)

@rossenburg I could not agree more! If it is not naming itself how can we increase exposure? Get some big games magazines to report on 0AD?

Settlers 4 and 5

You are absolutely right! It is difficult to understand why buildings on a snowy map are not snow-covered as well. But what would that imply? Ideally we should use an alternative skin texture for each building depending on the chosen biome -> lot of effort potentially, but could be gradually implemented. Or should there be a more simple additional "snowy roof cover" to be added as a minimum solution (like a snow cap)-> thbis might be difficult to achieve for the many different building shapes we have.

We could encourage farming with a graded incentive: very poor results on pavement / stone poor results on sand or snow good results on green soil (grassland) excellent results on prepared fam land (the areas that have already plowed soil) Downside would be that maps would need an additional parameter (soil fertility for differnt areas - farmland concept extended). Let me know your thoughts! Best regards, Grautvornix Side note: This would then also address (kind of) my proposal for water as additional resource (i.e. oasis in desert maps has an farming advantage over pure sand), cf. this thread: Oh, and of course the ar4ea around a CC then needs to be paved.

So instead of calling it "ALPHA" we call it "Early Access" to better match industry's habits ?

Well just building farms and only gathering wood is a possible strategy. However, it is not guaranteed at all that you would have sufficient wood resources to gather. Depends a lot on the map and on your opponents. A bit of trading might be needed. And a minimum of defence as well. Ah, and what about additional techs? Oops, now you are in the game...

ok, thanks, that clarifies it for me!

Did you install a newer version of 0AD than the previously installed one? In this case you might need to remove all old replays and savegames.

Ah ok! Thank you very much!

Ah, sorry, all this is about DE, should've read the header (Home/0 A.D./Game Modification/Delenda Est) I was reporting my observations from 0.26 vanilla. Apologies!

Not that my opnion matters here by any means, but I am a bit puzzled here. I would hate it if spectators provided my opponent player info on my status or movements. As I wrote: this is a bit like in a card game when spectators talk openly about my hand and my opponents would thus know which cards I have. Learning a lot in these days... Always thought spectators were really just monitoring the game being played and maybe exchange comments amongst themselves. Does it make any sense as is? (I do apologize for this off-topic discussion)

Ah ok. Noob question: Do you confirm that spectators can chat with players during the game? Strange, this appears to me a bit like watching a poker game and being able to see all cards while being able to talk to players. Isn't that a bit interfering with the game? Wouldn't it be better if spectator comments were visible amongst spectators only? (or were you referring to comments within the forum - that's another story of course)

Welcoime to the forum! Well, I am only playing against AI and it almost always has farms. Maybe you are referring to animal stables? I think AI doesn't build them. AI civs get food from farming fields and hunting (and bartering later on) as far as I have observed..

Chaps, this a is only a game, not war. Winning or loosing a game is in fact just that. It does not mean anything in real life. So, try to be civilized, act like decent grown-ups and make an effort to not insult each others. Should be not that difficult. (and - maybe I am missing something - but I still don't understand why a spectator can be considered disturbing enough to request him to be banned from speccing)

What if if declared the long development cycle and the many fixed bugs/new features for Alpha 0.027 as the reason to be the next release the first releasable version? (i.e. getting rid of any ALPHA notion) Would we break anything? Would trust be lost? Don't really think so. I guess we might be able to break catch22 in some sense. Of course we continue to rely on an active user community for the game to further evolve.

Sorry, my mistake.