All Activity

You already have that option, and it's on by default when you install the game.

It is a major feature, and there are posts discussing it from A23 era, so it should have been implemented, or at least been a mod, by now.

As I said before, formations should just be turned into battalions, with a bit of Warzone 2100 unit grouping added.

I'm not the one who proposed adding battalions*, but the benefits from my point of view are: - streamlining formations, allowing us to tie formations to battalions, - implementation of battalion-specific bonuses for units that can form a battalion, - de-coupling gatherers from front-line units. In the long run, this will enable us to do all kinds of "battalion-specific" combat roles, allowing players to choose between stronger army or stronger economy. The units that are gathering resources obviously won't belong to any battalion, and they will, for example, need to drop-off resources in order to form battalions. Furthermore, individual units will be weaker than units in a battalion, - more opportunities for strategic positioning, decisions on when to attack and with what, etc. - implementation of a "shared experience pool" between units in a battalion. All units in a battalion will share the combat experience, and when an unit from a battalion dies, its experience is shared between the surviving soldiers. Cons would be the massive changes to the game's meta, and the cost of implementing all this.

@Classic-Burger I can explain why a sheet with a bunch of ideas doesn’t translate to an equivalent bunch of gameplay changes/features. gameplay changes should fit into the scope and style of 0ad, be compatible with existing features, not introduce unnecessary complication, while enriching gameplay. For example, users may suggest realism features, like capturing wild horses to give the player a 1-time discount on a cavalryman. However, that would conflict with other features, like siege speed, hero HP, as 0ad is not an exhaustive simulation. if every idea we came across was implemented as is, 0ad would be quite a mess, wouldn’t it? One other thing is that these changes require people’s work to get them over the finish line. So arguments for a new feature should either convince a dev to take up the task, or the arguer should try it themselves. And that means you may need to modify or walk back the original idea to get more people in agreement.

What is the point of formations? Or more precisely, what are the motivations behind this wish? It seems to me that the motivations are mostly cosmetic. To give a total war vibe.

Pathfinder and units walking on objects. It's not easy.

@wowgetoffyourcellphoneN Within gameplay, we need a conceptual game department that decides to improve gameplay, not just balance. People who contribute ideas and people dedicated to programming improvements, gameplay improvements and that the way to get new features. Many ideas never progress beyond a sheet of paper with ideas.

Los incas del siglo III d.C., al igual que varias ideas del mod, me hicieron cuestionar ciertas cosas jajaja

It would need to be balanced a little, but not too much. Rise battalion, Rise Cohort, Rise Horde etc...

What? One battalion of champions would destroy several battalions of CS. Which is why battalions would need to be a togglable feature, similar to grouping in AoE1. Just in a proper formation. You'd select a group of units that is eligible to form a battalion and you'd click on a "Form Battalion" button (or use a hotkey). Now, any time you select one of the units in a battalion, you will select an entire battalion. Similarly, with a battalion selected, you would click on a "Disband Battalion" button to un-group the units. It's simple in theory, but the implementation will be more complex (as will be adding any bonuses to units in a battalion).

Sorry, I was in a hurry. I mean that, at the moment, a champion unit can fight off a few citizen soldiers, and look cool. But a battalion of champions fighting several battalions of units looks less cool, and makes champs seem less important and special. Hyrule Conquest units are only cannon fodder because of the battalion system, as you would see if you were to compare HC to my remake of it (which is using the same damage and health values most of the time). Battalions also mean that civs should start with a battalion, so then why is there only in building to start… and it would mean removal of Citizen Soldiers, or wasting your troops, as you would have to order an entire battalion to gather resources or build a house.

Okay, but that was H:C, not 0 a.d. 0 a.d doesn't have cannon fodder units. H:C did. And your criticism sounds nonsensical. A battalion of Champions would look "overwhelmed" by armies of battalions? What does this even mean? How is this a coherent criticism? I mean, yeah...

Yeah, I’m surprised this feature hasn’t been implemented into 0 A.D. yet. At the moment bridges are just actors that are placed on land to look like they are bridges, the 0 A.D. team should try to get bridges working for A28.

NNNNOOOO BBBBAAAATTTTAAAALLLLIIIIOOOONNNNSSSS!!!! Believe me, I have seen how battalions ruin 0 A.D. @Exodarion added them for Hyrule Conquest, and they ruined it. They made weaker units feel like cannon fodder that's only purpose is to march to their doom, and stronger units feel less unique, as having a group of Champion units (which, in HC, are often monsters or demons) looks like they are overwhelmed by armies of battalions. I think Battalions could only work in vanilla 0 A.D. if they simply are an updated version of Formations (which are, in a way, just Battalions).

tenemos espias en el foro, cuidado xdxd

Yada, yada, yada: APX, Archäologischer Park Xanten, Colonia Ulpia Traiana https://apx.lvr.de/en/index.html

¡Recuerdo esa idea! ¡Recursos hídricos, pozos y acueductos!

Thank you! cloning the full version worked!

Reminds me of errors I had when pulling without git lfs. If you pulled without git lfs, try again with it maybe.

I am new to development projects of this volume, please forgive my rookieness. I was trying to clone and build the source code and got this error. and when I searched for art/skeletons/test.pmd, could not find any such file. Am I missing something or there should have been a test file in the source code??? Checked the source from website too, not much of a luck there as well. ... In TestMeshManager::test_load_pmd_with_extension: /Users/lakshminarayana/Desktop/0ad26/0ad/source/graphics/tests/test_MeshManager.h:135: Error: Assertion failed: modeldef ERROR: Could not load mesh 'art/skeletons/test.pmd' In TestMeshManager::test_load_pmd_without_extension: /Users/lakshminarayana/Desktop/0ad26/0ad/source/graphics/tests/test_MeshManager.h:145: Error: Assertion failed: modeldef ERROR: Could not load mesh 'art/skeletons/test.pmd' ERROR: Could not load mesh 'art/skeletons/test.pmd' In TestMeshManager::test_caching: /Users/lakshminarayana/Desktop/0ad26/0ad/source/graphics/tests/test_MeshManager.h:156: Error: Assertion failed: modeldef1 && modeldef2 ERROR: art/skeletons/test.dae: Entity: line 1: parser error : Start tag expected, '<' not found version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1 ... ERROR: Font file format is not supported: fonts/DejaVuSansMono.ttf ERROR: Failed to load font fonts/DejaVuSansMono.ttf

@user1 I am 33remido. Liz57 quit without resigning. commands.txt

lol, es mu similar a mi idea en el mod que habia hecho hace años.

Sorry - which desktop file, is this 0ad.desktop in ~/.local/share/applications, or another (I can see a PrefersNonDefaultGPU=true line there, but no DRI_PRIME)? Also, could you suggest any specific wrappers, then? Might be good to at least have some starting point.