Vantha

There is a section in the FAQ about it: https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/wiki/FAQ#what-shall-i-do-when-joining-multiplayer-matches-fails-with-an-error-message

On another note, I've actually made some great progress on the map recently: (haven't painted the ocean floor yet) I will upload some screenshots and the files when I'm done; but I want to remake some sections and polish everything up a bit more first. As you might remember, I am using the 'desert_persia' biome mixed with the 'aegean_anatolian' biome. Southeastern Spain is a lot more arid than regions like Italy, Greece, or Turkey and not far away at all from a typical "desert". Honestly, I was really afraid it could turn out looking horrible, but they ended up fitting together quite well in my opinion. The only thing I struggled with was fading between bushy and earthy spots. There are a lot of textures available for empty and dry grounds. And some others full of bushes ( / vegetation in general) - namely 'Desert plants b persia' and 'Desert plants a'. What's missing is something in between to fill this gap. Patches of bushes don't just abpruptly "end" at a particular point; instead, with increasing distance, bushes are becoming smaller and sparser. And it's this transition that I find very hard to replicate with available textures. If someone could create a such a texture that would be amazing. Essentially a sparser variant of 'Desert plants b persia' (and if of 'Desert plants a' too that would be even better!) @wowgetoffyourcellphone maybe?

Oh, I totally forgot about this last post I made here. Regarding icons, I will try to incorporate existing ones (like the resource types), but I don't think there'd be much value in creating new, specific ones, if players don't see them anywhere outside of the tutorial later too. Regarding the instructions, I have spent a good amount of time thinking about it and here's my plan: I want to split up all instructions currently stuffed into the tutorial panel into four different categories (each displayed on their own panel - with only one or maybe two visible at once): - Simple Tasks. Basic instructions like "Left-click on your Civic Center", "Train _____ units", "Order them to build a storehouse". Only the active one needs to be displayed at once. - Basic Information and Tips. Everything that doesn't directly help players progress through the game, but just teaches them how to do something. For example, how to select units, how to build structures, or how to read the minimap. This could still be done in an interactive way, but these sections need to be skippable. - Game Objectives. Larger tasks like "Explore the map", "Repel the attack", or "Capture the Civic Center" that take more time to complete. I plan to add this functionality to scenarios and trigger scripts in general, and not just the tutorial. Objectives can be given, completed or stopped at any point during the game, all of which is announced by fading in some sort of "banner" in the top center. They don't need to be required for ultimately winning the game and could instead function more like "side quests" too by providing other rewards (like unlocking certain units, receiving some resources - stuff that can be done in trigger scripts already) But I haven't really thought about how to connect them to the current "victory conditions" (conquest, wonder, etc. - which are called "objectives" in the game right now) yet. - Plot Points. There is no interface in place right now to tell a story to the player. At all. This would in first instance become relevant at the start of a game, of course. But I imagine it would also be cool to have the possibility of advancing the plot during a game as well, maybe even depending on player decisions... (this interface too could be made available to all scenario scripts, and not just the tutorial) At the moment, I'm trying to come up with good UI designs for each of these. Ideas, design concepts, or UI mockups are much welcomed, as always.

Continuing this.. Currently, new instructions are just added below previous ones. It feels kinda cheap to me. Maybe only the current one should be displayed at a time. Stuff like important hotkeys or game concept explanations could be moved somewhere else (and always stay accessible). What do you think?

Not really. As far as I remember, 20595 is only chosen as the port on the host side and on the first gateway (in the case of CGNAT, your own router). The ISP's router at the head of that second, larger network, should ensure to consistently forward packets over and to the same ports. They just often do a terrible job at this. As soon as this consistency is lost (between contacting the STUN server and the target host) is precisely when STUN breaks. Whether this actually means that STUN would work with an ideal Double NAT / CGNAT: I don't know. It's difficult to reliably test stuff like this.

As I said in the PR, yes, players behind CGNAT are able to join some hosts (who have an open, server-like connection), but not the average one. And that's the frustrating about this problem. It might just be, because CGNAT often goes hand-in-hand with some strange and unpredictable port mapping or blocking performed by the ISP. About a year and a half ago, me and @Norse_Harold did a thorough investigation on this issue. This thread was really only the beginning. The information from my side here is quite superficial and outdated. The FAQ entry is a much better and up-to-date summary of my/our understanding of the issue. @Dunedan I don't know what terms you are on with @Norse_Harold right now and neither what he's been up to lately. But if you want to dig into this issue, I highly recommend you to contact him. He's the real expert on this topic.

I'm currently quite busy with some other projects here and I want to take enough time for everything I work on. If anything, I'm a bit overloaded at the moment. So: no, sorry. Not right now at least, but I might be more free in a few weeks.

Macedonian pikemen (phalangites) carried shields over their necks (a very innovative idea for the time). And Seleucid and Ptolemaic pikemen fought in this Macedonian manner too. Han pikemen on the other hand, only carried a so-called "Ji", which is better classified as a halberd rather than a pike.

Checkboxes... that do what? (So players can enter the tutorial from different levels of experience?)

I've mentioned this in the past somewhere already, but I fully agree with that. I get the point that citizen soldiers all need to have the more or less the same stats, so that players know what they get when they e.g. train a "Swordsman". (Even though I believe the issue here only lies in not being able to communicate differences in stats to the player very well) But especially for champions there's huge potential for differentiation. I really like, for example, that the Han pikemen have less resistance but deal more damage than Macedonian pikemen - since they don't even carry a shield.

Can you elaborate? I can't tell from the screenshots what you mean.

Any ideas how to improve the current tutorial UI? (not only visually, but also functionally)

That's true. When I wrote "European counterparts" I was referring to the medieval crossbows. The unique thing about the Gastraphetes is that the bow string is already secured in the trigger mechanism before it is even spanned. This means (depending on the exact design) it might not even need to have a fixed draw length. And that would allow it to be used by soldiers of all sizes and strengths without switching out the prod. Well, they were quite expensive and therefore not used by lower-class peasants - unlike in China.

Don't underestimate Han crossbows. Even the weaker arm-drawn examples had incredibly heavy draw weights by today's standards. According to Wikipedia, entry-level crossbowman were required to be able to pull at least 76kg (167lbs). Other sources report most of the average arm-drawn crossbows to have even around 90kg (198lbs) draw weights. And they were, even for those draw weights, incredibly energy-efficient as they had unusually long draw lengths (and resulting power stroke). They are at least en par with average European counterparts. Some of the strongest Han crossbows with multiple times that draw weight had an energy output of over 300 Joules and were probably able pierce some steel armor - which didn't even exist back then! And keep in mind that they didn't even require an extra spanning devices - which allowed for relatively quick reload times in pitched battle (not comparable to bows, but still) I don't even want to imagine how it was to face 30,000 of those dudes in battle. Must've been absolutely terrifying. When we eventually get back to the encyclopedia, I want to discard the current one and take some time to write an entire series of articles on this topic. I find it so fascinating. (Most of the numbers here I took from this excellent thread: https://historum.com/t/han-dynasty-crossbow-iii.179336/)

Something like this would be the ideal solution in my opinion.