All Activity

Oh, I didn't realize that. How are you supposed to get going then, just get a bunch of units, then go to P2, or have horrible units? If you want me to change it, I can

No, p1 rome starts with spearman from CC and Barracks... are you playing the same mod? ) I have thought about macedonians ones a little.... and since we reduced resistances on pikeman im also considering removing that metal cost. But again for now Im focused on bugs, and improving AI.

Sorry if I keep saying the same thing

The Problem with the Roman one, is you can only get it from the cc, not the barracks. So you can't mass produce them very well. Also, with Macedonian the basic pikeman costs metal, and that is hard for starting, because archers are pretty bad in my opinion. Another thing is that the Roman Siege catapult did very little damage, is that intentional or a bug?

The original roman spearman p1 doesnt cost any metal at all. If you go p2 too soon.... thats on you for not having your resources figured out! P1 rome is fine, spearman 50/50 and Javelineer 50/50 just like base game costs.

I just think that every civ should have a lowish cost unit, for getting started. So, if you are starting with 300 or each resource, I think it is nice not having to worry about metal for a little bit, and still have decent army. Also, not being able to train them from the barracks seems hard. It is either metal or horrible cs ranged units from barracks. I would rather save my metal for Champions. Maybe for the Roman spearman, you could pay metal to upgrade them, instead of auto upgrading. I know that the armor would technically cost metal, but I think this is one of those things that playability is more important than reality.

Ok, but what unit? They didnt really rely on spearman. And Spearman are our only melee unit that doesnt cost metal And maybe even they should cost metal. I guess it really comes down to what does the cost represent. Food to "grow" the soldier, other resources for the equipment used? Then really most melee have some form of metal armor... I'm willing to redo our cost system... but I would like more imput and clearity on what it should represent.

Maybe the Ai being harder isn't bad, but I think you should be able to get a cs non ranged unit that doesn't cost metal from cc and barracks. And maybe that is just my bad strategy, but I rely on them alot

Render consumes CPU each frame but without spikes. So if you have freezes then it's simulation if you have lower average FPS then it's render. I plan to reduce the render bottleneck in the future versions by moving it to separate threads.

Do you have V-Sync enabled?

Well p1 there is the spearman, they dont cost metal P2 yes romes melee unit from barracks is sword and cost metal.... But again I think by the mid repulic they were really standardizing their army. I do think AI is harder in our game, which is somewhat intended. I think AI is too easy Although I'm not sure what level you are playing on. It might be good to play some MP games, we could play against the AI.

Thanks for the explanation What are your proposals regarding dedicated server functionality? There are for sure bots inside the lobby such as moderationbot and wfg bot. Could we make the uff-bot an approved one too? I understand the concerns regarding privacy. However, I'm not sure why that is worse the current human hosts, who can obtain the IP address and GUID of all players who join

You might not be aware, but uff wasn't the first to do that. @victorcrimea is working on this topic as well (https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/victorcrimea/0ad/src/branch/feature/dedicated-server/server) and at one point had a bot, similar to uffs, running in the lobby as well. He registered and used multiple accounts, which violates the terms of use. In addition, as a general rule, we don't allow any kind of bots in the multiplayer lobby. That's primarily to prevent abuse and protect the privacy and security of all users and it's also why @victorcrimea wasn't allowed to run his dedicated hosting stuff in the official lobby any further. That said, I suggested to uff yesterday to get in contact with @victorcrimea to collaborate on dedicated server functionality so we get something we can supported officially. We're an open source project after all, so we expect such contributions to be made using our usual processes and not in a way without us even knowing. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to better explain that to uff.

uff has pioneered hosting remote servers with fully automatic management - a step closer to games rooms hosted not on players' hardware dependent computers. This was a valuable experiment and his servers were very stable and fast in comparison to many player hosted games. From a moderation perspective, he has not beached any TOS and has behaved well in the lobby. his mods contributed to moderation. It really baffles everyone why he is forced to stop his valuable contributions. @Dunedan any explanations from your side?

I feel compelled to ask those who are in a position to implement it: why is this not so?

I'm not sure how that would fit, and if it does, I guess it wouldn't be ordered by remaining time, which seems quite important. Personally, I dislike top-center notifications, it seems cleaner to me to show them on the corners (which corner depending on which type of notification). I would make them permanently visible, but detachable/reattachable by right-clicking on the main icons (which now does nothing). That is, using my example, if one right-clicks on the Match Settings icon, the three "Wonder" notifications disappear, and reappear if done again. Then one has fast and easy control of what wants to be shown.

This is an interesting take. In my version I was aiming to show diplomacy related items (ceasefire) under the diplomacy icon and match related items (wonder/regicide) under the match settings icon. I'm not sure if you mean for it to be permanently visible or visible on hover? But if permanently visible it could replace the wonder notifications that normally show in the top-center text notifications area. I like @Obelixidea of putting (a more concise) version string to the left of the main shield AND @wowgetoffyourcellphone we can have the version string added to the screenshot name as described already. I think I should try to implement these ideas in my mod for testing.

https://fr.pinterest.com/siresasa/dipylon-and-boeotian-shields/

other question, what are the ideas/houghts behind the unreleased minor factions? i got the idea that they are all meant to serve a niche and benefit different factions needs, an had a thought about three in particular. like the volvagians being a heavy unit, fire damage niche, the subrosians maybe good defensives builds or farming stone/metal like the ridge's niche, or the huskus being a budget swarm niche/anti-swarm/gohma niche because of lore? just curious is all

That's because templates have inheritance. So you are only validating a bit of the chain rather than the final template. Hence the errors.

@wowgetoffyourcellphone Thanks, that's really helpful! I'll check out those maps

That wouldn't have been necessary :P. Certainly they knew about Late Bronze Age armour because of oral traditions, the Iliad was written around 700 BC, yet gets many things right from 1200 BC (like boar's tusk helmets), while also committing anachronisms (funeral pyres). I've also read that these ("Boeotian") shields could have been kept by some families as heirlooms.

Maybe it is just because I haven't been playing it that much, and maybe I don't have a good strategy, but it seemed hard to defeat what I could kinda easy in the base game. So, I was playing Romans, and the Siege catapult from the army camp, seemed pretty much useless, at 20 crush. Also, I think there should be a cs unit that doesn't cost metal and is not ranged that is in cc and barracks

New Civ emblem: Did the Theban army carry aspides of this shape in classical times? Debatable to probably not. It's likely a shape based on earlier archaic examples which are lost to us, but what's not debatable is that the Thebans themselves used this design to represent them. I imagine the design is a part of their national identity and founding iconography. It's all over their coinage and even today is a well-known symbol for Thebes. My head canon can imagine a scenario where during some excavations on the Cadmean hill to level it off and build their religious and civic monuments they uncovered evidence of their 'glorious' bronze aged past, which included shields or votives in this shape, so they built their founding myths around these objects and possibly even displayed them in their major Cadmean shrines or temples.

@lilypoppy I think the 'Persia' biome terrains are going to be closer to the 'rugged iberia' you're going for. Check out the Hindu Kush skirmish map for example, or the Zagros Mountains skirmish map. You can also use the tree types on those maps to approximate what you'd see in the drier parts of Iberia. I'd swap the gazelles for deer and you're probably only going to see palms only on the coasts.