All Activity

I don’t mean like, actual traps, but pits and spikes should slow down or block certain units. A wall of spikes would stop cavalry and slow infantry, a pit would slow infantry and stop siege machines and cavalry, a moat would stop all unless it is filled in by making a mound (using the same mechanics as digging a pig).

I saw that Wraitii wrote you something about the events of Paradox games. I think it's fair to a trigger that gives a decision dialogue. This happened in Rome II especially in Divide Empire dlc. Events occur throughout the course of play of Imperator: Rome. There are a whole range of events in the game, which can result in positive, negative and mixed outcomes for a player's country. They can either take the form of a pop-up notification on the player's screen or may optionally appear in the Event Queue, and they might present a player with a choice between various options or simply inform the player that something has happened and let them understand the context and consequences. Events can be fired randomly as the result of a regular on action pulse or be triggered by an action, decision, mission, or as a followup to another event, possibly with time delays or from another country's actions. https://imperator.paradoxwikis.com/Events

Ok, I'll add a next button then. It might make sense to support maximum durations that each line is shown nonetheless; mainly for dialogue in time-critical points of scenarios, to prevent players from gaining an advantage by artificially stalling the game by just not closing the dialogue. At least I imagine it could help in some cases to better enforce a certain pace, in maps like Survival of the Fittest.

Nope.

Moats are a Middle ages thing. We have palisades, we have Roman Siege Walls and Army Camps. Traps for Siege Weapons? The best ancients had was a big rock to throw at the thing. I say, keep it simple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare Trenches, moats and traps are not the same thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moat Moats are obstacles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trou_de_loup

Red - Spartans and Romans Purple - Romans, Hans, and Mauryans Blue - Athens and Seleucids Yellow - Carthaginians and Iberians Green - Gauls Orange - Britons and Iberians Azure - Persians The actual royal colors of the Romans were purple and gold , while their military colors were red and gold.

Solved it, check out my Wandering Gaia Soldiers thread for my fix

Yeah, and those open plains and fortresses were surrounded by ditches full of spikes and traps to imped cavalry and siege machines. What do you think the moat was for? Even the Gauls had mounds of earth to give them protection from arrows if they didn’t have time to construct a palisade. I’m not saying deep enough for separate battles in trenches (like ww1), but some sort of slowing terrain to prevent siege machines and cavalry from crossing easily. PS: building moats would also be cool, though that is more Middle Ages than Iron Age.

Okay, so I figured it out (kinda) my current way is: First, copy the file that you want to wander into templates/gaia. Otherwise, your trainable units will wander and be uncontrollable. Then, edit the file like this: 1: Change the template at the top of the file to templates_units_fauna_wild_aggressive. 2: Add the movement speeds, armor, damage, generic names, health, vision, and all the other stats of the unit that the original template was defining. 3: Add to the Classes: Human and Organic. Add to the VisibleClasses: Melee. 4: Add what wowgetoffyourcellphone posted above, right above your Promotion data. Add Loot and ResourceGatherer disable=“”. If you want the unit to be nonviolent, make the template be templates_units_fauna_wild_passive. Also, make sure you say wild and not hunt, or food can be gathered from downed AI soldiers.

Mace tech is no dilemma.

Maurya tech is dilemma

In theory, but I'd have my independence, I could modify the engine. But that's a next step. First nerf everything that's wrong, then buff everything that's wrong, in its historical context. Try different tactics. Add new gameplay. Add new technologies (probably a fork of the current mod). Redesign many things. New game modes. Go full for the campaigns. A mod would kill the project. I can also keep it for myself and just record it on YouTube.

You don't have to fork 0 A.D. A "fork" is just another word for a major mod. We have those already.

Here's what I've been saying. Anything you don't like should be ostracized to a mod. A fork of 0A.D. would have to be made. That's going to end up happening.

My preference would a "next" button - just in case you are a bit distracted or it takes a bit longer to read, then you might miss that page. Also, if you introduce a preset timeout, there will be arguments both to reduce it and to increase it depending on whom you ask. Making that "next" a user decision avoids these discussions.

There are some but for sure, some could be added. I'd love for towers to have a tech for LoS. I think one game that balance fast units correctly is Total War series. Their games are very much mostly SP, yet, cavalry units (and any fast units in general) aren't nub-friendly. They are high risk, high reward units: In Pharaoh for example, chariots are super expensive but still EASILY one shoted by any cheap spear, jav, and even to lesser extend other missiles units. You can't just rely on having bough a expensive unit to throw into the fray and win fights that way. You need to have the right timing, micro, and combo with other units to make the most out of them. But when you do, the rampage is real. That's what makes a game interesting in my humble opinion. In 0AD Pers and Sele have these champ cav that have for example 2x the HP of a Spartan champ hoplite, with more base armor; and to be a "counter" the infantry has x2.5 bonus damage against them... And that's the best counter there is to them... If ever the spartans can ever reach the cav. You see, it's just obviously bad balance.

I want to implement a system for unit speech/dialogue in cutscenes next, inspired by that mockup. Should I add a "next" button (to the bottom right probably) for the player to click through the dialogue themselves? Or always switch to the next line after a set amount of time, like a predefined cutscene? How do other games do it? It would of course be possible to provide both options and leave the choice up to campaign makers. Could that be worth it? Or would one option of those two be always be preferred anyway?

Is there scope for having the javelin thrower as a technology for increasing infantry skirmisher range?

Both @Classic-Burger and @Deicide4u have some good ideas for singleplayer mode. If you want to playtest those ideas, I would recommend you to make a mod for yourself. That is much more efficient than raising suggestions on the forum that will very unlikely be adopted. If you encounter technical challenges, we are happy to help with specific coding difficulties and you can perhaps team up with @Emacz to make his Historical mod better. Changing anything in the base game will go through heavy scrutiny, especially when tweaking something that can affect the balance, such as your additional techs. Most multiplayers use only the public mods, therefore we have to keep in pristine to prevent game-breaking balancing disasters. If you read the changelog on the gitea, you will see that most balancing changes are very minor increments in stats and something as major as your techs must be tested in many TGs before being implemented. If you don't want to you go through all this hassle to convince the MPs, just do a mod and submit it to mod.io. Hopefully some like-minded players would download it and 1v1 you there. Back to the topic, I like how it's done in Delenda Est. The techs to take very long to research and some choice to accelerate it would be great.

There should be chivalric civilizations with broken cavalry. Too broken but not that one class is above the rest. There will be tiers of units. We already know that missile units are support for infantry fights. But it's a shame that the forge technologies don't feel as powerful as they do in other games. RTS are fantasy games of power. Command powerful armies, feel the power of being a general and an urban planner. Armies should feel powerful by upgrading their weapons. There are no technologies for LoS, there are no technologies for repair... There are barely there are technologies for capturing buildings. The nerf thing happens not only in 0 AD, but in many competitive games.

I think you don't like the calls to "nerf" units , but that doesn't mean making the game more boring, to the contrary : what MPs players don't really like are too anchored 'metas' that make all games a bit too similar... Because one build or tactic is too hard to counter, and that therefor a players can repeat it regardless of the opponent being aware of what you he'll do. Ideally strategy, improvisation, adaptation would be rewarded over mechanically applying a cookie cutter build. You get a better experience from a game where you have to use your brain, teamwork, rather then just trying to be fast fast at spamming broken champ cav for example. Idk how exactly that translates for SP, probably just not being incentivize to make an army of 1 unit type, because it's stronger and isn't at risk to be countered, is already kinda giving the game an extra dept. Pretty sure that it's universal that players play RTS for the Strategy part (Even if I've been told that "Real Time" means it should be about being fast clicker or what not).

You’re arguing against a straw man. Very few people want to eliminate things the way you’re saying and most that do get ignored (for good reason). The loudest the multiplayer community ever was was right after a24 got released and a lot of that was because features got eliminated. Note, when that happened a lot of SPs and devs initially dismissed the complaints before coming around later. The most you hear now from the MP community now is that champ cav is OP, which no one has really found solution to. The other recent thing I’ve heard is reza saying fana is OP to which most people told him he was wrong. MPs will regularly say things like certain techs like “spies”are useless but even there it’s not like the SP is saying how great they are.

Starcraft 1 is full of OP units, in fact. That might be why it became "balanced", every race had some nasty OP units. I'd say Scythe Chariots and Chariot Archers were more OP than expensive Centurions. True, sadly. Definitely agree here. You can always nerf the most blatantly OP units. That, and the fact they're naked. As in, without armor naked.

I absolutely agree, we can be balanced without being symmetrical (as in aoe4). We have been through reduction eras in 0ad such as a24. We have come a long way in introducing varied gameplay mechanics and we need to continue doing that even if there are situations where things are imbalanced. For example fanas can be powerful at times, perhaps even op and perhaps in need of a nerf, but we should not revert their cost back to include metal as that is what differentiates the fana so much from other champs.