All Activity

I personally think that this particular idea is a bad one, as it means that walls (already kind of useless) become even more so, as a single siege tower can ungarrison 20 units over enemy walls. A better idea might be the suggestion earlier in that issue, to add a capture attack to enemy walls by the tower.

see: Issue #2038 ([PATCH] Let units from siege tower ungarrison over walls) Design Input is needed on above-mentioned Issue over there at Gitea. A patch from 13 years ago exists, but rebasing might be complicated. @Itms set the Milestone to Release 29, so maybe some folks are ready for some task force work. @ShadowOfHassen, @Atrik

Ask an administrator or a moderator via Direct Message.

The Discoveries That Proved Historians Wrong About Rome

Hi, Following up on this — I hadn't received a response from the translation leads I reached out to, so as suggested, I'm reaching back out here to see if we can find a solution. Thanks!

You are right. Roman "August 2" (a.d. IV Non. Sex.) wasn't August 2 in actual solar time because the pre-Julian Republican calendar was infamously uncalibrated at the time. The pontiffs had been delaying their civil dates by roughly six to eight weeks in order to avoid intercalary months. The war actually occurred in mid-June or early July 216 BC according to astronomical study that matched the equinoxes and the time of Apulia's grain harvest. The leap-year problem under Augustus is the only small error in your remark; it occurred much later and had no bearing on 216 BC.

My unsolicited two cents on the date (anniversary) of August 2, 216 BC. The Gregorian calendar (current) has been in effect since 1582, but not all Western countries adopted it that year. The Julian calendar was in effect from 45 BCE, but initially the priests incorrectly calculated the leap year (every three years, not every four). This error was not noticed until the reign of Augustus Octavian (probably 5 CE). So, this is where you need to be careful. The date August 2, 216 BC is therefore a proleptic date for both calendars. Of course, before Caesar's reform, there was the Roman calendar. The problem is that it was terribly confusing. Partly because of the structure of this calendar (the unusual length of the year) and partly because of the changes being introduced. Then there is politics – the priests interference to lengthen or shorten the year – which influenced the election of two consuls. In summary. If a Roman chronicler wrote the date: August 2, 216 BC, we don't actually know when it was. In the solar calendar, "when?" is interpreted in relation to the vernal equinox (today is March 20). If a historian were to write that the spring equinox occurred on (and then provided the date) and that the battle took place on August 2, 216 BC, we could refer to that. And so the disputes between historians and astronomers continue. Researchers check to see if a chronicler might have mentioned what phase the Moon was in at the time. They try to find other chroniclers who recorded that moment in their calendars. In short: The anniversary of this battle cannot be celebrated today, in the year 2026, on August 2. What should be done? Establish a Julian Day (JD) for this battle. Next, determine the Julian Day (JD) for the vernal equinox and try to match it to today's date. Best regards. Postscript Some historians believe it should be assumed that this occurred in June, not August.

I think there is already a random map generator, it's the random maps category I think there is already a macedonian campaign someone made floating out there. I know @Vantha has been getting all the coding stuff in place for a new tutorial that would be exactly this except I think it'll have four scenarios. I think all the features you requested @lilypoppy are in the works, but if you wanted to get started on your own campaign it wouldn't be too difficult to start, write out your story, start making the maps. When the rest of the features get added there may be some light scripting to do but then it'll be ready!

Would a random map generator be possible? Or a mod maker?

The battle of Cannae is 2241 years old! The anniversary passed three days ago on August 2, 2026. To mark the occasion, I wanted to share an excellent recent documentary on the battle by the channel Invicta, featuring the brilliant Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy as a guest.

There is also https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/issues/8964

Something like this is planned iirc, but the Atlas is built off of some very hardcoded software, and needs a complete redesign in order to add new features. Both things are in the works though! https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7803 Objectives and events should be in the next release https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/7785/files, dialogues as well https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8614, and as for the others, those are just trigger scripts (like your first point). This is technically planned, though it probably won't be in the game until R30. However, if more players push for it, then maybe it can be in R29, that's up to the WFG team (of which I am not yet a member). You're 100% right about these, and as you can see, they should be in the game soon-ish. Until then, I hope to see you around the Forums more often, and maybe even creating a few scenarios (triggers really aren't hard once you learn how they work).

Hello, since I haven't been using this account in quite a long time and don't want my personal information to be out there, I would like to know how I can permanently delete this account

Ah. I'd say "eff AI altogether" but I don't know if it was discussed for code explicitly.

I think OP used AI to write a job posting to hire a free intern to use Cursor (an AI coding agent) to fix bugs. DId we just talk about generative AI for art, writing, and music or did we talk about it for coding too?

I think lowering the attack of damaged units is possibly more worthwhile. Still allows retreating, but might smooth the snowbally Lanchester effect. Needs thorough testing, and possibly comparisons with other existing games.

I believe there's a consensus to not include AI generated content in vanilla; that's different from what OP did. (I couldn't sensibly summarize what OP did here, though.)

Just wow.

I believe 0 A.D. has enormous potential – not just as a game, but as a platform for storytelling and community-created content. As someone who has created many scenarios in Age of Empires II, I see a key opportunity for 0 A.D.: Make the power of the engine easier to use. Right now, creating interesting scenarios often requires programming knowledge. This excludes a huge part of the potential creator community. My suggestion in 3 points: 1. Unify Triggers and Scripts A visual trigger system for beginners using simple Conditions → Actions. JavaScript remains available for advanced users. The two should become different levels of the same system rather than feeling like separate tools. 2. Upgrade Atlas Make Atlas a true scenario creation environment – with objectives, events, dialogues, reinforcements, ambushes, and dynamic gameplay. The creator should be able to focus on story and gameplay, not constantly think about the code required to make an idea work. 3. A Small Official Campaign – 3 Scenarios It doesn't need to be a huge campaign. Three well-designed scenarios could be enough to demonstrate what 0 A.D. can do. But there is an even bigger opportunity: Make the campaign editable and use it as documentation. Players could open the scenarios in Atlas, study how they work, modify them, experiment, and learn by doing. The official campaign would become more than content. It would become a living tutorial for scenario creation. The Vision Play → Discover → Learn → Create → Share → Contribute A player finishes an official scenario. They think: "I want to make something like this." They open Atlas. They experiment. They create their own scenario. They share it with the community. And eventually, that player may become a contributor. Why This Matters to Me I have experience with Age of Empires II scenario design, and I would genuinely love to contribute to 0 A.D. However, due to health limitations, I can't code or work on complex systems for long periods. That's exactly why I care about this problem. I know how technical complexity can prevent a great idea from becoming a playable experience. My suggestion comes from both sides – as a player, and as someone who wants to create. The Opportunity Much of the foundation is already there. The potential is already there. The community is already there. The opportunity is to make that potential easier for everyone to use. 0 A.D. doesn't necessarily need to become more complicated. It needs to make its existing power more accessible. Give players the tools to become creators.

didn't we have some kind of statement against using AI? Do we have an AI stance? We have a discussion on this, I don't know if we had anything conclusive

My first thought was "No.", and the discussion didn't convince me otherwise. You know what else would be more realistic? Latrines, STDs, sore feet (inf) & sore butts (cav).

I really do not suggest applying this idea. Modifying unit speed according to their health just implements a huge amount of gameplay inconsistency. It is important that units respond to commands and behave as expected. I suppose there could be niche scenarios in mods where the ability to do this could be useful, or possibly for new unique units, but you have to ask yourself what benefit to gameplay this will realistically bring. To me, the idea is just not well motivated, it seems like throwing in some inconsistency for no reason at all. On the realism argument, I have said this before, but making specific aspects so realistic while leaving other aspects of the game very unrealistic sends mixed signals about what kind of game this is. I think we would be better off just changing those units' base stats to begin with.

Unpaid cursor dev, this seems a very disrespectful title. better call them volunteer cursor devs.

In general, I have a bad feeling about this feature if applied globally. This depreciates formations even more (not that I'm a fan of it) as all will be as slow as the slowest unit. At first thought I could see this for fanatics or camp cav. Or with a general speed floor of the speed of infantry. So infantry won't be affected at all. But on second thought, if you think about the micro battle with a few cavalry at the start, this depreciates retreating. Since when you retreat, you know the few wounded will fall behind and fall prey of the remaining army. I think this will be the biggest effect. That on all spots loose single soldiers can get taken out easy. I also don't think more incentives for healers should be implemented. The ranking and cost saving is already incentive enough. They are a complementary unit for when the game play allows it. But not a necessity.

I’m seeing this in a few ways. For the sake of linguistics, I’m just going to presume that this is going implemented. Adding this will make retreating much more costly, meaning that faster units will become even more valuable (because they can retreat faster). Healers will be much more useful, rather than a side unit thats only useful in massive numbers. If this is applied to hunting, it will kind of make hunting overly easy (I have problems with the hunting system in general, but thats another topic) Some units should be immune, such as heroes, siege machines, some champions (Naked Fanatics would make sense lol) This will 100% increase snowballing further, since the more injured an army becomes, the less effective they are at combat, which makes them get injured faster, etc. I don’t think this should effect attack speed; if the idea is to show that wounded units can’t walk as fast because of they’re injuries, then how can they swing a sword at all; also, on the balance side, this just further increases snowballing, which is a major problem. Finally, just a simple request if this is actually implemented: PLEASE make this an optional component rather than a required one, modding is hard enough without going through hundreds of template files to add this to them.