zozio32

Hi, I tested it yestarday. I cannot tell only from 1 game how different it is, but I haven't seen any issue. I play only single player, and an improved Petra bot is great. If it can prevent some "ennemis" to collapse completely sometime, that's a great improvement

yes, agree with that. What I was mentionning, is that the "ownership level" of the building should not change during the assimilation process, independantly of where the building is, unless another faction send troops to capture it. Then, from the moment the assimilation period is completed, the ownership level should decrease if it is not link to territory root unless garisoned.

I agree with the later. if the building is too damaged, it should be destroyed instead of assimilated. For your first sentence, I am not sur of what you mean. i was basically saying that ownership point should not change during the assimilation period.

I like the concept of assimilation. It should not be too penalising however, and one should not loose "ownership" of it during that period. I am thinking capturing a tower in enemy territory. To make it a worthwhile effort, the assimilation period should be short, and maybe we should still have the ability to garrison troups in it to protect them, even if the tower does not fire any arrows during the assimilation time. At the same time, it is in ennemt territory, but I don't think it's ownership should change "organically" during the assimilation time. Of course, if the previous owner send a team to recapture it during this time, that should be possible. For the rest of the rebalancing, the capturing process should indeed be more onerous than the destruction, as the idea of capturing to destroy is a bit pointless. At least that should be the case with units with average to high "hack" attack. Regarding expanding the tech trees, I think that's a good thing. More things to choose, how to spend the resource, etc. And I like the Delenda Est proposition where oen can choose between tech options, giving the option to evolve differently.

from my point of view, that should work indeed. We can put quite a high life value. Question is, can they be "neutrale" , in the sense that they should benefit any unit, and should not be attacked by default? in terme of artwork, we already have paved road around the civic centre, and tracks, so that should be ok no?

I can see that the idea of being able to build roads that would give a speed bonus through an aura is shared between many people... :-) the speed of units per default can also be reduced a bit not to have to fast mouvement on the roads. I would put the speed bonus as a fixed value, not a %, so it would have proportionally a bigger impact for slow moving unit. Finally, I have no idea how the path finder works, but it would be great if it was configured to find the quickest way, not the shortest. In that case, the speed aura of the road could potentially be taken into account. Now, all the civ could have the possibility to lay down track. Only the roman could lay down roads, with higher stone cost but higher benefit.

There is already a map I think, Persian highland maybe, where the centre is unbuildable, you can only get there mining. I haven't try, but you can't put a building on it, so I expect that a farm cannot be built on it either. So the mechanism is here, it is mainly a question of having maybe more "unbuildable" style of terrain so you can create maps where exploring the map and fighting for/defending arable land become a important part of the game. Couple this with the building with aura giving a boost should open quite a few option, especially if we allow building such units. Different civ could have different building (well, mill, etc) Additionnally to this farm issue, is there any evidence in antiquity of a civ managing/planting forest for wood resource, more than just exploiting natural wood? that would be a nice added benefit in some maps to be able to plant wood (providing the land is fertile enough ;-) ). Same mecanism as in DelendaEst in where we can plant cash crops.

that's should be a nice way to do it. However, it should come with the possibility to test the area before. I explain myself: if we have that feature, in some biomes, it may guide where to expand your civ. So the game needs to tell you which terrain is better. With the color system you're describing, that will work on terrain within your borders, but not out as you cannot build on them (it will be greyed out). So we just need to visualisation of the field color to be possible out of one border, so we could "test" the terrain

Sorted. I had put the files into home/.local/share/0ad/ and recompile from there, not a good idea. Not it is on separate folder, no problem

I can try again, but for whatever reason building the rc2 also disabled all mod on my 18 Jan nighbuild version (they are in different folder). i could reanable the baisc mod in the nightbuild and get the game to run, but not on the rc2

well, I don't know what went wrong in building rc2, but I basically got straight to the mod selection panel when i start the game, and I can't get out of it... I haven't spot any error while building the game however. I got the night built from the 18 Jan and got it to work fine, so not a dependencies issue I think

I second that: it took me some time to get the rc1 to compile as I was missing llvm-objdump and I did not know where to get it. Suggesting to install the full "llvm" library is necessary I think.

ok, I think the only other game I ever had on this PC is super tux kart. I may reinstall to check. I'll let you know.

Gnome on my system. I won't try another one. I don't spend so much time on it anyway. The disturbance is very minor, so that's ok overall

hello, just to come back on this topic. I have compiled the nightly build of yesterday for a27, and still have sometime the issue.