Design: Civillization Name

[Wijitmaker]

and would be a more interesting mechanic than having many visually similar civilizations available to choose from

Yep, you got the idea Now we just have to convince everyone else to put it back the way it was before

[sanderd17]

There's a lot of artwork that would go to waste when joining the gaul and brit civs again. There are village-phase buildings like houses and barracks made specifically for one of those two. So if they shouldn't be available as a pre-game choice, we'd miss that artwork.

When I joined, the situation was actually backwards. A scenario could use the celt or hele civ, but it couldn't be selected for random maps. Of course, that created problems because the celt and hele civs were never properly tested, and were sometimes released with bugs. It's because of those bugs, and the exceptions they always needed in the code, that the generic civs were removed.

[Wijitmaker]

I don't think that artwork is a gigantic concern, it is always changing and evolving. It could always be used in the scenario editor, and could be changed on civ selection in game. I think the depth of strategy it would return to the game would be worth the trade off. With fewer factions, this enables greater diversity. The more factions you have, they all start to blend together in similarities - with only subtle differences. Balancing a dozen plus factions is also challenging. Red Alert had 2 factions. Star-craft had 3. The original 6 civs were chosen because they had some distinct historical differences that gave players a unique experience when they played. Mythos changed that after I left. He really liked the Greeks and was influenced by his own desires to recreate his dream game "Age of the Aegean". So, when he took over the game design of 0 A.D. some of the original vision was lost.

When I say balance, what I mean is that you don't want the outcome of the game decided by a players faction selection before the game even begins. Every faction should give players an opportunity to win if played with a strategy that compliments the faction.

I'm not saying that what 0 A.D. is doing today is necessarily bad. I'm just saying that it is different than what was intended and (in my opinion) removes elements of strategy and makes the game harder to balance.

(An extreme version of what I'm suggesting is that you start the game without a civ selection - just a generic civilization. Everyone starts the same. The civ is then selected in play after you have had a chance to observe the behaviors of your opponent and the map.)

[RoekeloosNL]

I don't think that artwork is a gigantic concern, it is always changing and evolving. It could always be used in the scenario editor, and could be changed on civ selection in game. I think the depth of strategy it would return to the game would be worth the trade off. With fewer factions, this enables greater diversity. The more factions you have, they all start to blend together in similarities - with only subtle differences. Balancing a dozen plus factions is also challenging. Red Alert had 2 factions. Star-craft had 3. The original 6 civs were chosen because they had some distinct historical differences that gave players a unique experience when they played. Mythos changed that after I left. He really liked the Greeks and was influenced by his own desires to recreate his dream game "Age of the Aegean". So, when he took over the game design of 0 A.D. some of the original vision was lost.

Yes the game is evolving and since this is Alpha who says all artwork is final when full release hits, And yes too many factions is overkill and not needed but the theory of "fewer factions enables greater diveristy" i dont get... Yes you have some sub-factions from the same race but that don't mean's its the same. And when you want to play a barbarian or hele match only atleast you have some different choices. geting the right balance for factions is always challenging. And different factions like: Barbs/Hele/Romans.....sure will give the player unique playing style,s but that can also be for sub-factions, Maybe they speak the same language but that don't means they can't be unique and different from the other factions (When designed correct) you can have alot to be different and add different strategy's to the game.

And when some else takes over then there will be changes most of the time then, And i like the changes of sub-factions for some nations then and when done right with enough to distinct historical from another.

When I say balance, what I mean is that you don't want the outcome of the game decided by a players faction selection before the game even begins. Every faction should give players an opportunity to win if played with a strategy that compliments the faction.

Agreed about balance and about every faction sub-faction sould have different playstyles and use of strategy

I'm not saying that what 0 A.D. is doing today is necessarily bad. I'm just saying that it is different than what was intended and (in my opinion) removes elements of strategy and makes the game harder to balance.

Well like is said when someone else takes over there will be changes for good or worse depends how you look at it. But remove elements of strategy? please explain. And maybe a few more factions requires more balance but well worth it.

(An extreme version of what I'm suggesting is that you start the game without a civ selection - just a generic civilization. Everyone starts the same. The civ is then selected in play after you have had a chance to observe the behaviors of your opponent and the map.)

????

Edited May 5, 2015 by RoekeloosNL

[Zeta1127]

I was interested in seeing an assignment system actually make it into the final version of a strategy game. Command & Conquer: Generals originally intended to do that, only to scrap it during development, and when Zero Hour finally added sub-factions in the form of unique Generals, they just ended up being separate factions in addition to the default factions. Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion also originally intended to make the Loyalists and Rebels sub-factions for each of the three races an assignment instead of separate factions, but they ultimately made them separate factions and removed the default factions. The only example of an assignment system I have ever seen implemented into the final version of a strategy game was the choice of Minor Gods at the advancement to subsequent ages in Age of Mythology.

The one advantage of the separate civilizations with the same culture approach is the more complete representation of the unique qualities of each civilization. Even with that, it has still been a tremendous challenge to clearly represent the unique qualities of the Britons and the Gauls, at least in comparison between the Hellenes. Though the choice of the War Dogs or the Naked Fanatics, in addition to different champions and heroes, with the Celts in general having the Rotary Mill seems to be fairly effective. I do think it was a disservice to the Athenians and the Spartans to lump them together under the city-states moniker under the old plan, especially if the Thebans can eventually end up rounding out the major city-states.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Zeta1127

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

To recombine civs to generic civs would lose distinction of the civs you lose. The Athenians and Spartans are very different and would lose that difference with recombine to generic Hellenes. You would also lose access to awesome civ like Seleucid, ptolemaic egyptians, and Maurya Indians. "Original" six civ design was flawed and there is no reason why the civs in game now cannot have "choices" when upgrading phase. That aspect not lost, just not implemented. There are many forms these choices can be made or had. For instance it was mistake to remove technology pairs, a mistake I fix in my mod. These choices could be made bigger when phasing up, like in Age of Mythology. There is no shortage of good (and bad) idea, only shortage of will.

Edited May 6, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Andrettin]

To recombine civs to generic civs would lose distinction of the civs you lose. The Athenians and Spartans are very different and would lose that difference with recombine to generic Hellenes. You would also lose access to awesome civ like Seleucid, ptolemaic egyptians, and Maurya Indians. "Original" six civ design was flawed and there is no reason why the civs in game now cannot have "choices" when upgrading phase. That aspect not lost, just not implemented. There are many forms these choices can be made or had. For instance it was mistake to remove technology pairs, a mistake I fix in my mod. These choices could be made bigger when phasing up, like in Age of Mythology. There is no shortage of good (and bad) idea, only shortage of will.

I think technology pairs are a great idea, but not with the technologies it had been implemented with. I think it would work much better for upgrades representing state policy, such as Serfdom<->Free Workers, or even a technology trio of Monarchy<->Aristocracy<->Democracy.

I don't think recombining the civs in the way he had mentioned would make any distinction be lost, since the subfactions wouldn't be removed, they would just be accessible through an in-game choice rather than being chosen before the match starts.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I don't think recombining the civs in the way he had mentioned would make any distinction be lost, since the subfactions wouldn't be removed, they would just be accessible through an in-game choice rather than being chosen before the match starts.

Distinction are lost in art, aesthetic, and different starting builds and strategies. With seperate civ chance of greater variety of strategy from the very beginning of the match. Making choices when phasing up can still be implemented and give the same amount of choice that original 6-civ plan had, just no one have propose cogent system yet. Wijimaker should try to propose a phase choice system that combine with current direction instead of aggitate for old plan.

or even a technology trio of Monarchy<->Aristocracy<->Democracy

Exactly the kind of choices that can still be implement.

BTW, s0600204, your progress look awesome! I tried it (with some of my meddling ).

It will be a delight to see Han in the Asia category and Kushites in Africa category.

Edited May 6, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[auron2401]

On the topic of paired techs, i think they should be kept for super-techs (or policies) which provide HUGE Bonuses, instead of carrying more or gathering faster, that's just silly. :/

Also, does that menu scale downwards? I have a... rather small monitor (vive le no money)

Edited May 6, 2015 by auron2401

[Lion.Kanzen]

These choices could be made bigger when phasing up, like in Age of Mythology. There is no shortage of good (and bad) idea, only shortage of will.

I need the same feature for Aristeia, and we aren't the only who need it. Millenium and the main game could be need it.

For example I have two Egyptian faction in a single one. Thebans and Ramisides ( I have a pair of chain for research a 3rd phase)

This can be useful to have two faction in a one like, Eastern Roman Empire and Wester Roman Empire, only some structures and units changes between both

[s0600204]

Very nice!

BTW, s0600204, your progress look awesome! I tried it (with some of my meddling ).

Thanks you, both of you. I still have a way to go, though.

It will be a delight to see Han in the Asia category and Kushites in Africa category.

niektb has recently relocated the han.json civ file to its A19 location, so soon... soon...

If some of the civs are not in the group they should be, or you feel a particular group is missing, then if you could please list them in this issue on GitHub. It would just give me a easily referrable point of reference for this particular problem. That goes for anyone. Thanks.

Also, does that menu scale downwards? I have a... rather small monitor (vive le no money)

The interface size is currently fixed at 976x720, which will fit on a 1024x768 screen, which is the suggested minimumum resolution for 0AD. I don't plan on changing those dimensions any time soon.

It would be nice (and I'm mainly thinking of my structree here) if it was possible to define a minimum and maximum size for UI elements, so we could scale things, but I suppose that would require something of a rewrite of the GUI engine/parser/thing.

[Zeta1127]

Indeed, I agree that the economy techs shouldn't have been paired techs, but I still don't really understand why the temple tech pairs had to be separated and the Carthaginian mercenary tech pairs had to be removed.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Hi s0600204!

Is possible to add scrollbar to civ selection screen? Also, there is error when making select:

ERROR: JavaScript error: gui/civselect/civselect.js line 70 TypeError: grpObj is undefined draw_grouped@gui/civselect/civselect.js:70:7 chooseGrouping@gui/civselect/civselect.js:54:3 __eventhandler61 (selectionchange)@groupSelection selectionchange:0:1

ERROR: The specified callback function setCiv does not exist in the page page_gamesetup.xml

[s0600204]

Hi wgoyc!

Is possible to add scrollbar to civ selection screen?

Only when someone implements a scrollbar for scrolling objects within other objects. Which requires c++ modification, which is currently beyond my abilities.

Also, there is error when making select:

ERROR: JavaScript error: gui/civselect/civselect.js line 70 TypeError: grpObj is undefined draw_grouped@gui/civselect/civselect.js:70:7 chooseGrouping@gui/civselect/civselect.js:54:3 __eventhandler61 (selectionchange)@groupSelection selectionchange:0:1

Not too sure what's causing that as that variable isn't used on that line, but I've pushed a newer version based on recent SVN changes to my repo, try that.

ERROR: The specified callback function setCiv does not exist in the page page_gamesetup.xml

I'm guessing you've modified your local copy of gui/gamesetup/gamesetup.js? Then find and copy the setCiv() function found in my repo's gamesetup/gamesetup.js (line 585) into your modifications.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

gamesetup.js has changed in the last 2 months since you update your gamesetup.js, maybe that's the problem with last one?

I pasted

function setCiv(args)

{

var obj = Engine.GetGUIObjectByName("playerCiv["+args.player+"]");

obj.selected = obj.list_data.indexOf(args.civ);

}

Into my gamesetup.js and it fixes setCiv problem.

civselect.js problem persist

Edited June 28, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[s0600204]

I'm sorry wgoyc, but I cannot reproduce the error.

Like I said earlier, the variable mentioned in the error message is not used on that line. In fact none of the line numbers for civselect.js mentioned in the error match the actual location of the code they most likely refer to.

Make sure your local copy of the mod is up-to-date. Or if you've copied the file to your own mod for some reason, please check you've copied it properly and in its entirety. Alternatively if you've modified it locally, then... well.