zozio32

I think you should be able to carry over part of your unused collected resource to the next skirmish, but on the ennemy side, their starting resource would depend on the time spent as well. To make it "strategic", you could have a system were the enemy resource level in the next map is linked to the time spent on the previous one, and on the level of resource in the map. This way, there is an advantage in being quick even if you don't ocllect much in the present map (that will deny your next ennemy to start with too much), or on the contrary you might decide to dev a lot of economy in the present map if the next one is poor. Of course, you might not know very well how is the resource level in the next map: some potential spying action?

Hello, I was all set up to try the Mod, looks great on paper (really like the idea of limited supply for ranged units, the double weapons system) but then I realised that it is only available on a.25, and not a.26 (at least on the mod selection within the game) Any tentative to port it to the current base version? or do we need to download it fromgit and compile it (I might require some help if so)

yep, absolute bonus should do well instead. Question is, do all the units, even enemie's unit benefit from the road?

should not be limited to infantry I think. The biggest benefit should be for siege stuff, merchant, then infantry, then cavalry.

and just as curiosity, I understand these civ are not in A26, am i right? If so can i ask why not?

yes, indeed. My ref to steempness was that I thought the path of units was impacted by the steepnes (not elevation), whereas @alre explained that what I was witnessing is probably just to the the width of the path available. But as you mentioned, an aura for "road" that works by providing a speed bonus to unit (all of them, enemies included) would be fun. And too manage perf, there might be a limit of road tiles to be set

ok. I thought that was what was blocking some of my siege unit mooving around in the Alpine Valley maps. it is the "width2 of the path that create a blockage?

indeed, I don't see why it get so difficult with current engine. we can put farm on the terrain that can be walked over by units, so buidings that units can walk on should be doable. then it is a quiestion of adding bonuses/maluses to speed of unit based on terrain. The engine already manages steepness of the terrain I think from the motion of siege engine comapred to other units, so all the buildings blocks are here

well, it would be a benefit to the bolt thrower, not the range of arrows from the wall/tower. I did not realise that the height of the tower/wall will be added automatically to the range of the bolt throwers if garrisoning was allowed.

agree also that it should not be possible for a ranged siege engine to start shooting at a building without being seen by the building first. Even more so the towers. Agree that the tower could not shoot back, but seing it at least should be ok.

that could indeed be a compromise. i support also the fertility ground for the farms, but it might make some maps very difficult to play (unbale to reach population limits), but that's also nice. catching the fertile ground would become very beneficial, which is historically true also.

would it just be possible to "garrison" bolt throwers or other ranged siege engine into wall towers? with off course a small range benefit

I might download that Mod! I was not aware of it. Are you the person to ask for advice about how to do so?

yep, bring in a moral score for the civ!

that's indeed the risk. The point is that I like to specificity of the citizen soldier, and we loose a bit this aspect at later stage in the game when the big powerful unit can be acquired. Having a mechanism that penalize a big ratio of unproductive unit over productive unit is therefore appealing and works towards the specificity of 0 A.D.

well, I read the doc, I don't see exactly how my suggestions are " are not part of the proposal and style that 0a.d seeks". they'll take away a bit from the statement "Combat in the game plays the major role. Economic and political roles take a back seat to strategic warfare. ", but I think the combat would still be the main thing. Anyway, it was just some suggestions

ok, there is a def somewhere of what 0a.d. seeks? so that I don't spend long suggestion posts which are off topic? or I gues i'll slowly learn that on the forum ;-)

Could i ask why? I mean, building do need maintenance otherwise they decay in the real world, and why citizen soldiers being military active should not have a cost to be sustained by the community? my suggestions is not very definite, but I am interested in what motivate your point of view

resource go to zero, you loose the mercenaries automatiquely, building start loosing strenght, units weaken, etc. You can maybe destroy some unit/building to rebalance the economy... If the citizen soldier is mobilised, i.e. is not working, then its cost should be accounted for as for any other proffesional units. Agree that cost could be 0 when working.

HI, while I am new to 0 a.d., i do have one or two suggestions that I think could make the game more interesting and require more stratgic management without increasing what I have seen referred to as "micro". I do think they are manageable in a code, but I may not have enough grasp of the process yet to foresee the complications... Suggestion: get an OPEX cost: As I see it now, we only have CAPEX costs to unit and building. Once we spend the resource, the unit/building is available as long as it is not destroyed or captured. However, that does not feel right. Units will at least have a running food costs (mercenaries would have a metal ore costs maybe as well), and repair and maintenance on building have a resource costs in wood/stone/metal. Hence I think it will be nice that as your civ grows, its running costs increases. The rate of gathering resources would therefore have to increase as well. Not enough resource, building will start to loose strenght, and not enough food you might as well have unit loosing health. --> impact on gameplay: reduce the possibility to create large group of non productive units. You just can't keep xx elephants for example, it will give more importance to worker / citizen / soldier unit, which I think ties quite well with the historical context. --> how to code it: add a resource OPEX costs to each unit/building, and a degradation costs proportional to the deficit in each resource. Engine will then have to tally the cost over the whole civ (updated at each unit/bulding creation and destruction) and manage the degradation. The deg might not have to be applied at each time step to ease the computational burden. Additional indicators get a moral status it is touched in a few active threads right now, but it would be great to have a moral score for the whole civ, with bonus/malus over the full range of activity. The morale score will be based on the following elements: stock: high level of stocks of resource is good, it provide security, feels good for the population -> higher moral. To be related to Opex costs above, a deficit in running costs of civ is bad for moral as well spirituality: from age II, the ratio of temple / civique building / priest to citizens should be valorised in morale of civ. The threshold should be discussed ratio women / men: to low a ratio of male to women in civ is bad... we should obviously not aim for 50/50, it is a game, but I see the point of valorising having more women, makes it also more needed to defend themhero: having a Hero is a morale boost high ratio of mercenaries => bad for social cohesion, malus to moral city quality: it was mentioned in the thread about athenian houses for example, you could have a morale score if you develop better housing. Paving could also be introduced (age 2 onward) to improve the city relative dev: it is a competitive game after all. Moral should be higher if your civ is more developed than competitors. relative size of territory should be valorised, having a wonder when the other civ don't have it yet, being at a more advanced age, having unique tech or units Having a powerfull ally would help for moral --> impact on gameplay: we'll have to manage our civ a bit more, keeping in mind more parameters. it valorise expansion, and therefore risk taking, which might be fun. You compete also with the other in dev level, therefore not only looking only at military strenght. Nice message from you population could appear on screen, such "We need more priest!" or "wtf, the xxxxx already have a wonder, how come our great civ is so backward!", positive ones also such as "we are so proud of our new fortified dock, let's build quinquereme now" --> how to code: probably not too complex, engine will have to keep track of a few kpi. no need to do it at every turn as well, that's something that can be computed on a rather long timescale. that's it, sorry for the very long post. I understand that it would significant change in the philosophy of the game so it might not interest everyone...

Hello, a new French here, but based in Edinburgh Scotland. happy to jump in spannish/portuguese also if needed as I lived in Spain for a while, and the in laws are in Lisbon. the nickname zozio is an old stuff from teenagehood, long time ago...

I'd like to say thanks as well! I have literally just discovered the game, and I really apreciate it. So thanks for all the team behind it.

I think a morale level of the colonny woul be great! That would tie with the "improving house" of the other thread, having more priest, getting a more aligned and protected city (don't spread out the buildings) etc. And then depending on morale, small bonus could be applied flatly to all unit, like a few % for everything from gathering to damage.