All Activity

Let me describe it to see if I understood it correctly: The Bow of this archer has 7.2 of base Damage + 1.1 Damage from the first Ranged Attack damage (15%). I asume if you research the second Pierce damage, the % bonus will be higher It also has a base Pierce Resistance of 1 + 2 from two Pierce Resistance upgrades researched. EDIT: also the 6.6 we see in the sword next to the portrait is the real DPS of the Bow, as it has an interval of 1.25 second. That's a boonGUI legacy feature

Knowing next to nothing about coding I'd guess as per usual: copy & paste. Find how it's done now, copy it to the old source and build. I'd imagine building that old source could be quite a pain, especially if you'd have to implement that whole function into the engine.

Thanks @guerringuerrin. The previous iteration wasn't satisfactory because it didn't help that much to estimate upgrade levels. I think I much more prefer it now and I think it's easy to read. (on screenshots you don't see the cursors but each tooltip correspond to the stat you hover ofc)

Here is the market for the same:

Here is me stacking res preparing for cav champs

I do! its not my fault you dont! I do lmao

I've installed Alpha 9 in order to better understand the game's code and core gameplay loop from a simpler perspective. I realize that this version has many issues, one of the most glaring ones being able to train more than one hero at a time. And yes, having no phases or technologies doesn't bother me. How can I limit the amount of trainable heroes to only one?

You just lost all your wood. will you wait for someone in enemy team to look at that and take all your 3k wood? or will you take back your wood first then speak? and in anyway i do remember stalling a few seconds before doing that first trade, realising my mistake

Just economy wise i dont see what big advantage Persians have over Mauryans just to give an example. I imagine that players who play Persians or Gauls regularily try to boom and get to champs strategy wise, while Kush players see no advantage in lategame and go rush instead. In my opinion ptol has their power spike in early game till early p3. @wowgetoffyourcellphone I agree with boosting Kush though, at a similiar skill level Kush player loses about 80% vs non archer civs according to my subjective perception that i am too lazy to support with evidence.

I don't think we should whatev it but look for a better name. I'm also leaning towards solution 3, if there's consensus that it is justifiable to keep them grouped together. I don't know if there are enough sources to make an interesting purely Iberian faction and just going by gut-feeling I doubt it for the other groups.

Give Iberians "embassy" like structures, that will train Lusitanian and Celtiberian units. A good reason to make them more unique.

This thread has been initiated to revisit the discussion concerning the historical accuracy of the Iberian civilization as depicted in the game. The aim is to consolidate relevant information, provide a comprehensive overview of the issue and its origins, and facilitate constructive dialogue focused on identifying potential solutions. At present, the primary concern regarding the Iberian civilization in 0 A.D. (A27 at the time of writing) is that it represents a composite of various groups from the Iberian Peninsula, encompassing populations with distinct languages and distinct historical backgrounds. This issue emerged early in the development of 0 A.D., largely because the Iberians were favoured by one of the project's key early contributors: https://play0ad.com/interview-of-tonto_real/ In this interview, there appears to be notable confusion between Celtiberians and Iberians, which may have been intentional. Geography and languages Unravel the origin of foreign assets The Iberian civ in 0 A.D. has three heroes: Caros is a Celtiberian chieftain leading the coalition during the second war, Viriato is Viriathus, a famous Lusitanian war leader who resisted Roman hegemony and finally Indibil is a chieftain of the Ilergetes, an Iberian people from the North-Eastern part of the peninsula. Therefore, only one of the three heroes is properly Iberian. The regular units are also making direct reference to other people with the skirmisher called “Lusitano Ezpatari” (which means Lusitanian swordsman but whatever), “Kantabriarko Zaldun” (Cantabrian cavalryman), the priestess of Ataekina/Ataegina (Ataegina was a goddess worshiped in the western part of the peninsula, probably a Lusitanian cult originally). There is also the “Leial Ezpatari” (loyal swordsman) which is a direct reference to the “devotio” reported by Romans to describe the vow of Celtiberian warriors to their patron/chieftain. There is also the issue that the chainmail body armor is used extensively by the units, while there is no evidence that the Iberians used it. It seems to have been adopted much later by a few Celtiberian and Lusitanian warriors, simply because those peoples have been subjugated after the Iberians. Both the wonder and the temple are based on the sanctuary of Cancho Roano, related to the Tartessian culture and abandoned around the 5th century BC. So, it is not purely Iberian, it depends on the interpretation of the Tartessian culture. It is a minor issue but I think it was important to mention it. For me, the problem with the current representation is that it is misleading. Players do not understand the differences between the various peoples mentioned, particularly the Lusitanians and the Cantabrians. Portraying them as an original component of the Iberians is awkward. Especially since it is historically confusing because the Lusitanians and Cantabrians appear quite late in the conflicts with Rome. Many wars between the Iberians and the Carthaginians and Romans never involved the Lusitanians or the Cantabrians. What are the possible solutions? 1. Clean up all foreign elements from the civilization and make it a purely Iberian civilization. This simply means removing and replacing assets. 2. Split the civilization into two or three. In particular, create a Lusitanian civilization and a Celtiberian civilization. This means removing and replacing assets for the Iberians. Then create new assets to make one or two other civilizations. 3. Keep the foreign elements within the Iberian civilization but separate them by having them appear in specific buildings, specific technologies, etc. to show that they belong to another culture neighboring the Iberians. My opinion Solution 3, keeping the foreign element but separating them and distinguishing them for the Iberian core, is the most compatible with the original vision of tonto_real (aka Ken Wood). It would also bring more diversity in the Iberian civ. We can for example add specific Lusitanian buildings to integrate them properly as allies, to distinguish them from the core roster. The effort is moderate.

Yes, it's just a small mistake of using a wrong variable for price calculations to make it alike a constant product market maker. Well... More or less since there is also the orders themselves that you get for the price of the first resource bought (if you buy 500 food, you get the whole 500 food for the price of the first food unit), however this will always be smaller then the base barter malus. So really we just need to fix what I'm linking to, in the above.

No. The market exploit is a deal-breaker and grounds for ending the game. The only reason I stayed was out of respect for the rest of the other players. This behavior needs to be addressed immediately. The person responsible should see a direct link between their actions and the consequences. There's nothing funny about this exploit. It just generates resources. For it to happen randomly is extreme rare but additional to that he was straight booming aiming for a market directly after reaching phase 2. Directly when the market was finished this "accident" happened. There's only one mistake: jagsus started traded with 500 food for wood instead of 100 food but corrected it shortly after and ended up with profit. No player aiming for champ cav stores thousand of res at minute 10 so he can spend it on champs later. You can watch the replay. Don't play in to his delusions. I don't plan to play with him in the near future if this is not addressed properly by him. One problem is the cheating, the other is the behavior afterwards. 2025-07-26_0002_jagsusindia.zip

I don't think it necessarily says anything. It's interesting, sure. But there is noise here that limits it's usefulness. It's not the full picture, but still shows something. Kush could use a buff (always careful with overcompensation) which can be also seen in the first plot of the general popularity. Ptol is really puzzling. In @MarcusAureliu#s crossword he describes them as strong economic civ. One thing in team boni of gaul and ptol is the ptol support gaul (food trickle) while gaul gives nothing back (cheap skirms, not available). Also it could be that they produce fewer but also need fewer to achieve the same, altering the score. Here I limited to only count the top 3 scores of a individual player to counter the bias of good players.

You dont need any metal if you arent exploiting for metal. I am also willing to believe that Jagsus actually bartered in the wrong direction on mistake, I made that error multiple times myself. @ffm2 I understand that such moments can be heated ingame, but if what Jagsus says about what you said ingame is true, please try to be a bit "nicer". Same goes for @Arup of course. Its "just" a game, so long as there is a possibility that Jagsus made a mistake, you are all still on the "same side", trying to have fun playing this great game together. Also @Arup , maybe just dont use the bartering system at all as long as it remains broken? The exploit makes it obvious, but even normal bartering is probably unfair is some cases.

may I suggest that this problem is patched by using a proper market maker algorithm in the game instead of one that's improvised? constant product is one that immediately jumps to my mind, that is actually applied in solutions with real money involved.

Sure you were. When you bartered 500 wood for 1352 food, did you stop to think how this might be suspicious? No, you kept bartering 500 wood for obviously large amounts of food. So, I call BS.

If the art guy says it isn't going to happen, it isn't going to happen. Feel free to close the "bug report".

I use the thumb buttons on my mouse.

I rotate for aligning as well, rotating the camera just needs E ans Q for right and left respectively, as for rotating the storehouse we already know all you gotta do is hover your mouse around while having the building selected

I was about to report it myself in that game that got a free turnover, but then ffm started spamming "gg cheats" "gg bye" "resigning" so I lost my cool. then they paused for 5 mins ruining my build. truly a great strategy, I must add. To everyone other than ffm, I apologise if you thought this was cheating, it isn't, I'm always a texter you'll see me text my intentions always before going for smth weird or new.

1.Consider this: It was a champ cav game, I needed food, not wood, but I traded for wood instead of for food; so I reversed my dealings. is that cheating? 2. this is a pretty much a net loss. 2800 food+2500 wood (5300 resource total) for 4500 food is a net loss, it's barely a profit for 5900 total resource. on what earth is that cheating? 3. you need atleast 3.5k metal to run the exploit I think, and I literally started mining metal. 4. I already knew there are specs watching, do you really think I'm that dumb to actually exploit?

I don't think it necessarily says anything. It's interesting, sure. But there is noise here that limits it's usefulness. Notably, this doesn't account for differences in player skill for each civ. You would need to control for player differences to make real conclusions. It also obviously lacks any data for military strength. For example, I personally find ptol to be one of the stronger civs. But, in my perception, it isn't chosen by highly skilled players that often while it is frequently chosen by lesser skilled players. Many players using ptol also build settlements before min 13, which naturally slows down their eco boom, but may give them a strategic advantage that isn’t captured in the statistics I would also consider iber to be a decent to good civ. But whenever it is chosen it automatically boosts other civs too, especially gauls, because of it's team skirm bonus. So it's relative value is depressed.

Surely the last 3 charts illustrate that it's Kush who needs a boost, nay?