Grautvornix

Awesome! Looking forward to it!

Sorry - stupid me - should have read more carefully - you were actually after screenshots of units. These can be found possibly within the various civilization discussions like https://wildfiregames.com/forum/forum/409-art-development/ https://wildfiregames.com/forum/forum/432-official-tasks/ etc. Many can be found in civilzation descriptions that @wowgetoffyourcellphone beautifully created (search for "Civ:") or as a design task (search for "===[TASK]==="). Here are some examples.

@tantanmen Hello and welcome to the forum! There is indeed a thread in this forum that attempts collecting screenshots: You can find it here: Best regards and have fun with OaD! Grautvornix

@man_s_ourLooking forward to your mod! Will that involve wells that are actually built (possibly a small building like a pump room or well house) or is that more like a new technology? Wouldn't this also work in the same way for ground water, e.g. if we can have ground water available depending on the map texture and/or plants? (maybe too complicated) My thought was originally to allow drilling for water near fresh water bodies (lakes, ponds, rivers, streams) as well as near oasis kind of places that obviously have ground water underneath. This is specifically important for the arid maps in game. Anyway just a few thoughts. Eager to see your mod in action!

Adding water to create better crops results is one of the central ideas dicussed also in the thread below. Here we would introduce wells as additional buildings to support watering your crops thus getting a yield even in the desert. Would be interested to get your opinion on the discussions there!

We do have such an accelerator object already in the vanilla game - it is part of the Maurian trade accelerator (Ashoka columns) that can be place to speed up traders along their routes by 20%. Possibly we can use that as a template for roman roads, e.g. as a milestone/kilometer stone (possibly complemented with some artwork indicating the road between stones?) Issue would be potentially required terrain flattening and it will not be possible to introduce bridges so easily.

Sometimes I'd liket hat, too. .. But only if everyone else agrees with my vote to expatriate a particluar politician. Otherwise I'd consider it unfair

Yes, but in this case the road is not just a "painted" terrain feature but an object on the map - which might require also some changes to the game engine. I am afraid this might remain a dream for some time.

Interesting idea! Would roads then be built by romans (only) or would that be a map feature? Could anyone use them? (and move faster) They would then not be destroyed...

@Gurken Khan Moin! Hillarious!

Hello everyone from southern Germany! (originally form the northern part ). BTW, is there a region statistics somewhere on this forum? (for the German beancounters among us )

I do understand the point that, implementing walls reducing damage onto troops on the respective other side, is difficult to achieve. (Only wall/tower-garrisoned troops should have a range and protection bonus,; most likely they already do) When looking at the ballistics this should be the same issue if firing across a hill or ridge or another obstacle (building). Not sure the current engine takes this fully into account. I believe there is already a height bonus/malus for shooting from above/from below, but firing across an elevated obstacle could indeed generally reduce damage, possibly depending on the height of that obstruction. Hmm, I smell added complexity here... I'd be interested in getting your opinions here. Thanks!

And vice versa! This should be independent who actually owns that wall. Player A' ranged units behind the wall should also be dampened against player B on the other side (shorter damage range) - except for those ranged troops of player A that are placed on the wall/the towers. They could possibly have increased damage range.

Oops, maybe I have chosen the wrong words - I tried to say that walls are meant to protect those hiding inside from attacking units, including ranged units to some extent. Walls might thus have an effect to the damage range that a ranged unit can achieve from either side (and protect from sword or spear units).

@Dizaka Of course you are right - may remark was more related to time-to-market until the game is "ready" and "fully featured" as well as those aspects that are seen as a "professional multiplayer gaming environment". Point taken .

@Dizaka I do agree with your statements - the only thing I am however missing is a "protection factor" that walls have for those hiding behind them, i.e. effect of ranged attacks should be reduced (except for catapults etc.). Hence I believe units should attack a wall first before attacking those hiding behind. Not sure this is easy to implement. I would be interested to know how often walls are actually manned in your games. Is it worth the effort? Just curious...

Not that I am very relevant in this discussion (playing only casually against AI), but to me, 0ad is one of the best and most interesting games I have seen AND it has many mods and config options AND it is historically fascinating (I keep learning about about old cultures both from the game and from the this forum) AND, btw., it is free of charge. Game mechanics and UI may look old fashioned to some, but the user interface of a cardboard chess game is also old fashioned. So what? I don' think this is the point. It is particularly interesting to nerds like myself to play a game that delivers this level of excellence in historical relation while gameplay is sufficiently complex - and constantly challenged and improved. Of course, there are bugs and inconsistencies, and the game is not "finished" (but which one is ever? Can you name one that is perfect?). AFAIK, it was never intended to compete with commercial platforms anyway. And yes, there are also noobs and smurfs and all that in the multiplayer environment - but this is life. Those looking for a clean platform and mates truly and exclusively matching their level might need to pay for this as a service in a "gated community". You don't find this in the wild. Bottom line: I like it as it is evolving, and I don't think it will die so soon. Let's tune down the volume a bit.

Considering fishing like a form of hunting I would opt for finite resources fo fish. Land animals are also a finite resource unless "produced" in a corral. There is no way in the game to "nurture" fish population, say by adding food (and aqua farming is not very historical I believe).

Well, I believe 0AD is a bit of both - a civilization management and combat simulation. Personally, I would not mind if there were a few more economic aspects. My point was that , currently, the desert maps featuring an oasis use that feature only as a kind of eye candy and road block. For these maps , I believe water as a resource might add an interesting strategical aspect to the game. Just I would not take it that far as you suggested. I would not recommend making the economy completely dependable on water (although it always was and still is) but use water sources as a kind of slight boost for certain functions (crops, stable, CC). Please note that while we do need food in the game we do not transport it to the troops for surveial either, so water transport. Just my twocents...

Maybe I am a bit too relaxed, having never played a mulitplayer game, but looking at some of the discussions in this forum, I am really surprised that people take 0AD that serious - like a real war thing, like a matter of life and death. It is definitely not, I hope. This is not even an official contest and you can win only friends and a bit of experience. So come on folks, this is a game we all want to enjoy. And, no, I don't think it is is going to die so soon.

Interesting bug - does it only work for women in houses? It doesn't seem to work for soldiers garrisoned in a tower (or waiting in front). Background is that I tend to surround towers by houses for protection and sometimes I accidentally leave too many soldiers from building activity inside. While 5 can be garrisoned in the tower, the remaining ones have to stay deadlocked where they are. A teleport option would be nice in this case. Was never able to get that working. Thanks for your advice!

Taking the water-as-a-resource-idea a bit further , Romans as an example could have aquaeducts as a special building, guiding water from a well to a CC. Aquaeducts could be implemented as a kind of wall structure that provide a water supply aura for CC, fields, stables etc. Possibly a "water aura" could give a very small population bonus to houses (e.g. +1) within the aura. I do apologize for putting such crazy ideas out for discussion as they may impact development and gameplay alike...something to consider for version A39 possibly .

Thanks for the thumbs up! @phosit I particularly noticed that fields can be built anywhere, even in the desert, on snowy land, or on paved areas. I believe the game does not distinguish different undergrounds or soils and their respective fertility and may only have occasionally preferred/preset locations for fields (shown as "raw farmland") that (I believe) give a slight bonus to farming. Similar argumentation would possibly go for livestock stables. Building a well next to it could be used to create a similar or even higher bonus on farming yield, similar to the treatmill that was existing for gauls and/or britons in earlier versions of the game. With respect to the CC, the point I was coming from was that: in many oasis scenarios the oasis itself has no real impact on gameplay except it represents an obstacle, and provides predefined trees and wildlife. in nomad mode you can select any point for CC that is strategically suitable,e.g. next to valuable resources, or a place that can be better defended. These considerations in the game do not look into supplying population with water. So, if I select a nice location with easy access to metal or stone, but do not have water, I should build one or two wells to mimic water supply in game - or I place my CC next to a water body (river, lake or the like). Discovering and capturing pre-installed "forgotten" wells or having to stay next to an oasis in a desert scenario could possibly influence game strategy. I do acknowledge that adding water as an additional resource in game could entail a significant redesign (which I'd like to avoid). Hence the proposal adding bonusses for wells as a minimum.

Dwellings typically depend on the availability of water. A good location is one that has good and sufficient water supplies. Should we therefore possibly add a kind of water supply concept ? How would that work: - CC could get a population bonus of a few percent if there is a river/lake next to them. For this we would need adding a "water source" tag in the code to designate a lake as supply source, and add an associated aura (this may however turn out to be complex as these are new objects and they are irregularly shaped). build a wells (that has a water supply aura next to the CC. - production system for crops now including water as a new aura or resource? How could that work? again, either build your fields next to a river or lake, or build a well next to your fiield. Cannot build more than, say, 4 fields per well. Rice would need more water, of course. Just an idea.

I do like the idea of adding another dimension to the game - potentially as a mod if this is felt adding too much complexity in the vanilla game. If I remember correctly there is already a kind of static ammunition supply system in Delenda Est where an additional supply cart has to be built and put next to the catapult otherwise catapults won't fire anymore (or less frequently?). @wowgetoffyourcellphone