sternstaub

Would it not be possible to link the replay folder to a visible location like ~ at some point, maybe on game start or installation?

while using KDE, i sometimes had the impression that KDE really hates KDE...

It was mentioned in another forum topic, but that affected hosting only.

Hello everyone, just wanted to mention that python2 is given as a build dependency for arch no longer available on the arch standard repo (AUR still has it). Since - on the AUR - 0ad does not show python2 as a dependency, i wondered if it is still required? Been over 14 years, after all... i removed this from the wiki page and wanted you to know about it. If python2 is still needed, i can edit it again so that it tells to fetch python2 from the AUR. However, my current building process seems to work without python2 so far (not finished yet).

Nice i like a bit more unit diversity Yes. This also makes sense from a (my?) balance point of view because they are vulnerable to infantry. Inf should be able to somehow keep up with them in battle. Sounds like a "tide-turner" unit to me, who can attack cavalry when they are engaged into fight? If they were slower than average, then this would be a proper usage of the heavy cavalry, right?

It might also make sense to have a cooldown for such special commands (drag-movement), because it is associated to additional computation. Like 1-2s or so. Regular movement without formation can have less, like 0.2 or so, or none. Not sure here.

It is more plain as it is now tho... Overlaps can cause problem-prone situations which we do not have to take into account with exclusive borders.

Most important about the game imo. There is not some ***hat company behind it, but an engaged community. Big companies will seldomly support a game for 20 years because they want you to buy their new titles. This is not the case for projects which grow out of love for the matter. So yes, important fact and thus important info in the article.

It is true.

I would like it as much as a chess-board with only white squares, in other words: not at all.

Yes, well, it is probably poorly balanced and all. I just opened atlas and started playing around with it just for the sake of creating a map

I actually had the same thought in the back of my mind. Because per design, even the things within FOW must be stored on each machine for creating equal sim.

How realizable would it be to have vision based on terrain, so that units cannot see over hills? Just saw a nice M&B video where the player decieved enemy cavalry. He let them to charge over a hill, where his shieldwall troops were waiting. Maybe such tricks could be applied to 3rd person RTS like 0ad?

Does not matter. If the game will go to release someday, such small things must be fixed.

possible UI control for formations: Selection of formation type for units like it already is, in lower menu. expand the menu to give settings for "attack" and "defense" formation. Attack determines how units move into combat, defense is for standing down (holding a line). Individual behaviour settings for both could be fancy (agro settings...). Controls: Ctrl + RightMouseClick = Attack move without formation Ctrl + RightMouseVectorDrag = attack with set attack formation in the drawn angle (draw an arrow or something) RightMouseClick = move / interact without formation RightMouseVectorDrag = apply defense formation to given area. Could give flexibility if the units would respect the length of the drawed line. for example, if you chose dense line as defense formation, the length and thickness of the line would vary based on the vector which the player has drawn. ...but surely there are other ways to do it aswell.

Well, if the units were modular in appearance, and you could just take the same base unit and generate a texture for it with different cloting. But if you have to create a model for every unit on every level by hand, this is very inefficient and a lot of work for a mainly cosmetic change. However, this kind of idea can be remembered for the case that there may at some point be an easy way to auto-generate different unit appearances. Such auto-generation itself can cause problems and weird looks on units, so i think it is not easy to implement on the fly. Always the question whether the ends justify the means, if your resources are limited.

It does, logically. Otherwise everyone would win if all are allied. It is the closest you can currently get to what you want. If one wanted to add the specific feature you requested, it would probably mean to use the "peacful period" also as a minimum game duration. That would probably fit your needs. But it is not implemented at the time of writing.

You can use "last survivor" setting aswell, so that only one player may win... //EDIT: too slow...

photon man

I encounter the same behaviour.

Hmm. There'd be 2 ways to use it if there was a gar effect: 1) produce and kill animals -> in my opinion makes sense with early cavalry tactics -> this requires workers, we already have it and it is fine. 2) slowly harvest food from animals, like milk. This is what we discuss. The aim of this would be that there are different ways to use the corral in different situations, making it more versatile, probably. I have tried some corral gameplay and must say: You need to have some amount of fields to support the creation of animals. It is not fit as the sole source of food. Also, you cannot have your cavalry play farming game in your base all time. So, i would say that the effectiveness of the corral should be kind of fluctuating, with a more and a less efficient way of usage. 1) When your cavalry is at home, you may quickly create and kill animals. For that, you place a food investement and get back more than you staked. We already have that. It might be desirable to make the corral a food dropsite, or to add a tech to do this. Because of the issue mentioned by real_tabasco_sauce, animals should not be created infinitley, without any way of "disposal" / killing them. They should spawn sometime and die sometime, not just decorate the buildings. As said above, there should be fluctuation and the needs of management to it, instead of just having an "afk res spam" method. The latter would be unintended, that is true. 2) When you are engaged in fighting later on, you still have all the animals at home, and they are to no use. So, they will not be disposed in this case [==what we have now] either. This would be the sitiuation to switch the corrals and animals into some kind of "low profit mode" [==what we don't have now; the very object of this discussion, so to say]. Maybe like this: the corral generates food for animals within, but the food has to be gathered by women and brought to a farmstead. This would not make sense with the above tech suggestion (dropsite), but there could be other tech to make it more interesting. Higher storage in the corral for example. Another option is to not garrison the animals, but women into the corral, which then gains a trickle effect for nearby animals. But might be problematic performance-wise. Probably a simple linear trickle effect is not the best solution here, after considering what @real_tabasco_sauce wrote. P.S.: Animal units are limited to 50, it is not unlimited.

Thanks for the background information Looks quite interesting. Since i am using autociv, will check this out.