Grautvornix

Actually - while I found the button, I cannot test it for saved games as it triggers a series of Javascript errors (but the same button does works well for mods in the mods selector page). Playing on Win 10 this occurs for both SVN latest and 0.26. Guess there is a more fundamental issue with my Javascript install (not that I am aware of any speciality there). Never mind.

Well, it doesn't need to be downloaded automatically, but a list of mods that are needed could be presented and then the player could agree to downloading them

Thanks @Vantha! After so many years playing 0AD - I still did not discover this feature myself. Unbelievable! Getting old obviously. But - that already implemented, will it be a piece of cake to also add the automatic loading of needed mods?

Here is a possibly strange idea that increases usability of the game a bit further: As someone trying different mods in SP mode, I noticed that of course you cannot resume a game that was previously saved when using mod A, if you are now using mod A and B or another mod environment. In fact the saved game is not even visible for selection at all (but still existing). Would it be complex to implement a functionality that the "load-saved-game-selector-box" displays actually all saved games - but with a little indicator if it can be used with the currently active mods the indicator also allowing to open a list of mods that were used (including their version) when the game was saved (frankly, I sometimes forget which mods were active whan I last saved a game...) Furthermore it would be nice to have the following features: a button put the game into the state when the game was last saved, i.e. temporarily activate mods needed (if still available in the current game installation alse output an error message) and temporarily deactivate installed mods that cannot be used for that saved game if mods are not present output a suggestion to acquire that missing mod from mod.io I admit that this is not the main game feature lacking, but possibly not so difficult to implement as the list of required mods might be stored within a saved game already. Please let me know your thoughts! Best regards, Grautvornix

No, it ist not - if it is in a lickable state your tongue might be breaking apart - it is is quite cold.

Great idea! In order not to overcomplicate things this should be initially only a pop cap for predefined teams. Later on, we might extend this so that whatever the team size of an ad-hoc alliance, the pop cap remains, i.e. if I play without allies then the whole pop is for me, while if I have an ally then we share the same pop cap. This still has to mature not sure about the consequences ...

Good Idea - just, when I imagine myself in game I rather tend not to check invidual unit's statistics (basically similar to the experience level). Too much micro management for me. But that's iust me in my relaxed and inefficient playing style (plus only SP). So while I like the idea as such it would be not very helpful for me. Personal opinion of a guy not fond of too much statistics in the game.

Ah! That's cool!

I do like this idea - but it sounds complicated to implement, unfortunately.

What about Pushyamitra Shunga , a general who assassinated Brihadratha ? (sorry my poor knowledge is bluntly copied from Wikipedia) Edit: of course this is not a Mauryan emperor anymore as he started the ensuing line of Shunga emperors, but at least part of the same epoch and linked to the Mauryans.

I do agree that historical leaders are preferred. Just in case we cannot come up with enough famous names we should not restrict ourselves and instead add additional "normal" names of that civ/period.

Just another thought: do we need actually famous names only? I think the answer might be obvious : "no, as long as the name is typical for the respective civ."

Congratulations @SciGuy42! This is a phantastic start - love it when you have to struggle with scarce resources initially trying to cope. And for the right atmonsphere, you are also telling a good background story. Looking very much forward to your new campaign!

Ok, but how many should be hardcoded? (I'll vote for 12 so that probability of repttition in an 8-party match is largely reduced). I also believe that more than 12 parties of the same civ would not be a very frequent setup. Additionally, the selection algorithm itself may need modification so that it not just picks a random list entry every time (and counting up the roman numerals if that name was already taken) but only use the remaining set of each civ for random selection. With an increase set and a better randomization this issue should be an extremely rare observation. Noob opinion

Welcome back! Looking forward to your updated missions!

Indeed @Vantha and @ShadowOfHassen your encyclopedia is a superb contribution creating an even deeper game experience! Thanks for all your effort! Much appreciated!

OK, point taken. If there are good ideas how to guarantee hosted tournaments/multiplayer games remain fair and there is no cheating or the like (without moderator intervention), we should implement these features first - and all MP games would benefit immediately. We will see much less complaints then. Next we can discuss / carefully introduce playing for money features for some games. I believe the entire process would need to be carefully defined. Potentially we can learn from other platfroms that already offer this feature. Just, in my view, as long as we cannot avoid people complaining about unfair behaviour in rated MP games, playing for money would only increase tensions.

In combination, that is.

Frankly, I am afraig that we might get more, and more serious, complaints about cheating or users leaving a game that they are about to loose. We are barely managing now even it is "only" about individual ratings. As soon as money is involved I am afraid we will see more issues. Just my twocents (as a noob single player only, of course).

But.. there is another mod that adds something similar - it is called "modiomod". It shows which mods of the ones you already have were updated on mod.io. Would love to have this function embedded into the main game! See also discussion here:

Indeed - you are active commenting and providing/proposing good stuff almost round the clock!

Unfortunately, I am not so sure specifically about such knowledge as bots might have access to the same inormation basis on the internet.

Neben Türmen sind übrigens auch Festungen eine gute Möglichkeit, sein Territorium punktuell zu erweitern. Zusätzlich, wenn man gerade eine griechische Civ spielt (z.B. Athen), kann man ein griechisches Theater bauen, dass einem einen weiteren Geländebonus gibt. Den meisten Gewinn erhält man allerdings in der Tat durch zusätzliche Dorf-/Stadtzentren (Civil Center, CC). Übrigens: mit der MOD Delenda Est (über das mods-Menü laden) kann man Lagerplätze beliebig in freiem Territorium platzieren und so sehr effektiv Ressourcen außerhalb des eigenen Territoriums abbauen, ein Feature, das im normalen Spiel nur die Mauriyans mit ihren Arbeitselefanten haben (sozusagen mobile Lager). Es gibt einiges zu entdecken! Viel Spaß dabei!

Yep, that would also be cool! Let me provide some more thoughts and discussion: As an example, when winning a game, I have 30 elite cav + 30 melee + 10 hoplites + 1 hero and 3k Wood, 500 metal, 920 stone, 12k food. The next game would provide me with exactly these resources - but also all other players of that game with exactly the same troops and resources. Everyone would then start at an elevated level. Could that lead to new strategic options? Most likely. The fundamental question will certainly be, how to preserve balance between players (whether AI or human). The issue might be that different civs have different strengths (cav, skirmish, elephants, naval, etc.), so that direct comparison might be more difficult. On the othert hand, I might have been able to use the advantages of the previous map for my civ, but the next map might have different characteristics and that previous strategy does not work anymore (e.g. less wood or no metal but a lot of stone). Naval maps would not allow a follow-on non-naval map unless the ships were left behind (like in reality). While for SP this can certainly be achieved, I am not so sure for MP games as each player would want to keep his own previous "achievements". I therefore belive such mechanism would make sense rather more for SP and campaigns than for MP games, and particularly not for rated MP games (that are subject to dispute all the time already). Technology tree: If I had completely researched everything in the previous game and if I inherit that in full, what else can I do except focussing on strategy (good) and possibly producing more/different units (difficult if the respective production building does not exist at the beginning -> to be built). Probably I am thinking too complex here. Best might be to inherit a population and resources but no the technology tree? Discussing all this, I am not sure anymore this idea can be easily implemented but will rather change a lot of the game's mechanics unless we introduce some constraints on "heritability" of resources, e.g. no buildings, no ships.

A bit of a strange idea possibly, but could it be interesting having an option to carry over a number of (or even all remaining) troops and/or resources after winning a game into the next one? This could be e.g. a selectable option to use this as starting conditions for the next game. For balancing, of course, all other parties in whatever SP or MP would need to be given equal resources/troops to start with (with an equal mix). With this, a campaign like e.g. "Alexander the great" could depend a lot on previous performance. But also general games could get an interesting start. The better my own performance during the last game (i.e. the more experience+ resources my own civ would have gathered) the more powerful my opponent would be. Strategy would still be very important as having a larger army does not necessarily warrant victory. One could even imagine that a starter condition could be saved and activated if so desired - always with the condition that all opponent shave the same.