wraitii

I don't actually think they must be trained individually. We could dynamically add units to a bataillon. But that doesn't change that they need to be treated as a single entity.

It seems you are trying to play Rome Total War.

On a quick note: Atlas currently recomputes the whole pathfinder grid (on top of water stuff) when we change the water height, and that's also extremely slow. 50% is the terrain stuff, 25% re-rasterizing entities, 25% recomputing the hierarchical pathfinder entirely. So we probably should try and speed that up a tad if we start having maps that change water height, and/or we should change atlas water height from a slider to a text-box. The slider compounds the problem.

Well obviously we support level 1. Level 2 is easy enough. Level 3 would need some new code. We'll probably get there eventually, but can't say anything on the when.

The most likely outcome, to me, right now, is that we'll ultimately support 3 things: -individual units -individual units walking more or less in formation (like in Age of Empires 2) -actual bataillons for warfare, treated as a single unit, but possibly composed of several underneath.

That's entirely dependent on what type of game you are playing/making. I do agree that it's most likely not a good idea for an AoE-like RTS though.

Ok just wanted to make sure I think your problem is that the height map is 16-bit and the usual image is 8-bit only.

@shieldwolf23: the water height is a setting in Atlas, so you can raise it or lower it.

I believe the solution was that water height is a separate setting in 0 A.D.?

Seems to me 10.8 might be a little too old to run the game, sadly :/

And why is that (in this case)? Because we do not have D270. Just saying.

Correct, CCs are available in phase 2. You'd build a CC to deny resources to your opponent and to build buildings. I think it's not too much of a nerf. It's a problem on RMs because some are just terribly balanced, so you end up without metal or stuff. It also sometimes forces you to place your CCs in a braindead way, not as strategical way. Ok on the worker elephant I guess, it might need a buff.

Hm, tbh I'd like to keep the scope of those threads somewhat limited to mostly SVN stuff so that the changes are easy to implement

Hm, I would say yes. For storehouses, I think we should consider it, but I'm honestly not sure how it would play out.

My personal preference would be for a new storehouse building, that you could build somewhat quickly and cheaply, and would allow collecting any of the 4 resources, perhaps with a special new component that would give you only 75% of resources you deposit in it or something (without tech?). I think it'd open new gameplay avenues and mitigate the issues with our current system. An alternative I would consider quite viable would be a technology, unlockable in perhaps town phase, that allows dropsites to be built in neutral territory.

Let's keep keeping on bringing back proposals for things. 0 A.D. has one issue with territories: you can't make dropsites outside of your borders. This isn't a problem on some maps, but it is on others where resources are just not good enough inside your starting area. It also makes metal-poor maps sort of really force you to place CCs near resources, and it kind of plays in into why our metal mines are generally so large. There's a few solutions, which you can vote on on the poll above and discuss below (I'll apply my "keep it on topic" policy, so may hide posts that go OT): Keep as is right now, I don't think this is a real problem Make dropsites buildable in neutral territory but not enemy territory Add a new "storehouse" building for resources (all of them?) where you can't research techs, and has limited HO and cost, but allows you to gather outside your frontiers. You'll still need dropsites for techs, possibly dropsites could be given a gather aura? I'm also accepting other proposals.

Yup, I believe I did that too Some screenshots to describe my annoyances with Random maps. Here's Ardennes RM: there are easy-to-dropsite forests, with lots of wood. The micro is actually relatively limited here, it's nice, you can focus on other stuff. Here's the Sahel skirmish map. Though Sahel has limited wood, the Skirmish map offers natural areas for a dropsite. Here's, in contrast, the Sahel RM. It has no such area. Other examples or terrible RM generation: Hyrcanian shore is not supposed to have limited wood, but there are no good dropsite zones in this area: Finally Persian Highlands, which almost-gets-it-right-but-not-quite: IMO most RMs should be reworked so that trees are clumped a little more. It wouldn't really hurt aesthetics if done carefully, and it would increase playability a lot. Note that this problem is compounded by the need to have CCs for territory, since those are horribly slow and costly so they need to be worth it.

That would be fixed by my unit motion rewrite which reintroduces a viable way for units to walk together at the same speed.

Likewise on auras. Hero auras are fine, they make some kind of sense (you see the hero, you're motivated). Women auras though… Kinda hard to wrap my head around. Not a big fan. Personally, I think we should reset all unit speeds to 8/9 for foot units and 13 for cavalry or something along those lines. The splits between archer, skirms, pikemen, swordsmen and spearmen don't make a ton of sense.

I think I added the gatherer count limit back then, and I'm fairly sure I picked 8 at the time because about 8 units fit around a tree. Re your concerns: yes, I don't want to necessarily change the overall amount of wood, but on the "natural aesthetic" <---> "gameplay" slider, I think most of our maps are too far on the left. In general, even on sparse maps, I would suggest grouping trees more. Re 3 I meant "not too randomly", basically.

change our RMs to generate better forests and fewer stragglers across the board reduce the max number of workers per tree from 8 to 3/4 make sure Rms place wood in sane way (hard to do though) bump wood on all trees a little bit, even if that means having fewer per forests (not incompatible with the above) if possible, increase carrying capacity for wood only (might not be necessary if all of the above implemented).

I don't think this should be tied to batch sizes, tbh, because units automatically go to the nearest resources anyway. I would actually rather set batch size to 3, because it's easier to batch by 3 than 5, since that takes less resources, and you can always double-batch to get a batch of 6, which is close enough to 5 (or 7) imo. But that's another discussion. I've added a poll.

Again: this is not about reducing the number of workers necessary for an eco. The OP would induce almost no changes to the number of gatherers required. If you want to discuss reducing the number of gatherers for an economy, please find another thread and if there are none feel free to start one. @wowgetoffyourcellphone: mh. I see your point, but I also don't like that batch size is 5 (I've personally reduced it to 3 which I find far more manageable). Then again 4 or 5 isn't a huge difference. The grove of trees idea is interesting, but I don't think we necessarily need to go there.

There's generally little reason for spearmen to be slower than skirmishers and/or archers.

I hid a few posts that were starting to drift off-topic. @Imarok @DarcReaver Let's keep this on feedback towards the OP, feel free to open another thread.