oshron

im chalking it up to how old the computer is, then. maybe ill try again with a different comp with a better graphics card

im no noob to message boards, but i am to this one since im mostly just here for discussion thanks for telling me. and of course, i cant find the darn thing >.< im just an idiot here's one from an external service (i hope it works) http://www.fileupyours.com/view/322173/logs.zip EDIT: feneur must have posted while i was still typing before; no wonder i couldnt find it! XP

aah. i'll do that then any particular service that you want i should use? i could just make a temporary account on fileupyours otherwise

im honestly not sure how to access the .dmp file (i can see it in there, but it doesnt recognize the program needed to view it correctly; it may be because the comp im using for this is pretty old), but here's system_info: (generated 2012-03-17 19:26:37 UTC) OS : WinXP SP 3 (5.1.2600) CPU : x86, Intel Pentium 4 2.80GHz (1x1x1), 2.79 GHz Memory : 510 MiB; 267 MiB free Graphics Card : Intel(R) 82865G Graphics Controller; OpenGL Drivers : 1.3.0 - Build 4.14.10.4396; ialmgicd.dll (6.14.10.3762), iglicd32.dll (6.14.10.4396) Video Mode : 1024x768:32 Sound Card : SoundMAX Integrated Digital Audio; Unimodem Half-Duplex Audio Device; Sound Drivers : OpenGL Extensions: GL_ARB_multitexture GL_ARB_point_parameters GL_ARB_texture_border_clamp GL_ARB_texture_compression GL_ARB_texture_cube_map GL_ARB_texture_env_add GL_ARB_texture_env_combine GL_ARB_texture_env_dot3 GL_ARB_texture_env_crossbar GL_ARB_transpose_matrix GL_ARB_vertex_buffer_object GL_ARB_vertex_program GL_ARB_window_pos GL_EXT_abgr GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_blend_color GL_EXT_blend_func_separate GL_EXT_blend_minmax GL_EXT_blend_subtract GL_EXT_clip_volume_hint GL_EXT_compiled_vertex_array GL_EXT_cull_vertex GL_EXT_draw_range_elements GL_EXT_fog_coord GL_EXT_multi_draw_arrays GL_EXT_packed_pixels GL_EXT_rescale_normal GL_EXT_secondary_color GL_EXT_separate_specular_color GL_EXT_stencil_wrap GL_EXT_texture_compression_s3tc GL_EXT_texture_env_add GL_EXT_texture_env_combine GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic GL_3DFX_texture_compression_FXT1 GL_IBM_texture_mirrored_repeat GL_NV_blend_square GL_NV_texgen_reflection GL_SGIS_generate_mipmap GL_WIN_swap_hint SMBIOS: and what came up with interestinglog: ERROR: CCacheLoader failed to find archived or source file for: "art/textures/skins/structural/hele_bireme.dds" (i think this one literally just came up a few minutes ago, though; i was just looking at stuff in the editor, clicked on that bireme, and the notice came up in-game. the bireme had a flat magenta texture

ill see what i can do. luckily i never have anything to do on saturdays until 9pm when my anime comes on EDIT: okay, ive got the folder up now, but which file is it, specifically? (i dont go into such folders often so i have no idea)

so, yeah, i downloaded and installed alpha 9 the other day, but the game keeps crashing pretty quickly. here's a screencap of the notice i keep getting when it does: that screencap was from an attempted run of a random map. random maps are the only aspect of gameplay that ive gotten to work; scenarios crash before they even finish loading, and teh random maps are so laggy that, even if it DIDNT crash, itd be nigh unplayable. the map editor seems to work best (though ive only run it twice so far) but that one crashed in one of those sessions, too any help on this? EDIT: i was just in the map editor and it crashed again as well. here's a screencap of that as well (i didnt check to see if there were any differences between the messages)

ill try to get some more details, then, maybe even some screencaps and post those in a new thread (since i dont want to clutter this one anymore thani already have )

im having lots of trouble getting the game to work (though ive only tried it on one comp so far); with scenarios, it keeps crashing, and random maps are really laggy and crash after about a minute. the map editor works better, but it also crashed earlier. i havent had it installed for very long so i dont know how frequent other problems are. also, the main screen flickers when im there, and im CERTAIN that its not supposed to do that. the map editor also crashes when i try generating a new map

well it would probably be good to save some other features for later releases in any case; it'll give fans incentive to come back

well one other suggestion ive had is that the neutral "gaia" player to which the stronghold would go would be assigned a particular civilization depending on what the map is (for example, if the map is supposed to be set in britain or france, the gaia player would be assigned the celtic civ). potentially, this could affect the name given to the pirate stronghold. alternatively, research could be done into what civilization(s) spawned the most prolific pirates of the period and the name could be given based on that, even if it isnt a playable civilization (for example, if it was the phoenicians, it could be given a phoenician name) and the name would change to a respective name for each civilization, though the default "non-ethnic" name could/would probably still be "pirate stronghold". you could assign whatever translated name you want, though; the greek translation could potentially be "pirate hideout", for instance, or "mercenary dock"

sounds good to me and thanks for your prompt answer

hypothetically, though, the iberians could rush the beach and build up from the center of the island, attacking the ships with ranged units and/or buildings. the idea i have with a pirate stronghold is simply that it would have a unit that any civ could train, whereas with a regular dock the iberians would still (in theory) be limited to their own ships this brings up two thoughts, though: would the iberians and other civilizations be able to train foreign units from captured buildings? for example, would the persians be able to train hoplites from a captured greek barracks? because if thats the case then that could simplify everything: the iberians could just capture an enemy dock and train foreign ships there will you be able to auto-kill units and/or buildings in 0ad, like in AOE? cuz that would be a total @#$% move if the holding player deleted the pirate stronghold (or any other building) just before an enemy player successfully captured it. or will buildings in the process of being captured be incapable of deletion?

i had meant easier as opposed to designing an entirely new aspect of gameplay (eg, natives a la AOE3) like i said, i still support giving them a fireship, though perhaps the ship could be relegated to being a late-game unit that the iberians need to research a special tech for

personally, i think it would be easier to make just a special "pirate stronghold" building (functionally identical to a dock) that you can either destroy or capture and use for yourself. the pirate stronghold would be able to build just one type of multipurpose "pirate ship" that any civ could train and which would look different depending on which civ builds it (they could/should probably resemble a regular ship of that civ but with black sails)

yknow, if you want to have physical loot, you could just render it as a small pile of twigs, coins, pebbles, and/or food, and make it two-dimensional (and rotate to face the camera) so that the model takes up less space; in some old 3D games, trees that were far away from the player were made 2D to take up less data, so that the game wouldnt lag, to give you all some precedent

you could perhaps indicate it with the golden '+#' as well as adding in a sound like a coin clinking against another, and maybe a little gold sparkle to visually indicate it how was the loot value planned for implementation, anyway? and what are the values? is it, like, 10% of the resources used to create that unit? in any case, i rather like this idea, and thinking it would also work well if something like this was also applied to civic buildings (maybe this could simplify old ideas of buildings leaving behind rubble that you have to physically collect?)

you may also want to consider playing as a different civ; iirc, the iberians are supposed to be the most defensive of all the civs currently in the game

sorry for the late reply yeah, personally id recommend a gaia player, but you wouldnt necessarily need to make all-new units for them, just give the gaia player some pre-existing units from a given civilization for different maps (for example, bandits on a map set in iberia would be iberian units while maps set in the middle east would have persian units, and so on and so forth for different games). some more unique units would be useful (personally, ive thought that it would be interesting if there was a specific "slave" unit that could be captured and used for labor or re-equipped as a soldier in different maps), and for an entirely fictional/unrealistic setting (yeah, yeah, historicity and all that but just run with me on this) units like native americans or maybe entirely fictional peoples and creatures such as orcs. iirc, there's already a random map idea which will include a dragon unit as precedent for this. for other settings, it would probably also be useful to have different "ethnic" units for certain maps (like one set in eastern africa could have maasai warriors)

i mean more like the ships themselves, not the additional units garrisonned inside that are manning them. the idea is that, if the iberians cant get their own warships, then there's conceivably no way for them to win in a given setting if a human player sends their only remaining ships away from a battle to basically just troll the iberians (that's assuming that the iberians in this situation are also controlled by a human player). heroes, champions, and siege units cant rebuild the civilization either, but the difference is that the iberians would still be able to get at them, and those units are the ones that would most likely be killed off in a battle that would leave the enemy player with just their warships i get what's been proposed, that you simply wouldn't use the iberians on a water map like that, but what if someone wanted to because of a strategy they wanted to employ with their ally (the aforementioned scenario of the iberians fighting on land while their hellenic allies harass the enemy navy), or if they simply wanted to undertake the challenge of playing as a civ with no warships for the fun of it? (they become so good at the game that they decide to intentionally handicap themselves for the thrill of it) like i said, i get what youre saying. maybe the strictly terrestrial civs could have the ability to capture enemy warships like how they can already capture buildings? though that still leaves something of a balance/trolling problem... giving them a (fictional?) fireship sounds like a good idea to me. perhaps they could have an additional unique technology at the end that allows them to build just one type of warship? personally, i really like and would support the idea of giving them warships based on what the vandals used

exactly. my question/suggestion is that ships by themselves shouldnt count as "survivors"; i mean, in Empire Earth, for instance, a total conquest victory is given if your opponent doesnt have any building THAT THEY CAN STILL USE. a house, for instance, doesnt count because it has no military functions, whereas a barracks can still conceivably produce units which (unlikely as it is) could destroy your entire civilization by themselves. a friend of mine had a situation like this in a round of Command & Conquer where his three enemies (CPs, i would imagine) all nuked him at the same time, but some of his army survived and he was able to capture some of his enemies' buildings and beat them anyway in short, as long as the player still has units which can rebuild his civilization, then the game should continue, but since ships cant do that (right?), they shouldnt count towards "total annihilation" victory requirements

say, do ships count towards the "total annihilation" victory objective (yknow, the standard RTS objective where you just completely wipe out your enemy)? because it occurs to me that, if the iberians cant build any warvessels, then in a pitched battle between them and, say, someone playing as teh hellenes, if the hellenes are utterly beaten, couldnt they conceivably just troll the iberian player after theyre otherwise utterly defeated by sending their remaining ships out into waters where the iberians cant get them? i mean, unless its got some citizen-soldiers on it, there's no way that the ships by themselves would be able to win anyway

the iberians are the most defensive civ, right? couldnt they conceivably build walls and towers around their islands to protect themselves from invasion, as well as to fend off enemy ships? perhaps, as compensation if that isnt enough, their towers and so on could have extra attack versus ships and siege (iirc, the iberians are planned to have some kind of flaming weapons bonus; just toss that in as a researchable or even automatic extra for their buildings)

i think there should definitely be some units intended for use as hostile neutrals, though could be assigned to any player or even converted/captured. for example, there could perhaps be brigands that a scenario designer would place in a gathering site so that he will attack gatherers which come over there and try to steal their resources. another idea is that there could perhaps be slave units that could be captured for free use. this would work particularly well in random maps which are supposed to take place in regions where ancient cultures traditionally got slaves using neutrals could also be useful for scenario design. in Empire Earth and other games, there were sometimes events in the campaign in which you would happen across soldiers belonging to a neutral player (perhaps one that serves no other purpose than to provide control for those units) that would be converted to you as soon as you saw them. with a neutral gaia player, these units could be assigned to that instead of taking up another player slot in a scenario this could also work for a "sites of power" idea i had. basically, buildings which serve the exact same territorial functions as civic centers are included in scenarios and you need to capture them in order to control an area instead of being able to build a civic center. these buildings would include things like inns and ruined temples and would also be built over settlements or whatever else, and if they remain neutral it could influence where you can build (for instance, if there's a ruined temple with a large territorial radius, you could say that you cant build in the area immediately around it because the units are superstitious of it)

of course. because in the latin alphabet, Jehovah begins with an "I" XD

theoretically, wouldnt a formation or other group of soldiers only move as fast as their slowest member? thats how it was in AOM, for instance, so if a group of hoplites had a siege tower with them, they would be slowed down dramatically that being the case, maybe there could be a hotkey option or button going with all units that can go into formations called "Loose" which means that they would break formation and just move as fast as they can of their own accord. if any of you have ever played the first Empire Earth game, every unit in that game moves like that, which admittedly can be troublesome if your fewer but faster cavalry arrive to the battle sooner and they arent equipped as well as your slower infantry are to fight approaching soldiers. however, if youre just trying to get from Point A to Point B, then traveling loose would be better